Slashdot Mirror

There's a difference between mature in the sense that you're using it and what it means in the context of the study. From my reading, that means any 'M' rated game which doesn't necessarily deal with mature adult situations. Typically it just means that there's sufficiently graphic violence and/or profanity. The problem, I think, is that almost any game that gets an 'M' rating is going to have what's described as either violence or intense violence as a content descriptor.

As a quick test, I did a search on the ESRB website for 'M' rated PS4 games. The results only display 25 titles per page (and I have no idea if it consistently returns the same 25) but of those 25 games on the first page of results, only 1 was 'M' rated without containing Violence or Intense Violence as a content descriptor. That game was Nekopara Vol. 1 which is listed as only containing Sexual Themes. If I look at games which are rated 'T' (teen rating) I still find plenty of titles with Violence as a content descriptor, but a large number only list either Fantasy Violence or Mild Fantasy Violence.

I haven't read through the entire study, but I have a feeling that it would be pretty easy to have a flawed methodology on top of potentially confusing anyone who's reading the results and not aware of what "mature" constitutes for the purposes of this study.

Team Fortress 2, the free-to-play game published by the company that runs Steam, is rated M by the ESRB for "blood and gore" and "intense violence. How does the Steam service comply with the video game industry's self-regulation of sales of M games to minors?

In any case, this game is rated "M" - anything goes.

Not quite. "M" games can get away with a lot of stuff, mainly violence (even gory violence, like Manhunt 2[1] or MadWorld), but if you show too many boobies, sex scenes, or maybe even a single instance of fully-rendered genitals, you get the abhorred Adults-Only (AO) rating. From the ESRB's website:

MATURE
Content is generally suitable for ages 17 and up. May contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
ADULTS ONLY
Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency.

AO (roughly equivalent to the NC-17 movie rating you mentioned) is abhorred because no chain in America will stock games with that rating. Some indie video game stores might, but I'm not aware of any particular ones. This is why very few games have the rating. Leisure Suit Larry is probably the most well known AO series; Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas got a retroactive rating of AO after the Hot Coffee scandal. (Warning: NSFW image/details)

Digital releases should make an AO rating far less of an issue, but it seems that even Steam won't allow them[2], so developers still have to release on their own. Were retailers less restrictive about this (perhaps stocking it behind the counter or something), in America they likely would have gone for and gotten the AO rating for Stick of Truth.

When they make a kid show an ID to buy an M-rated game, or enter an R-rated film, it's also not governmental requirements, except in rare cases where local laws have been enacted to piggy-back on them.

These have historically been thrown out as unconstitutional, as well, even when all most do is codify what most chains have as a policy (blocking the sale of M-rated games to minors). I don't know that any state has gone after the AO rating in any fashion or, if they have, that it has been challenged in court.

[1] Manhunt 2 did receive an AO rating originally, but Rockstar edited the game and re-submitted to get the M rating. The "Uncut" edition still has the AO.
[2] I can't find neither a specific policy or any AO games on Steam with a quick search, except for an article about them pulling a sex game from Greenlight on day one

I have an idea, why doesn't the United States do what they did with movies and put ratings on every video game, and then refuse to sell ones aimed at adults to children?

Oh wait, they already did that.

• Mature Humor
• Suggestive Themes
• Sexual Themes
• Sexual Content
• Partial Nudity
• Nudity
• Strong Sexual Content
• Sexual Violence

There are similar spectrums for violence, profanity, drugs, and gambling.

The only area in there where I can see any room for mistake on a parent's part might be Sexual Themes vs. Sexual Content. If someone knew that both existed, they could probably figure out the difference. You wouldn't see both on the same package since Sexual Content encompasses Sexual Themes. If someone just saw "Sexual Themes," though, I could imagine they might think it was worse than "References to sex or sexuality." Violence exists in a similar realm - if anything, the only ambiguity in the descriptors is that they sometimes sound worse than they really are.

I would say "there's always the PC", but even that has problems. Almost no retailers will carry an AO game, and I doubt Steam or other digital distributors do so, either. Not only that, but out of the 24 games that have actually been given an AO rating, the majority of them are Japanese imports, which seems to indicate that nobody in America is really interested in making AO games.

Many of the games on the alternatives list have exactly the same kind of violence.

If by 'the same kind of violence' you mean 'a different kind of violence'.
The NY times article refers to the ESRB rating. I'm pretty sure the article with the alternatives went by those. In your example the alternative, Overlord II, is rated Teen while its counterpart, Left 4 Dead 2, is rated Mature.
There are standards for these ratings. Now you may disagree with the standards, but dismemberment, animated blood and gore fall in the M category. Morality choices, like playing on the side of evil in Overlord, are not totally excluded from the standard, but usually have less impact.

I don't buy or play games based on their ESRB rating. I do not judge games or content for my children based on the ohsosubjective ratings process. These guys provide no value-add, just seems to be a money catch.

Oh, MPAA, you can lose your ratings as well ... I'm an adult, a participating parent, and I prefer to allow my children to experience and ask questions rather than become numb little fat kids with Nicktoons as a babysitter and therefore do not need your assistance in choosing appropriate content for my children.

