Slashdot Mirror
ESRB Ratings Add Violence Descriptors
Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to an ESRB press release saying they've added four new violence-specific content descriptors to their voluntary but near-universally used age/suitability ratings system for games. These descriptors are "Cartoon Violence, defined as 'violent actions involving cartoon-like characters. May include violence where a character is unharmed after the action has been inflicted'... Fantasy Violence, defined as 'violent actions of a fantasy nature, involving human or non-human characters in situations easily distinguishable from real life.'... Intense Violence, defined as 'graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, gore, weapons, and depictions of human injury and death'... Sexual Violence, defined as 'depictions of rape or other violent sexual acts.'" There's also mention of icon redesign to include recommended age ranges and new, more prominent labels on the back of game boxes, presumably in response to legal challenges regarding violent games.
We want sex descriptors!
How are we supposed to figure out what games (or movies) to get?
Does this include getting whipped by a leather-clad female at the local club The Inferno a few Saturdays ago?
Maybe I'm a little out of touch with gaming these days but is there really so much rape in videogames these days that it deserves it's own category?
GMD
watch this
How explicit will the icons be? They have to be clear and self-explanatory, right? *g*
Daniel
Carpe Diem
Applicable to games, videos, and movies.
Intersexuality -- women having and/or being induced to have penises, permanently or temporarily
Fantasy Orgasms -- orgasms causing unusual physical effects, e.g. explosions, comas, alteration of the physical laws of the universe, etc. (also covers women having one or more orgasms upon their first time ever having sex)
Universal Bisexuality -- takes place in a universe where everyone is bisexual (or omnisexual, in the case of universes with more than one sex)
Psychosexual Geneva Syndrome -- women who are raped fall in love with their rapists and live happily ever after
Disingenuous Captioning -- textual notes appear at random, "explaining" that the situation is not as it seems, e.g. "They aren't really sisters, they just call each other that"
Extreme Demographic Imbalance -- more than 90% of the characters are of a specific gender, specific range of bra cup sizes, specific taste in sexual activity, etc.
Comedicus Interruptus -- sexual scenes are interrupted by random slapstick or other broad comedy
Dysfunctional Ending -- story ends on inexplicable downer note, or ending seems to take place but then continues, or innumerable storylines are left unresolved
Self-Deprecation By Proxy -- one or more characters are chided or chide themselves for consuming too many games/videos/movies of this type
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
I don't have kids, I research my games before I buy them, to see if they are any good. I really couldn't care how violent or non-violent they are, as long as its appropriate for the game. And I really wouldn't object to more descriptive labeling of the content. It wouldn't effect me.
But a parent might not have done their research about all the games out there before heading to the store. Maybe some people are ok with violence of certain levels, but not others. Either way, what people want to buy is their choice, and more descriptive labels never hurt, and lets be honest, even the MPAA ratings aren't enough any more, thats why there a little section listing why a movie got the rating it did.
Breaking down the violence this way is a good thing, in fact it will probably end up making video games look less violent than movies. Since movies tend to build the characters up a bit before their brains get splattered against the wall. Well excepting "Attack of the clones", where the clone army (which we don't care about) fights the mechanic army (which we also don't care about).
But I digress.
A point, a point, I was going to make a point...
Ah, what about publishers that want a violent-er rating to appeal to an older audience? E.g. the original Wipeout for PS1 had a "mature" rating for "violence". The only violence in the game was firing weapons from hovercraft to hovercraft, and even then the only consequence of a direct hit was slowing the enemy down. How violent is that? Not at all. They just didn't want their cyberpunk game to get labeled with the kiss-of-death "appropriate for all ages" moniker.
...seeing as how the ESRB slapped the "Nudity" descriptor onto Dead or Alive: Extreme Beach Volleyball when there was no nudity in it.
Very skimpy clothing, yes, near nudity, yes, but no actual nudity...and the ESRB decription is VERY clear on this:
""Nudity - Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity.
Partial Nudity - Brief and mild depictions of nudity."
DOA: XVB doesn't fall into either of these categories...it does however fall under:
""Mature Sexual Themes - Provocative material, possibly including partial nudity."
So why did the ESRB choose to blatantly lie about DOA: XVB? Nobody knows. So, I don't care how descriptive the SRB make their tags, becausee they don't use them properly. Might as well just slap, "For Kids of All Ages" on every game, since you're just going to lie about them anyway.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
One reason Lieberman and torch-waving "me too" followers called off the dogs was because of how complete and detailed the ESRB ratings have become. To Liebermen's credit, he admits and praises this publically.
