ESRB President Defends Game Rating System

An anonymous reader writes "The president of the Entertainment Software Rating Board wrote an open letter to Kotaku in response to an editorial that ran there a few days back about the ESRB and the system used to rate games. The editorial basically said that the ESRB isn't doing their job and needs to start if they don't want to be replaced by the Feds. The letter today said Kotaku is wrong and explained why. Does the current rating system serve its purpose?"

Comments

Problem with Ratings

[Prien715]

There seems to be at least 4 distinct independent rating "ladders" if you will.

First, there's sex. Now some parents feel differently about this than others, but I don't think there's a 14 year old out there who didn't at least try and look at pr0n. Males are biologically interested in sex about this age or younger. American society's take on this is that if we pretend it doesn't exist and don't talk about it, it'll be all better.

Second, there's language. Society defines what profanity is. Different languages have different profanities. By censoring words and saying they're bad, we're only adding to their mythos.

Third, drugs and I'll throw violence in here too. Why? Because what matters from a psychological point of view is not that the player can do them, but what in game rewards/punishments such a system allows. Violence may be bad, but suppose I were to make a game where a player plays the role of a narcotics cop. This game would have both drugs and violence. But is it really bad? What rating does it deserve? Suppose you had the option of getting high before going to work which would cause you to get fired and lose the game. How about being able to run over civilians and also losing the game?

Games are really just sandboxes. Being an ostrich and pretending many facets of life simply don't exist seems to earn a good rating, when really good interaction can aid children.

I'm certainly not in favor of GTA being banned or whatnot, but its treatment of drugs and violence probably isn't good to show younger children (killing cops and doing drugs to make money). UT2K4 may be violent, but take out the blood and it's a glorified paintball game (no one actually dies, even when their bodies are in a million pieces, they'll just respawn. Additionally, you can even take out the blood and exploding bodies out of the game. Why don't they rate the game at the lowest violence settings since it doesn't effect the gameplay?)

The ESRB is doing their job just fine

[Cecil]

They're not doing anything wrong. They're rating games, and usually doing a pretty fair job of it in my opinion. They are no more inconsistent than the movie ratings system. Besides, "Just remember what the MPAA says: Horrific deplorable violence is OK, as long as you don't say any naughty words!" It's sad, but true. Society today seems to have, if not agreed, at least acquiesced that violence is acceptable for teens.

The author of the article complains that Splinter Cell got a Teen rating (there is some ground for complaint there), but he suggests that it is more violent because you can break people's necks, rather than shooting them from afar? Is that more violent? Maybe. But let me play Devil's advocate for a second here:

Seeing someone grab a guy's head and have him fall down dead is not very instructional. You won't learn how to kill someone like that. Even if you did, it is entirely unlike playing a video game when you are up close and personal, fighting physically with someone in real life. The line between fantasy and reality in this context is very stark.

Shooting someone with a sniper rifle, on the other hand, is very much like a video game. Looking through the scope gives you an added disconnect from reality. You are far enough away that the target seems like a little figurine rather than a real live human being. Games that focus more on sniping are in my opinion much more dangerous.

So perhaps the rating is somewhat justified, if Splinter Cell took the emphasis off sniping and into less explicit, less likely to be replicated forms of violence.

Why?

[Headcase88]

I'm sick of editorials like this bashing the ESRB. I haven't played the Splinter Cell games much, but if I were to guess, Ubisoft deliberately toned down the violence just enough to get a T rating. Just because they add something (drugs) it does not mean the whole package is as (im)mature.

I guess the ESRB isn't perfectly objective (they're close), but it should give you a very good idea as to what to expect. Is objectivity even possible? Everyone has different opinions, you can't please everyone.

I'm sure you can plunk down millions of taxpayers dollars for a tighter system that .01% of the population would appreciate, but why?