In 2006, the video game industry contributed $3.8 billion to the US GDP, not to mention $1.7 billion to California's economy (our friendly representative's home state). The industry also directly and indirectly supplies over 80,000 jobs nationwide. Source (something this bill conspicuously lacks.)
Although some economists remain optimistic about the continued success of the industry, I can't help but wonder how restrictive, unwarranted, baseless legislation like this and other "nanny" bills will affect the health of not just the video game industry but the US economy as a whole. Care to address that, representative who has no business talking about video games, ever?

On another note, this bill would have all games rated "T" or higher branded with a warning. For some perspective, according to the ESRB, video games rated "T" include:
SingStar ABBA - "A karaoke music game in which players sing along with music videos featuring the disco group, ABBA." This one got its "T" rating because of its lyrics.
Better slap that warning on every ABBA cd too.

Commander In Chief - Geo-Political Simulator - "A political simulation game in which players can assume the role of the head of state or government of a real country. Using text-based menus, players can enter military alliances, monitor political party activity, make economic and social decisions, and retain overall popularity."
I'll be damned if my kids ever get near this travesty.

Prinny: Can I Really Be the Hero? - "A 2D side-scrolling action game in which players control a talking penguin on its whimsical quest to retrieve a fabled ultra-delicious dessert."
Just... wow.

Thank you, Joe Baca, for not only wasting everyone's time but actively distracting from any of the real problems facing this country.

What the hell makes you think they don't approve M rated games? If you search on the esrb's site for m rated Wii games, you get 21 results.

few categories: Violence, Sex, Language, etc

ESRB already puts that information on the boxes as well. Their full list of descriptors is at their site.
The T, M, etc are more of a suggestion for the appropriate age group to play the game.

here is the research providing the links.

Frederick J. Zimmerman, PhD and Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH. "Associations Between Content Types of Early Media Exposure and Subsequent Attentional Problems" PEDIATRICS Vol. 120 No. 5 November 2007, pp. 986-992
L. Rowell Huesmann, Jessica Moise-Titus, Cheryl-Lynn Podolski, and Leonard D. Eron. "Longitudinal Relations Between Children's Exposure to TV Violence and Their Aggressive and Violent Behavior in Young Adulthood: 1977-1992" Developmental Psychology 2003, Vol. 39, No. 2, 201-221.
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Public Education. "Media Violence" PEDIATRICS Vol. 108 No. 5 November 2001, pp. 1222-1226
Ben Berkowitz "Most U.S. teens play violent video games-study." 02/26/2008. http://www.benberkowitz.com/Reuters/0903.htm
ESRB Ratings Guide. 03/01/2008. http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp
Aaron R. Boyson and Stacy L. Smith, "The Relationship Between A Predisposition to Think About Killing and Media Violence Exposure: Exploring A New Measurement Model"
Federal Trade Commission prepared statement 02/29/2008. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/09/violencerpttest.htm
Dave Cullen. "The Depressive and the Psychopath: At Least We Know Why The Columbine Killers Did It." 02/29/2008. http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/
Terry Bosky. "Interview: Dr. Cheryl K. Olson co-author of Grand Theft Childhood." 02/29/2008
  http://www.gamecouch.com/2008/02/interview-dr-cheryl-olson-co-author-of-grand-theft-childhood/
Freedman, J. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression: Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
CBS News "Study: Abuse And Genetics = Aggression: Gene May Explain Why Some Abused Boys Turn Violent" 03/1/2008. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/01/health/main517241.shtml

Getting back to the issue at hand, they're handing down laws only to look good and expand power.

The 3 big console players have already incorporated parental lock features into their new consoles before this law had passed. The last one was Microsoft adding it to Windows Vista in January 2007.

As for ratings? http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp

Already implemented by the industry, just like movie ratings.

http://www.gamercenteronline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/gow2-boxshot.jpg

Is there some problem in seeing the big fat M: MATURE 17+

Factually incorrect.

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.jsp

TEEN
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.

MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

GTA IV, rated Mature:
"Grand Theft Auto IV Rockstar Games Mature Intense Violence, Blood,
  Strong Language,
  Strong Sexual Content,
  Partial Nudity,
  Use of Drugs and Alcohol Xbox 360, PlayStation 3"

Warcraft III, rated Teen:
"WarCraft III Expansion Set: The Frozen Throne Blizzard Entertainment Teen Blood, Violence Macintosh, Windows PC
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos Blizzard Entertainment (div. of Vivendi Universal Interactive Publishing) Teen Blood, Violence Macintosh, Windows PC"

Uh, they want labels on all violent video games which the ESRB has alrady been doing since 1994.

ESRB

And they want parental controls on consoles, which the big 3 already have in their latest systems.

How to update parental controls

Good job New York! Maybe next they can pass legislation to require seat belts in all cars.

I absolutely agree that there is a difference between the Halo series and the GTA series, however saying it deserves a different rating is the problem that happens when you have these broad groups to pigeonhole products into.

One size fits most, but there will probably be lots of variation on what in them.

Thats what the "Content Descriptors" http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp#descriptors that go with the ratings are for.

So Halo 3 is rated: "M" with Content Descriptors: "Blood and Gore, Mild Language, Violence"

and GTA:San Andreas (non-"Hot Coffee" version) is rated: "M" with Content Descriptors: "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs"

So ... they're in the same group, by their not really the same.