I am not a parent yet, but in a few years, I will appreciate having a tool like that to judge content by. This is what content control needs to be like - non-intrusive and voluntary, but complete and descriptive. As most children can tell you, rules like "no R rated movies, period" become embarrassing when all of their friends get to watch certain R-rated movies on a case-by-case basis. A descriptive rating system makes it easier to make better judgement calls. It's not a be-all end-all, and some people will always think it's too harsh/lenient, but it's far better than nothing.
I grew up with violent video games. When I got my guts splattered on the wall in games like Quake, I realized that it isn't a good idea to act that way, because I died a lot.
Didn't the RSAC do this kind of thing back when it was used to rate games? It had various categories, like violence or sexual content, and included 'levels' for each category.
As far as rating systems go, I liked RSAC, because it didn't tell you who the game would be appropriate for, it told you the facts and let you make your own decision. Whatever happened to it?
While they're introducing new ways of defining your perversity of choice, why not come up with USEFUL ratings labels for games? Such as:
:)
VR - Violent Rage - frustrating levels may provoke fits of rage and destruction that could endanger your controller.
MMP - Media Marketing Project - 2 30 second clips from the movie or tv show and a bad clone of a game you played 5 years ago with new skins.
BHC - Blinding Headache Complexity - You write assembly code to take a break from the game.
NHAR - Non-Human Appendages Required - The key/button bindings in this game would baffle a Yoga guru in mastering them.
FR3D - Failed Resurrection in 3D - This game is the product of a last-ditch effort of a company past it's prime to squeeze the final drops of blood out of it's only success. And it's in 3D!
TF - Text Fetish - Break out the reading glasses and pray you can skip cutscenes. This game makes Tolstoy look like a brochure writer.
TOD - Translator On Drugs - This greatest English port of game from foreign are all the best easy to reading. You have no chance survive. Make your time.
Just a few suggestions
Wynter
-----------
"Not all who wander are lost" -- JRR Tolkien
an ESRB press release
Wow! So human cloning is finally a reality?!
-- MarkusQ (aka MQR)
P.S. *sigh* They aren't giving out The Most Obscure Joke Of The Year Award anymore, are they?
One reason Lieberman and torch-waving "me too" followers called off the dogs was because of how complete and detailed the ESRB ratings have become. To Liebermen's credit, he admits and praises this publically.
No, the reason Lieberman stopped waving torches is because it looks rediculous when you're a candidate for VP or President. He's done a complete turn-around on a number of issues, but especially censorship. The ESRB ratings were there before Lieberman even realized there were violent video games out there, it was just another stop for him in his quest to have Marilyn Manson brought up on murder charges (because a 'fan' committed suicide) and to clean the American shores of all of this sex, violence, and satanism that's in today's entertainment.
The only way to explain his current positions is campaigning, because nothing has actually changed in the entertainment industry from the time he started his crusades against it.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Not true. Lieberman's big torch to wave - Night Trap - was released in 1992. The ESRB was not established until 1994. And late in 1994, Lieberman stated that the ESRB was "the most comprehensive system of any entertainment medium in this country."
In case your math sucks, 1994 is WELL before Lieberman was anywhere in the VP picture.
And yes, he has *continued* that stance since then.
But don't let me confuse you with facts.
And for the record, I'm a Republican that would probably vote for any Republican candidate before dreaming of voting for Lieberman.
Arrrg. That should be "more than two sexes".
(Don't proofread with your brain in neutral, kids.)
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
he's right on the money.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Psychosexual Geneva Syndrome -- women who are raped fall in love with their rapists and live happily ever after.
Actually, when a person such as Patty Hearst gets captured and works for their captors or holds a deep emotional bond, it is called Stockholm Syndrome.
Not trying to be a jerk or a Nazi... but you were really close to being on the money on that one... I just read a lot on it once. Thought it was fascinating.
I don't really think the MPAA cares...keeping up with the times isn't one of their priorities. for example, if the MPAA is going to rate their movies, should they not re-rate them as time goes on for subsequent releases? I don't really think most R-rated movies from the pre PG-13 days would be higher than PG-13 anymore, if that. And let's not forget the huge publicity gained by the words, "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." which wouldn't even turn a head nowadays.
