Please review my AWA

This topic has expert replies
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 5:10 am

Please review my AWA

by garima290 » Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:40 am
The rating system for electronic games is similar to the movie rating system in that it provides consumers with a quick reference so that they can determine if the subject matter and contents are appropriate. This electronic game rating system is not working because it is self-regulated and the fines for violating the rating system are nominal. As a result an independent body should oversee the game industry and companies that knowingly violate the rating system should be prohibited from releasing a game for two years."

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound. (500)

RESPONSE:

The argument stating that the rating system for electronic games similar to a movie rating system is not working because it is self-regulated and the fines are nominal is seriously flawed. The factors taken into consideration by the rating system to evaluate an electronic game are not known, hence the point of failures of the rating system are cannot be identified or rectified. The corrective action suggested is weak and will not ensure compliance. There is no proof of feasibility of establishing an independent body let alone the probability of successfully regulating the electronic gaming system. The logic behind a two-year ban is dubious.

Firstly, whether the rating system is an effective yardstick against which the subject matter and contents' appropriateness is evaluated is questionable. Movies and games are similar yet very different; Hence, the rating system applicable to movies may not capture the right information to rate an electronic game. For instance, a rating mechanism giving high weightage to graphics and user interface but low weightage to the overall gaming experience will prove to be ineffective.

Secondly, establishing an independent organization will not lend credibility or effectiveness to the rating system. The benefits and challenges in the setting up an independent body are not stated. Also, regulation of the organization itself can be challenge as its sanctity will pay a crucial role in maintaining standard and quality.

Thirdly, imposing fines may suffice for small gaming companies which suffer from paucity of funds, however large corporations may remain unaffected since they would have large pool of funds at their disposal. The reason for imposing a ban for 2 years is not understandable. It is more of a short term measure and will only delay the release of a game, which in some cases companies may see as boon rather than bane.

Fitting compliance measures should be enforced depending on the degree of violation. For example, any violation should directly impact the rating of the game. Further, as the rating of a game will directly impact a customer's choice, all gaming companies will be forced to adhere to stipulated guidelines. In cases of a grave violation, a ban extending for a period of greater than 5 years should be imposed. A long duration will affect the game in numerous ways-the technology landscape may change significantly and/or customer expectations may change. These changes may force companies to go back to the drawing board and result in significant losses. Such strict measures will definitely ensure compliance.