Time and time again, the ESRB has proven it can not be trusted and is not a very valuable tool for parents.

We need all retailers to prevent sales of M rated video games to minors. We need the ratings board to watch more than 30 minutes of footage before deciding on a rating. In fact, they should have to play the game and watch significantly more footage. There needs to be more transparency of the rating system and how they come up with various ratings.

I don't belive computer games get rated so it can be changed back.

Of course PC games are rated, just the same as console games, and by the same organization. Have you ever bought a PC game? Notice the C/E/E10+/T/M/Ao logo in the corner of the cover? Yeah. That's the rating. If you doubt it, click here and select "Windows PC" in the "Platform" dropdown. They even rate Linux games (all 7 of them,) and PalmOS games, and WebTV games (WTF?,) and Zodic games, and ...

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB

Plenty of information, at least as much as the MPAA.

"MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language."

I would say that a parent can make a pretty reasonable judgement if this is suitable for their children based off this. Intense violence such as death-by-shiv-through-the-eye, or death-by-gunshot-to-the-head, it's all intense violence. They've got blood n' gore, is that bloodtype A+ or B-? Is that a human liver or a human lung that just flew by?

I suppose there could be a distinction in the description between "Graphic references to and/or depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity " to say "Sexual themes and suggestions" and to seperate out "There is nudity" As for language, some may desire specific tiers, like fuckshitcockcuntbitch in one tier, and crapjerkdamnidiotdumb. These are certainly possible to clarify, and as the ESRB's only responsibility rests on these definitions, they might as well do a good job defining them if they're going to do it at all.

But both the MPAA and the ESRB are not federally funded public institutions, but stem from the industry itself. It's in the industry's interests to choose how much service they'll provide to the public via elucidation of the ratings system, but there really aren't any rights at stake. You only have the "right" to what you can make happen. The public does this through dollars.

If they don't like the ESRB's ratings, they should enforce the criticism by not buying these luxury goods. If they're willing to buy either way, then there's really no leverage here. This issue is handled pretty well as it is. This is much ado about nothing from thinkofthechildren fearmongers. There are plenty of other systems that need more openness.

For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICO_score

I would think that the obfuscation there is FAR FAR more important than the ESRB scores.

Do we really need content descriptors such as "Crude Humor", "Alcohol Reference", and most shocking of all, "Comic Mischief"?
http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp#desc riptors

The ESRB is exactly what you're saying it should be: About the ESRB

Here is the link for the contact page Drop them a message and let them know what you think about the policy.

As an ADULT, aged 28 years, and a gamer, both of console and PC titles, I would kindly like you to FUCK OFF!!!!!!

As expressed from your own website here, "a rating system should inform and suggest, not prohibit".

I'd like to quote the featured article at this time, which quotes the letter D3 Plublisher states recieved from you:"...stating that the two officially released Dark Sector gameplay montages have been deemed to contain excessive or offensive content; and to this end are not to be available for download or viewing, regardless of being placed behind an age gate".

By these very statements, you have now committed fraud on your own behalf. You have purposely and willfully overstepped the bounds by which your organization has imposed on itself. As such you are no longer of any use.

As a responsible adult, and member of the gaming community, I will no longer purchase any goods or services from any ESRB, OR ESA membership entities. As the web is a very open and informative environment, I have already located the majority of membership bodies which I will be boycotting until either the ESRB alters its rating system and enforcement, or is disbanded altogether.

Your behavior will be monitored thoroughly for the next few years by myself and countless others. Please be aware, you are now being watched.

This REALLY damages confidence in the ESRB. They're rating... trailers? Not only that, they're rating trailers and demand that they "are not to be available for download or viewing, regardless of being placed behind an age gate."

This is really damaging news. If the ESRB is calling for the banning of what they would rate as AO material, then clearly there is a demonstratable censorial intent.

"However, the mere presence of an age gate does not permit a publisher to simply put whatever content it wishes into the trailer. All trailers must still conform to ARC's Principles and Guidelines, which prohibit the display of excessively violent content or any content likely to cause serious offense to the average consumer."

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/principles_guidlines.j sp

As a person who makes his living making video games, I find this disturbing. You can't both say that an Adults Only rating isn't censorship, then turn around and censor trailers you don't like... or in this case, contain AO material.

Every time I've interacted with the ESRB is has been pretty benign, though publisher overreaction to potential ESRB issues is a problem. Also, hard and fast rules from the ESRB about content restrictions are basically nill, leaving creators floundering as to, for example, if flipping the bird is T or M. This is a position I may need to reconsider if active censorship is a part of their organization.

'Come on ESRB... now's the time to restore the faith. Prove to us that information is at the top of your list by crusading FOR the sale of AO and unrated materials in the US.

Here are the definitions of M and AO from the ESRB Ratings Guide:

"MATURE Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language."

"ADULTS ONLY Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity."


I find it hard to believe that this game could not be classified as an M rated game. Both games require you to be at least 17 years old (18 in the case of AO). I highly doubt this game has "graphic sexual content", so it all comes down to whether the violence is "intense violence", or "prolonged scenes of intense violence".