So I think the real root of the problem is that the movie studios don't want to re-rate their old movies when they re-release them. After all, they went to the effort once already. We just need seperate ratings for violence, sexuality, language, and themes. For example, all of my younger sisters are allowed to watch Die Hard. They between 9 and 16. I recently watched the film with this in mind, and I realized the movie wasn't really that bad. Under my stated idea above, i'd rate it as this, using a standard 1 to 10 system:
Violence: 7 for gunshot wounds and destruction of property
Sexuality: 2 for an extremely un-smooth operator and a 0.2-second-long shot of a woman's blurry, in-motion breast that most people don't realize is there.
Language: 6 for frequent undirected profanity (Yes, I do realize this film contains many profanities and the immortal line "Yippe ki yay, motherfucker!", but little of this language is being used unreasonably nor in bad taste, nor does it tend to be used abusively.)
Themes: 7 for terrorism and family dysfunction
ok, there you have it...an example of a good system. The big catch is that it's not designed for the box office discerning your age. it's designed for parents who Raise Their Own Damn Kids®. Without parental participation in this, a ratings system doesn't work anyhow the second it goes to video.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Considering that more families than ever are going to nudist resorts, shouldn't there be a descriptor to account for this? It might even let a game keep an "E" or "T" rating, as opposed to sexual themes and rape which get an instant "M".
http://www.senate.gov/~lieberman/press/02/12/2002C 19808.html
Lieberman said a new round of congressional hearings should be held to focus attention to the problem -- particularly the retail industry's resistance to adopting an industry-wide policy for restricting the sale of M-rated games to children, as Lieberman and Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) have urged -- as well as to raise parental awareness of the growing body of research documenting the threat video violence poses to public health.
In case you can't read quite as well as one would hope, Lieberman not only specifically mentions the ratings aren't enough, but this quote is both after the ratings were in place, and after his campaign for VP (noted by the date in the article's address). The difference between Lieberman 2002 and Lieberman of the 90's, of course, is that the tail end of the article is a call for parents to read the ratings, despite the rest of the article's call for Congressional hearings and retailers to stop selling to minors.
While I can understand and to some extent support a call to retailers to card people buying M-rated games, it doesn't seem like a really valid shift in policy, especially next to a call for hearings to see if the ratings still reflect the content. Of course, the hearings have prompted the recent additions to the ratings, which I think are good ones (and actually bring back the better parts of the pre-ESRB ratings). Personally, though, I have a tendency to dislike it whenever the government tries to get involved in people's everyday lives. Too many people in the government have based their studies on what people tell them rather than personal experience. There's even one article out there describing Lieberman's answer to people questioning his cries against the industry by going out and buying a 'new Pentium IV 1.5GHz PC and a copy of Doom', in order to show that he's played recent games and knows what he's talking about. In my opinion, the series of articles, which included him actually getting a clue and realizing Doom was not the game everyone showed him pictures of, and buying some more recent games, showed two things:
1) he's perfectly willing to rally against things he's never been exposed to himself
2) he does have the intelligence to actually take a look once he's questioned on it
I think #2 is why there's a slight possibility that he has had a legitimate change in direction. However, I don't trust his tendency towards #1 and would never give him a vote (fortunately I don't live in the area that currently votes for him every few years).
In 1997 he attacked the game Postal (ok, so I don't give a damn about Postal anyway), or attacked Cannibal Corpse's lyrics (despite the fact that their music is meant to be gruesome and the lyrics are not supposed to be something people warm up to, it's supposed to make your stomach turn and anyone that decides to go out and perform the acts described in 'fucked with a knife' or 'force fed broken glass' are really twisted, nevermind that most of CC's material comes from newspaper stories in the first place). He asks for Marilyn Manson's record label to dump him (despite the fact that he refers to a record label that won't be found listed on a Manson album, because the albums are handled by a subsidiary of a subsidiary, the same with CC's music, which he states is Sony's responsibility even though Sony has nothing to do with CC other than distributing some of their label's music). As with other politicians that have railed against CC in the past, it's unlikely that he's actually heard their music, but was more likely given a lyric sheet to read at best (or the descriptions he repeated at worst). Even Bob Dole made statements against CC during his election campaign, and CC's management asked if he had ever heard the music, to which he replied that he had not. The difference between the 'Democrats' and 'Republicans' gets smaller and smaller every year.
-PainKilleR-[CE]