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

One dimensional

[Mycroft_VIII]

Am I the only one that thinks the purely one dimensional rating systems used by games and movies are a bit two simplistic to make a good decision on.
Admittedly these days the reasons for getting a rating are usually given and this does help alot, but simply rating in a few more categories makes sense to me.
As an aside it does seem a bit absurd that a topless woman can raise the rating of a game/movie faster than a body count can. I just find it a sad commentary on society that violence is more acceptable than nudity.

Mycroft

Re: One dimensional

[Mike Hawk]

I just find it a sad commentary on society that violence is more acceptable than nudity.

I 100% disagree with both your premise and conclusion. First off your premise is bogus since murder carries a much stiffer punishment than public nudity. Your conclusion is bogus because even if the premise was true, it is no commentary on society since violence and the threat thereof is often necessary to defend said society, so why should there be any stigma inherent in violence?

You should try thinking for yourself sometime and not just repeating what Howard Stern says.

Re: One dimensional

[Mycroft_VIII]

Well first off the context is RATINGS not life in general. Try reading the WHOLE paragraph which contains the sentence "As an aside it does seem a bit absurd that a topless woman can raise the rating of a game/movie faster than a body count can."
Second off, yes voilence is sometimes the only choice, but it always in a negative situation. Nudity can occure in a non-negative situation.
Third who said anything about Howard Stern, frankly I find him pointless and rude/offensive purely to get attention and rating.
My whole point is that nudity and sex are far less acceptable, in media, than violence. On tv you can show, in primetime, someone go on a killing spree. Yet a 3 second glimps of someones nipple will raise a hue and outcry and scandle and huge fcc fee's. Now I ask you, does that even come CLOSE to sane?

Mycroft

Ratings systems should be guiding.

[Lord Graga]

I live in Denmark where all ratings on movies and music is guiding - here we have a very relaxed relationship to 18+ movies and games. There have never been a problem with a shootout in a school, nor have there been anyone harmed by this (as far as I know).

Right now, with a forced ratings, and not a guiding one, it seems like that some freedom and control is removed from the individual, and put somewhere where it should not be.

WTF?

[(trb001)]

Was the Kotaku editorial serious?

How else can you explain the fact that Everyone games are actually not appropriate for everyone? Instead they are only appropriate for children six and older.

That would be because most kids under six would have a difficult time playing most any game. Games for kids 3-6 are designated EC, Early Childhood.

And certainly Grand Theft Auto, which is rated mature for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content and Use of Drugs, should actually be an Adults Only title.

No, it's for anyone mature enough to handle the concepts involved. GTA may involve adult situations (strippers, pimping, etc) but they don't graphically depict any of it. The amount of humor in the game alone should qualify it for a Mature rating instead of Adult.

Does adding drug references to a game somehow make it more acceptable for kids to play? What about sex? If you put sex, drugs and violence in the same game does it get an Everyone rating?

Hyperbole aside, I can't explain this because I haven't played the games in question. Maybe someone else can. Aside from this one possible point, the editorial looks like someone spewing garbage. If you want an in depth analysis of the game, read a review, don't expect a rating system to cover it.

--trb

Ratings Are Guides, Not Gospel

[kkrista]

I think the problem here is that many people think that a rating system is a replacement for their own judgement and thought process. Nothing can replace a parent's own judgement as to what works for his/her child. Is a "Teen" rating really appropriate for all teens -- of course not. It's guidance - just a suggestion. It's a tool -- one tool -- to help make a parent make a more informed decision. Look past the letter and the real information is right underneath it -- mild violence, sexual content, drug use. Go out and read previews and reviews of the game to get a better understanding of the content. Talk to other parents. Don't just rely on the letter on the box. The ESRB rating is what is believed to work for most teens, not necessarily for your teen.

Is your child mentally unstable? If so, it's probably best not to give him something that has potentially disturbing content, regardless of the rating. Is your 54 year old father scared of clowns? You might not want to give him a copy of Twisted Metal -- a game the ESRB deems appropriate for most adults but has a scary clown on the packaing (and in the game). Ok, these are silly examples, but I hope you see my point.

Every child is different and it's up to the parent to know that child well enough to understand what is and is not appropriate. Parents need to use all teh tools available to them, including their own brains. Then again, the parents that just rely on a letter on the box to determine if their child gets to play Rainbow Six probably don't really know their children well enough to make that determination anyway.

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.

ESRB vs MPAA Ratings

[Ryan Stortz]

I think that the game ratings are more than adequate. They're very discriptive and easy to understand. Almost everything that could offend someone in the game is cleaerly marked on the box. With the MPAA ratings, the rating is hidden on the back of the box in really small print. Same goes for their television ads, you have to be watching really closely to catch the rating. It's only flashed for a few seconds. Even then, the rating gives no indication of what does the movie contain that warrented an "R" rating. That can range from someone saying Fuck more than once to a 10 person softcore orgy.

Often, movies are released as "Unrated" so the full uncut version can sold. When they'd normally be given the NC-17 rating, which was formally X. I've yet to see a single videogame since the ESRB was started that was unrated. Both systems are volluntary, yet the ESRB is being scrutinized? Even the TV ratings are more vague than the ESRB. Who the hell is going to know what the TVM-NVSLSS means? With the ESRB, you can just flip the box over and read the extended rating. It'll completely explain that it means Nudity, Violence, Strong Language, and Sexual Situations.

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?

Good Article, but misguided.

[fwitness]

I read the original article and the response, both have good points, but the result is that the ESRB ratings are not perfect, but don't need any dramatic change. I'll preface this by saying the video game ratings topic gets me a bit hot under the collar these days.

The problem starts with the first paragraph from the critiscm:"it dawned on me that I wasn't really sure what the games he played were rated"

It dawned on you?!? Ok, so what you are saying is that you failed to check the ratings AT ALL before you let your child play the games? So if in fact the ratings had read as follows:

"Do not let any child play this game. Especially those under 18. In particular we are referring to your child. You. The one reading this rating that resides at 214 Elm, third house from the left."

So if the rating had been that specific, it would have made absolutely no difference at all since you didn't bother to read it before you let your child play. What hope can the ESRB have then to find the magic words that will keep your child 'safe' from these situations? There aren't any. Or maybe there are, but you'd have to read them to know.

I tried an experiment about this with my father a while back, who barely knows what video games are. I gave him 10 titles from my library, from all three platforms. He had no idea what the games were, but I asked him if he would carefully look at them at see which ones he would not let a child play. He rejected Grand Theft Auto outright, from the title itself. He examined the boxes for the other games, didn't notice the ESRB on the front. However, when he went to the back, he started figuring out that 'Mild Violence', 'Gore','Sexual Situations' meant that those might be in the game, and rejected those. In my eyes he scored 100, without knowing what an ESRB rating is. Why is that? Is my father a genius? Maybe, but I think it's more likely that since he was forced to take the time to read the box, he was able to make an informed decision.

Are the ratings consistent? Probably not 100%, but that's not what the ratings are for. They are a guide. That's mostly because the ESRB, much like America itself, does not have a definitive line on what is indecent, let alone offensive.

Any parent who reads the back of a video game box these days has probably 300 times more information available to them than when they take their child to the movies. It doesn't matter though, it never seems to be enough for some. So until we figure out a way to make boxes flash DO NOT BUY FOR YOUR KID parents may have to sit down and play a game with their kid every now and again. What a shame.

I agree though, that those games that the ESRB rates as only applicable to certain ages only be sold to those who are of the appropriate age. However, if the parents don't read the boxes, that won't keep little Johnny from seeing a plumber violently crush an innocent mushroom now and again.