The rating system is really not very well thought out. There should be some kind of process to appeal the decision and have it re-reviewed by a different group.

Come on... IT'S A GAME! They need to lighten up. I probably wouldn't want my kids playing this game, but if it's rated M then that means that you have to be 17 to play it anyways. Hold the stores responsible for upholding that responsibility, just as movie theaters are responsible for upholding the movie ratings by not allowing minors in to see R rated movies.

And for all those articles that talk about the game not being for 'families'.... those people need to get a life. Nobody is trying to claim that 'Manhunt 2' is a 'family friendly' game. It's a game for adults, and it should be available for adults to purchase. I hate it when other people decide what is best for me.

The game is worthy of an AO rating, nobody has any doubt this game deserves an AO rating.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the ESRB ratings.

As a simple but applicable analogy, M for Mature is generally analogous to R ratings for movies, and the AO/Adults Only rating is more analogous to X ratings for movies (i.e. generally reserved for porn).

Rockstar knew it would get an AO rating.

No, Rockstar expected it would be rated M for Mature (17+), just like all of their other violent video games.

They would if "Adults Only" meant simply that, but it doesn't. From the GamePolitics article, "It means that major retailers like Wal-mart, which by itself accounts for about 25% of retail games sales, will not carry Manhunt 2." Last I checked, Wal-mart's customers, even for video games, included a lot of adults, but AO means they won't sell the game at all. Even though they already refuse to sell M-rated games to minors and have since 2000.

The problem is that the ESRB ratings are only vague recommendations, without the specific, consistent meanings to the retailer or purchasing decision maker that, for example, MPAA ratings have. That leaves a big question mark in the public mind as to how to react to these ratings, and the job of answering it ends up on the shoulders of the retailers. Wal-mart chose to react to AO with "not on my shelves" because they're conservative and cultivate a family-oriented image. Other retailers likely follow suit because it worked for Wal-mart. (Disclaimer: pure speculation.)

And that's their right. But that doesn't make it any less frustrating for Take Two when they build up for their release, arrange their distribution deals, put together numbers for initial orders so their manufacturing will be ready, etc., only to have an arbitrary decision cause their biggest retailer to pull out three weeks before release.

But they'll be okay. All they have to do is change the cover.

Nonsense. The summary made it perfectly clear why they don't want the AO mark: a number of cowardly stores refuse to stock AO games. Fewer stores means less visibility and fewer sales, even if they really only want adults purchasing the game. For a game that was expensive to produce, an AO rating can destroy the producers chance of making a profit. A Mature mark would get them into most stores with almost identical effectiveness (AO is 18+, while M is 17+).

Exactly as many people predicted, the ratings system, even a voluntary one, has stifled creativity. The ratings system resulted in incentives for stores to refuse to stock the highest rated games to appease the whiners. Not being carried in stores reduces sales, frequently to the point of ensuring the game will be a commercial failure. Developers and publishers to restrict what they do to avoid the top rating mark. End result: you get almost nothing specifically intended for the adult market. What you do get tends to be low quality and pandering, because shameless crap is the only thing likely to make money. The end result is that the highest rating becomes associated with pandering garbage, which just reenforces the entire cycle. You're pretty much guaranteed that some topics and some styles of gameplay that serious game developers might want to turn into a top quality title will either be watered down or simply never produced.

look at what has become of games?

Let me first say that, as a professional video game designer, I generally agree with you. I'd love to see games become more of a positive force instead of reinforcing some of the worst behaviors. But, let me respond to one of the hot-button issues you bring up.

my 5 year old sister [said] 'shoot him! kill him!' or something equally as disturbing.

Would you have been upset if she would have laughed at Elmer Fudd shooting himself in the face with a gun in a cartoon? What if she ran around the room chanting, "Kill the rabbit! Kill the rabbit!"? In reality, most kids around that age do know the difference between fantasy and reality, and watching a cartoon or seeing you play a game is unlikely to encourage your sister to commit serious violence. On the other hand, neither the cartoon nor the game necessarily encourage a healthy respect of firearms.

But, there are systems to inform parents so that they can protect kids from exposure to these types of games. In the U.S., there is a system of ratings, similar to movie ratings, which give people an idea of the appropriate age that should be playing a game. I will note that if you search for Counter Strike , you will find that it as an "M" (for Mature) rating, and the recommended age is 17+. Not something most parents (or older brothers) want a young child to see.

So, again, while I agree that it would be nice to see more mature games being developed, I don't think it should only be because of "thinking of the children."

look at what has become of games?

Let me first say that, as a professional video game designer, I generally agree with you. I'd love to see games become more of a positive force instead of reinforcing some of the worst behaviors. But, let me respond to one of the hot-button issues you bring up.

my 5 year old sister [said] 'shoot him! kill him!' or something equally as disturbing.

Would you have been upset if she would have laughed at Elmer Fudd shooting himself in the face with a gun in a cartoon? What if she ran around the room chanting, "Kill the rabbit! Kill the rabbit!"? In reality, most kids around that age do know the difference between fantasy and reality, and watching a cartoon or seeing you play a game is unlikely to encourage your sister to commit serious violence. On the other hand, neither the cartoon nor the game necessarily encourage a healthy respect of firearms.

