An example of modern ratings being oddly strict: Öoo is rated T by the ESRB[1]. It’s laughable that a nonviolent puzzle platformer about a caterpillar is less age appropriate than Breath of the Wild, which is rated E10+[2] despite also having bombs and a lot more violence.
If Öoo is rated T, should games staring Donald Duck be rated 18+ because he doesn’t wear pants and would be showing his crotch to children?
I wonder if it's because it got labeled "Mild Violence" whereas the violence in LoZ is considered "Fantasy Violence."
Maybe Mild Violence is more commonly applied to more real world violence and therefore scores higher in rating considerations or something. Because that's the only way I can make sense of that labelling.
Maybe Nintendo engaged in more back and forth with the ratings board to negotiate a low rating for Zelda, and the indie dev just accepted what they got?
Maybe Mild Violence is more commonly applied to more real world violence and therefore scores higher in rating considerations or something. Because that's the only way I can make sense of that labelling.