ESRB Adds New 'Tween' Rating

The Entertainment Software Rating Board announced yesterday that it was adding a new category to the entertainment software rating format. The new "E10+" "would mark games that might contain moderate amounts of cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes." This puts the category between "E" and "T", and allows for racing games with violent crashes and superhero violence.

Comments

Excellent.

[Grey Ninja]

That means that overprotective parents will actually allow their kids to play the next Smash Bros. game. It irritated the hell out of me that they rated SSBM as Teen, and it irritated me even more that retarded parents actually listened to the rating on the game.

Re:Excellent.

[Mr. Competence]

...and it irritated me even more that retarded parents actually listened to the rating on the game.
Yea, because we all know that Slashdotters want the government to regulate what children see not their parents. Heaven forbid that parents use the rating system to determine what they allow their kids to look at!
My kids know that they can't play Teen games unless I individually approve them. If there is any question then they ask me and I say whether they can or not. If I can't evaluate it then they have to wait to play it until I can. (Security defaults to disallow)

I forget, what was your point again? Were you against using provided tools even if they were imperfect?

Re:Excellent.

[gameboyhippo]

I don't think parents are overprotected; I think they are being cautious. Of course I would rather see a more complex rating system for movies and games. Basically it could have on the front of the box something like this:

l **
i *
v *
e
s ***

That is v is violence, s is sexual themes, l is language, e is for evil or demonic themes, and i is illegal or harmful behavior. Then underneath it could highlight some of the things parents should be cautious about in the movie or game.

Thus we can take a game such as Zelda.
l
i
v **
e *
s
Contains Mild Fantasy Violence
Contains Ghosts

Parents can then judge right away whether the want that game. Just as another example we can take Sonic Adventure 2: Battle
l *
i *
v **
e *
s *
Contains Mild Lyrics
Contains Resisting Authorities
Contains Fantasy Violence
Contains Sports like Violence
Contains Mild Romantic Themes

If we used a rating system like that, parents could more easily pick out the right movie/games for thier kids based upon their moral values of what kids should be exposed to.

Re:Excellent.

[Grey Ninja]

Indeed. Summed up my thoughts exactly, and even added the footnote I was going to include. ;-)

To continue that thought though, I might add that I was brought up in a free thinking environment, and I was free to watch, play, or read anything I wanted as soon as I was old enough to do so. (About 5 years old). My parents chose not to simply shelter me from the "bad stuff" like most parents, but to give me guidance on that sort of thing instead. As a result, I grew up much more prepared for the world than my peers.

I personally wish that the world would do away with the archaic belief that sex, violence, and profanity are unfit for children to know about. I believe that knowledge is power, and kids should have all that they want.

But yes, my original point was that there's absolutely nothing wrong with SSBM, and it just irritated the hell out of me to see parents blindly following the ratings without using any other form of judgement. I believe that people should think for themselves instead of just trying to get some letter on a box to think for them.

Re:Excellent.

[realityfighter]

I overheard this conversation in my local Target while I was trying to find something to spend a gift card on.

Girl: Um....What about this one?
Mother: Diabolo? Isn't that a devil game? Why don't you get a book with your money instead? All these games are too violent.
Girl: But I want a game! Oh, I like this one, mommy! (Picking up a copy of Roller Coaster Tycoon.)
Mother: (sarcastic) Are you sure? But you don't kill anybody in this one. (Puts RCT back on the shelf, picks up a copy of Spider-Man 2.) How about this one? You can kill this guy on the box here.

Similarly, when my boyfriend showed his mother the gameplay in Animal Crossing, she said, "I bet nobody really plays this game. It doesn't have any shooting." It's a sad thing when the parents are so convinced that video games are bad, they go after the violent games because they can't think of games having any other appeal. Geesh.

Re:Excellent.

[bitwiseNomad]

Good idea. I think maybe I could improve on it a bit. Here's a rating system that I think would be useful to parents trying to choose a video game for thier child. It consists of five categories of things that may be harmful to children, M-O-D-U-P:

M - Misrepresentation of non-western ideas as being evils.

O - One dimensional characters and/or one-sided plot which may promote the conception that ideas and people are either singularly good or singularly evil.

D - Discourages personal autonomy and encourages mindless groupthink.

U - Unhealthy treatment of sexual themes including but not limited to an aversion to romantic or sexual attraction between characters.

P - Propogation of traditional gender roles including but not limited to submissive women characters which may give young children unreasonable expectations of love and sex.


There is another rating system that I would like to see on games. I would like to see it not to protect children, but to protect adults who know nothing about specific games from buying or renting them if they are bad. I submit the following rating system, A-B-C-D-E:

A - Advertising - Game has had an unusual amount of advertising money put behind it.

B - Bad or Horrible Voice Acting.

C - Cutscenes constitute a statistically significant percentage of game play time.

D - Derivative of well-known first person shooter game.

E - Execution - Loading Times longer than 3 seconds and known glitches at shipping time.