But, there are systems to inform parents so that they can protect kids from exposure to these types of games. In the U.S., there is a system of ratings, similar to movie ratings, which give people an idea of the appropriate age that should be playing a game. I will note that if you search for Counter Strike , you will find that it as an "M" (for Mature) rating, and the recommended age is 17+. Not something most parents (or older brothers) want a young child to see.

So, again, while I agree that it would be nice to see more mature games being developed, I don't think it should only be because of "thinking of the children."

Dear Ivan Pereira, Michael Saul, Alison Gendar,

"In previous incarnations [of the Grand Theft Auto series], players advanced through the game by killing cops, selling pornography to children and killing prostitutes." http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/2007/03/3 1/2007-03-31_pols_rage_as_vid_game_takes_shot_at_c ity-4.html

After reading the above-linked article, I believe there are some discrepancies that need to be brought to your attention. I have extensively played Grand Theft Auto 1, 2, 3, Vice City, and San Andreas, yet I have never encountered any opportunities to sell pornography to children, nor is there is no way to advance in the game through killing police officers or prostitutes.

In every game in the Grand Theft Auto series, killing a prostitute within view of a police officer will cause him to try to subdue and arrest you. If you kill a police officer, more will come in squad-cars, attempting to stop you. If you continue to kill officers, SWAT teams will attempt to subdue you. Eventually, the National Guard will arrive to subdue you. When your character is subdued by law enforcement, he returns to the game outside of a hospital, without weapons and with a hefty monetary fine. Similar to real life, attacking police officers has consequences, none of which are good, and in the end, you can't win.

I am not a lawyer, nor am I making any sort of threat of legal action (I am in no way connected to Take-Two Interactive Software), but making false, harmful claims about a game's content sounds like libel to me. As I can not trust the New York Daily News to provide accurate, unbiased information, I will never purchase an issue, and advise my friends and family likewise.

If I am wrong about selling pornography to children, please tell me in which games, and in what location it is found. I would like to verify the content, and if it is present, I will gladly inform everyone who will listen.

To close on a slight tangent, Liberty City is modeled after New York City. On November 15, 2005 the video game True Crime: New York City http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/truecrime2/i ndex.html?q=True%20Crime was released. Surely you can guess where this game takes place. Yet, there was no public outcry regarding True Crime: New York City's setting.

Like it or not, video games have become an art form, just like movies. When such movies as "Escape from New York" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/ are allowed to exist, the average age of video game players is 33 http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php , and games have ratings with more depth than movies http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp , why are games held to a different standard?

the dippy senator doesn't know that games cannot show all their "footage" - ever heard of an MMORPG senator dipshit?

MMOs have a baseline rating (I've usually seen T) and carry the "Game experience may change during online play" disclaimer to cover anything that wasn't part of the game when it was reviewed. The disclaimer is part of the ESRB ratings system to accomodate online games with "user-generated content," including chatting or permitted modifications. TFA seems to imply that only the ratings process (not the actual ratings) would change, so criticizing Brownback on the grounds that his proposals can't be applied to MMOs is inaccurate (and correctly modded as trolling).

It is rated E for everyone because the controls and conepts are a bit advanced for a child under the age of 6...

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

Wow... borderline flamebait, dude.

On second thought, forget the borderline.

In any case...

I have to disagree with the bit about Rush Limbaugh... it's his American Right to have a show and say what he wants to say. You might as well say that Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and Nancy Grace should be exiled from broadcast news. Their "coverage" of "events" and "expert analysis" of "facts" is laughable at best. (At least Jon and Steven do this on purpose.)

Remove Rush Limbaugh from broadcast news? That's censorship. That's Un-American. </yet-more-flamebait>

Now, calling Rush Limbaugh's show "News" or "fair" or even "sane" is really bending the meanings of those words... if not breaking them entirely. THAT is where I believe the concept of "fairness" enters; for what is to keep Rush, Jon, Nancy and Steve from purporting their "shows" as fact? (Jon and Steve often make a poignant statement to this effect... BRILLIANT!)

The only noticeable form of media regulation we've seen in the last 20 years is the V-chip. The ratings system technology was required by the FCC after 2000, but the ratings themselves still have no way to be legally enforced. (kinda like http://www.esrb.org/) A step in the right direction, but still "let the watcher beware".

Now, think of this: What if every show had to display tags at the beginning according to a set of FCC standardized keywords to reflect it's EXACT content? Maybe even a persistent side-band like the infrequently-used (T1/T2) caption channels? Now that's what I would call Regulation!

So many are missing the point... [sigh] A de-regulated media is just like free-market; everyone is out to get what they want, flying in the face of what they—or others—need. Do you remember the sound you heard back in 1987? Yes, it was the Great Whooshing Sound of the doors to mainstream media being opened for politicos, capital-gains brats, and anyone else with a vested interest in What The Public Will Believe. If there was any trend to the 90's, it was the media itself being bought 'n' sold again and again.

IMHO... a little regulation is a good thing. I don't condone censorship. Also, I DON'T condone censorship. [sic]

If you're thinking, "Reg-yoo-lay-shun... BA-AD," then you should take a moment to think of where we would be as a nation if nutrition content wasn't REQUIRED on packaged (and also prepared) foods? We would still be looking at labels that show obfuscated ingredients (no, not just chemical names, make-believe ingredients) and only "nutrition" that the manufacturer wants us to see. Scared yet? Take your imagination for a spin in that one. And think, today's Nutrition Facts have been provided to you by the FDA. (Hey! That's a Federal Agency... but I'm not SUPPOSED to trust THEM!)

We all can thank the Bush(whacker) "Administration" for our collective distrust. (that goes for Sr, too) The consistent litany of lies, half-truths, damn lies and "truthiness" have sure taken their toll. So, are we to unilaterally disagree all new movements at the Federal level?

C'mon, give something a chance. If this movement towards fairness in the media is to succeed, it will need Our Attention to guide it. If you can't back a big-brother campaign aimed at mass-media, at least become a supporter of Bringing Facts to Light!

For starters, I can imagine such an "overseeing committee" that monitors... I don't know I'm comfortable with "altering" broadcasts. I mean, how much can you do with a 5-second delay? Will all news be TiVo'ed at the source, only to be "fit for consumption" later on? <koff>China</koff>

That outlines my first disagreement with the quoted "charter" of the new fairness bill; altering is probably too strong a word. Imposing sanctions, monetary penalties and the like for non-compliance is a good start. Publishing the full charter for public and corporate consump

For the latter, this is unconstitutional, except our current SCOTUS, Congress and Executives like to read more into the Constitution in terms of their power. They think the Interstate Commerce Clause gives them power to regulate, tax and tariff everything, even though that isn't the intent of the clause -- it was written to make sure that the States do not harm interstate commerce, and the Feds had power to make sure the States didn't get in the way of trade. In fact, until the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 [1] (thanks to Lincoln's setting it up in his treason war), that was how it was used. The final blow to the intent came in Wickard v. Filburn[2] in 1942 -- finally the Feds had not just trumped the States, they also took the power to actually RESTRICT commerce, not just make sure it was free and unencumbered by State laws.

As to the ridiculousness of the law, purchases are for the consumer to judge, not the law. If you want something and someone is willing to provide it, who is the State to decide that you can't transact? Parents should watch what they buy their children -- if they don't have enough time to research something, don't buy it. If you're really concerned, there are numerous organizations of EVERY kind that will rate the product for you, like Underwriter's Laboratories decide what is safe to use and what isn't. Buy from retailers that check the product out, or buy what is rated by a company that YOU align with morally or in terms of safety. If I want to buy a game about being a gay pimp and slapping around the 15 year old prostitutes, and someone wants to make that game, we should be free to transact the trade. If you decide that a game about fishing is cruel to animals, don't buy the game. Why should the State restrict or promote either?

Actually, this does make sense -- but not from a consumer perspective but from a cronyism or paternalism perspective. When laws go Federal, they create a large legal barrier to entry. These laws are WANTED by the large gaming companies -- small companies will be unable to afford whatever paperwork, overhead and bureaucracy exists after the law. This is akin to minimum wage laws that are written and supported by union cronies -- it keeps the powerful more powerful and harms the chances of the weak to actually compete and topple the powerful. So in reality, these laws are not pro-family but pro-crony. This is not capitalism, this is mercantilism, and as I mentioned in the first part, this is exactly what Lincoln and the Whigs wanted -- business regulation to prevent competition against their friends in business. He fought a war in order to get that power, and to do so he tricked people into believing the war was against slavery. Just like Clinton and Lieberman will say that this law is about protecting families.

The ESRB is just a cartel. Look at their joining policies and note "Sign ESRB Privacy Online's License Agreement and pay appropriate membership fee" and see that all this does is make competition fall away due to regulation. Nice job, folks who voted this past election.

Unfortunately, the ESRB provides those ratings strictly for consumer self-recognisance and parental benefit. They state that that are "the game industry's self-regulating body", not a department of state.

As far as I'm aware, the ratings can't be legally enforced outside of sanctions/penalties within the gaming industry.

Besides, there's a chance of mis-placed ratings...

• Under "T for Teen" ratings, you'll find titles like Battlefield 2142 [future, guns, war, blow-stuff-up] and Medal of Honor: Heroes [same, but WWII]. War=violence, and yet "suitable for ages 13+" However...
  
• Under "M for Mature" ratings, you will find titles like Dungeon Keeper [1 and 2, both are whimsically comical, and as unrealistic as it gets]
  Neither of these titles advocates war in any way (except for the implied "war between good and evil")
  
• Check under "E for Everyone" (yes, even those under 10) ratings and you'll see Need for Speed: Most Wanted [excessive driving, property damage and evading authorities] Of course it's safe! Your child won't be driving a car for another 10 years or so! They will have long forgotten the zany antics of running from the cops. </sarcasm>

I have to return this thread to the sentiment of so many others here today; it's not the games, the game-makers, or the game-platform-makers... it's the parents. Why do people deny that parents are the directly culpable party when it comes to the misbehavior of minors? That's right! When that makes them the culpable party.

Blaming the games is like blaming Hollywood for all the... [ahem] would-be stuntpersons appearing in the Darwin Awards every year.

In that light, if I suggest you shoot yourself right now, and you go do it, would I be guilty of murder? Nobody would be able to prove it.