Cheer This On!

[Landaras]

Remember, the more the industry self-regulates and (supposedly) empowers parents to make informed decisions, the weaker the argument for government decency regulation.

- Neil Wehneman

Why don't they just specify an age?

[LordNimon]

Why bother with all these abbreviations? Why don't they just specify a number from 0 to 18 on the box, indicating the minimum age. If they had done that in the beginning, they wouldn't have need to introduce this new rating level. They could have just used "10".

Re:Why don't they just specify an age?

[Walkiry]

It's much easier if you just have a few "standard brackets" of where a game should fall, simply because that way you can have clear guidelines of what should go where. If you subdivide too much (like, the differences between a 13 and a 14 years game would be pretty darned small) you create a problem when it comes to actually classifying a game, whereas this way both the consumer AND the developer know much better what the games are adjusted to.

Re:Why don't they just specify an age?

[The Eagle Maint]

I don't think the purely age-driven rating system would work because not every 10 year old has the same level of maturity. One kid may be able to handle mild lyrics and some violence, knowing full well that it's not real and he shouldn't repeat anything he sees or hears. Another may run around screaming curses and imitating the game like an idiot, because he doesn't know any better.

The current system gives an approximate age group to give you an idea of what level of maturity is needed (T meaning 13+, M meaning 17+, etc.) When they added the descriptions (Mild cartoon violence, Sexual themes, Strong Lyrics, etc.) I think they completed the system. Not only do you get an idea of what age group should be playing the game based on the 1 letter rating, but you can make an informed choice by looking at the exact reasons it is rated this way.

I've said this before, and I stand on my point; If parents took more care into raising their kids responsibly, knowing what is wrong and what is right (or at least within reason), no further additions to the system would be necessary.

I'm going to end my post saying I see way too many parents not giving two thoughts to what their children do/say/play, and that's what I base my opinions on. Unfortunately I think this is becoming the norm, so maybe, for this reason alone, a new 'dummy' rating system should be implemented for idiot parents who can't be bothered with raising their kids correctly.

Good move

[castleguardian]

This is a rating that has been sorely needed, IMO. Parents shopping for games for their not-quite-teenaged children may balk at picking up games rated "T", but also do not want to get most of the "E"-rated games that only pre-schoolers would enjoy. Most (not all of course) 8-12 year olds have outgrown Bob the Builder, Barbie, and other Cute & Cuddly (TM) characters and shows. They want to start sinking their teeth into whatever their big brother/sister or parents are doing...it's simply a stage of their growing up. This will defintely help parents puchase more age-appropriate games. Smart move, ESRB.

Cartoon violence

[FirienFirien]

Why does 'cartoon violence' mean 10+? From what I remember of the kiddie cartoons (tom and jerry, coyote vs roadrunner, etc etc), they're about 70% violence and 30% preparation of violence; it's funny,(Laugh.) because it's toon violence.

And now the games industry says only ten year olds and older are the appropriate category for it? What? This also implies that before now, it was higher? (Yeah, where have I been. I just never needed to look at or understand the reasoning behind)

If kids watch cartoon violence regulated by their parents, the same levels should be taken to games. As the cartoons become more realistic, then sure - but as the adult is still the regulator, this 10+ seems incomprehensible.

This is good news.

[porkchop_d_clown]

As a parent of a teen and an 8 year old, I find the 8 year old constantly frustrated at why some games are off limits but not others, even though they are all rated "T". (Yes, I actually check the games on a case by case basis).

To be honest, I'd prefer a game rating system similar to the toy rating system - something that measured difficulty/playability rather than simple violence. I mean, there's nothing in FF7 that my daughter shouldn't see or hear, but that doesn't mean she's capable of enjoying it.

Re:This is good news.

[ThePolkapunk]

To be honest, I'd prefer a game rating system similar to the toy rating system - something that measured difficulty/playability rather than simple violence. I mean, there's nothing in FF7 that my daughter shouldn't see or hear, but that doesn't mean she's capable of enjoying it.

FF7 had cursing, a whorehouse, sexual innuendos, and implied sexual situations. Would you be ok with your 8 year old daughter seeing or hearing all of that?

Still Doesn't Tell Parents Anything

[stinkyfingers]

What is acceptable for 16-year-olds isn't necessarily acceptable for my 16-year-old. What is acceptable for 10-year-olds isn't necessarily acceptable for my 10-year-old.

The basic flaw of age-based rating systems - this in includes movies, too - is that parents should know their kids best and determine what is most appropriate for them. A Mormon 13-year-old probably is going to be scandalized by relatively tame material.

That's why ratings should be based on content - language, sexuality, violence, etc. That way, that special population who think it's okay for games and movies to contain gratuitous violence, but absolutely no sex know which games to buy their children.

Re:Tween defined . . .

[jensen404]

Since hobbits live longer than humans, a hobbit tween is equivalent with a human teen.

Twe(e)n'ties