Then there's Robert Patrick Modell; but that's just an X-Files episode.

Excerpt from "Pusher":
[After MODELL's acquittal, he runs into MULDER and SCULLY in the foyer.]
MULDER: Your shoe's untied.
[MODELL looks down at his feet, quickly gets the "joke" and then meets MULDER'S steely gaze once again, slightly amused]
MULDER: So how do you do it?

Unfortunately, the ESRB provides those ratings strictly for consumer self-recognisance and parental benefit. They state that that are "the game industry's self-regulating body", not a department of state.

As far as I'm aware, the ratings can't be legally enforced outside of sanctions/penalties within the gaming industry.

Besides, there's a chance of mis-placed ratings...

• Under "T for Teen" ratings, you'll find titles like Battlefield 2142 [future, guns, war, blow-stuff-up] and Medal of Honor: Heroes [same, but WWII]. War=violence, and yet "suitable for ages 13+" However...
  
• Under "M for Mature" ratings, you will find titles like Dungeon Keeper [1 and 2, both are whimsically comical, and as unrealistic as it gets]
  Neither of these titles advocates war in any way (except for the implied "war between good and evil")
  
• Check under "E for Everyone" (yes, even those under 10) ratings and you'll see Need for Speed: Most Wanted [excessive driving, property damage and evading authorities] Of course it's safe! Your child won't be driving a car for another 10 years or so! They will have long forgotten the zany antics of running from the cops. </sarcasm>

I have to return this thread to the sentiment of so many others here today; it's not the games, the game-makers, or the game-platform-makers... it's the parents. Why do people deny that parents are the directly culpable party when it comes to the misbehavior of minors? That's right! When that makes them the culpable party.

Blaming the games is like blaming Hollywood for all the... [ahem] would-be stuntpersons appearing in the Darwin Awards every year.

In that light, if I suggest you shoot yourself right now, and you go do it, would I be guilty of murder? Nobody would be able to prove it.

Then there's Robert Patrick Modell; but that's just an X-Files episode.

Excerpt from "Pusher":
[After MODELL's acquittal, he runs into MULDER and SCULLY in the foyer.]
MULDER: Your shoe's untied.
[MODELL looks down at his feet, quickly gets the "joke" and then meets MULDER'S steely gaze once again, slightly amused]
MULDER: So how do you do it?

I actualy bothered to RTFA and found out that 1up is getting their "sources" by searching the ESRB website for new raitings (simply limit it to the Wii).

Kinda interesting actualy....

I'd be disturbed about the governmental agencies getting their hands on this, given the general climate of misapprehension that video games are a major cause of actual, physical violence (thanks a bunch for jumping on the bandwagon, Hilary :( ). Without some assurances that the ratings system won't be held over a barrel for any number of spurious motivations, such as the unfortunately credible possibility of lobby groups complaining that fantasy games teach witchcraft and should therefore be kept out of the hands of children.

The ESRB has been running quite nicely for over a decade and, though not perfect, seems pretty on par with the MPAA in terms of hits and misses. Rating World of Warcraft Teen works great, and the more violent, disturbing Prey is properly rated Mature, though there are certainly younger folks who can deal with games like Prey (and certainly the old Ultima IX, which is also rated Mature).

I would surmise most of the issues people run up against are things like Parents or Granny buying Junior M-rated games (perhaps even because Junior asked for the game in question, as Juniors are wont to do), and totally missing the meaning of the rating.

That's not equivalent to the ratings on going to the movies, because people don't go to video games - they bring them home. However, when buying movies for someone, you have to pay attention to the rating on the movie; buying Body Double for your 9-year-old isn't a good thing, but the salesperson isn't going to stop you at the till to ask who you're buying it for. With games, salespeople are more likely to ask than with movies, especially if you're a senior who has just picked up an M or AO-rated game, but if you're 40 or under and don't look confused, they will properly assume that you've done a modicum of homework (and if you look nerdy, the chances of them asking trend towards zero :) You can always ask the people behind the counter, though - ESRB ratings are not hard to puzzle out.

It's the "not necessarily for me" part of video game purchasing that tends to lead to more oopsies. I don't see how any FTC oversight is going to help that issue in the slightest, unless it's to bend the needle to severe overprotection. Who amongst us can imagine what form that would take? No video games except Barbie and Veggie Tales in Wal-Mart? A tiny front section at EG with a beaded curtain dividing the FTC-approved-for-public-malls part from the vast majority of titles (perhaps an exaggeration, but if other legislation came down the pipe making sure minors had no access to even looking at a likely increased number of rated titles, how would EG and other retailers have to respond?)

...or would the effect be simply more insidious and behind-the-scenes? Vaunted games that were developed that the FTC simply prevented from being sold, or games being horribly watered down just to get to the wide audience that could have handled it in the first place?

Have these folks proposed a content rating system on books in the last little while?

Support the ESA in their fights against jokers like this.

All I see here is voter bait. From the ESRB site:

"Additionally, ESRB's in-house game experts randomly play the final games to verify that all the information provided during the rating process was accurate and complete."

So they already test the games, just not all of them. Kind of like taxes; does the IRS audit all US tax returns? No, they have to let the majority go by with a skin deep look and use random fine-tooth comb audits to try and keep everyone honest. Could they audit all the tax returns? Yes, but it would be very time consuming and costly. If the ESRB had to take an in-depth approach, they'd have to find some way to cover these costs. Whether they get that from the game developers or the government, it'll cost gamers in the end.


I think it's ok to trust the game developers to be honest. Past instances where the rating has failed have been delt with appropriatly and I think this bill is unnecessary buracracy.



btw, here's where you signup for employment. Its only 1-4 times a month.

• Sonic the Hedgehog
• Ecco the Dolphin
• Golden Axe
• Altered Beast
• Columns
• Toejam & Earl
• Ristar

1) All stores that sell video games must post, in letters no less than 2 inches high, a complete description of the rating system. This signage must be located no further than 30 feet away from the entrance, exit and check out.

The verbage of the sign should be this stuff - http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

2) It is illegal to sell video games rated M under 18. It is illegal to sell video games rated A or not rated to anyone under 21.

3) ID showing proof of age is required for any game rated "M" or rated "A" or any game that is not yet rated.

That way there's no censorship. It's the same thing we do with Playboy, Hustler, etc. These things are considered to be too adult for minors so you have to show proof of ID in order to buy them. I think that many of the games also fall into this category. Yes, I like to play them myself. As I'm sitting here writing this, I'm looking at a stack of games that includes Medal of Honor, GTA, Hitman, and Manhunt. That doesn't mean that I think they're appropriate for a 5th grader, though.

I also think that a lot of parents aren't aware that there is a rating system and don't know how to interpret it. Furthermore, I think that if parents have to show ID in order to by 12 year old Timmy a copy of BMX XXX, they might actually get the idea that it isn't really meant for kids.

The whole world is NOT meant for children and I seriously doubt that there are hordes of 12 year olds out there with $50 of disposable income. It's the parents that buy these things for their kids. It just that the parents think, "Oh, it's a video game. How bad could it be?" Can anyone say "Hot Coffee"? Frankly, the whole world should not have to be made childproof just because parents are either too stupid or too lazy to look at what their kids are asking for.

That said, I think we as gamers, and the gaming industry in general can do a lot to raise awareness amongst parents about what's in the games that kids are asking their parents to buy.

2 cents,

QueenB

How difficult are these ratings anyway: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

The only requirement to understand them is that you are able to read. So I guess the ESRP ratings have a 8+ rating themselves.

Any game that has an M or Ao rating might not be suitable for kids (but this is up to the parents to decide).

As it currently is, though, all the 'T' or the 'M' is, is just a distinction. It doesn't go into any level of detail about what the game contains, and if you want this info you have to have one of the sales crew pull the game out for you. Certainly making it easier and allowing parents (or kids) to go ahead and set up a list of ratings preferences is a good start. Of course, I feel games should only be regulated as much as books (i.e. personal media), and I never heard anyone claim that Harry Potter created any serial killers yet...

There is a more restrictive rating than "M," and it's Adults Only "AO." And that AO rating is what the ESRB has retroactively slapped on the original version of GTASA.

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

Regardless of what they think about the ESRB I've never met anyone who doesn't agree that a rating system is important. No one wants little kids playing games designed for adults. The ESRB isn't perfect but it's all we've got and we as gamers can either bitch about it or try and help.

I'm just a simple caveman-parent. This world of "console games" and "computer software" frightens and confuses me! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.

They actually have a disclaimer designed for this:

Online games that include user-generated content (e.g., chat, maps, skins) carry the notice "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" to warn consumers that content created by players of the game has not been rated by the ESRB.

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

I'm only interested in AO rated games.
http://www.esrb.org/images/ratingsymbol_ao.gif

Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

Only 1 year difference and you can have way more interesting content. Ranging from pervy anime dating erotica games to quake mods where you run around and rape people. This is the ultimate freedom in artistic expression!

I can really understand game companies wanting to have T rating (13+) because the 13-20ish age range make up almost the entire game market. Not that any stores (except for maybe Wal-Mart) honor age restrictions. Although I kind of hope that it's hard for 15 year olds to get $50 in cash to buy games. I think they would typically have to have mom or dad buy it for them.

Check out these two PDF's from http://www.esrb.org/about/news.jsp

1: http://www.esrb.org/about/news/downloads/oblivion_ parent_advisory.5.3.06.pdf
2: http://www.esrb.org/about/news/downloads/oblivion_ release_5.3.06.pdf

You will actually see that Oblivion will now require a 'Nudity' descriptor to be placed on the box.

This is unbelievable! I've finished the game and am through my second time and not once have i EVER seen nudity!

Although... seeing 'Nudity' on the box would make me more likely to buy it. :)

Check out these two PDF's from http://www.esrb.org/about/news.jsp

1: http://www.esrb.org/about/news/downloads/oblivion_ parent_advisory.5.3.06.pdf
2: http://www.esrb.org/about/news/downloads/oblivion_ release_5.3.06.pdf

You will actually see that Oblivion will now require a 'Nudity' descriptor to be placed on the box.

This is unbelievable! I've finished the game and am through my second time and not once have i EVER seen nudity!

Although... seeing 'Nudity' on the box would make me more likely to buy it. :)