Slashdot Mirror
ESRB Should Stand Down?
Next Generation has a piece wondering if the ESRB should step down in favour of an independent board, to restore the faith of consumers in the game ratings system. They talk with a company that proposes just that, wanting to substitute a new system for the current model. From the article: "Profanity Sex Violence (PSV) Ratings differ from the ESRB in that they describe levels of sex, violence and profanity in games (using a traffic light system) instead of judging a game to be appropriate for a certain age."
anyone remember the RSAC ratings? they coexisted with the ESRB ratings for awhile back when they were both first starting out. RSAC had the separate violence/sex/etc ratings. ESRB won out though because people are stupid and need a one letter thing.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
PSV sounds like a workable concept, but it seems like the big trouble is that all of these video game ratings are reinventing the wheel. Little Billy Schmidt's Mom may not know an E rated game from an M, but she sure knows what an R rated movie is.
So roughly how many organizations would need massive payoffs in order to use the movie rating system for games?
As long as they do the same for movies.
Truly an American viewpoint. Clearly exposing your kid to horrible things like dirty words and "sex" is an awful thing to do, and shooting people in half just for the hell of it is a-okay!
First, how does he propose to fund a system that is more expensive than the current system? Who pays, and how does that make his idea independent?
Second, he decries the ESRB system as being too vague. Yes, it would be useful to rate PSV separately. But, c'mon, Red/Yellow/Green as the ranking? What is that, None, Some, a Lot? Who gets to determine where the line is between yellow and red?
How about this: details on the cover. Ranking on a meaningful scale that at least gives us an fair idea of what's in the box.
No matter what, I'm going to make sure I'm aware of what games my kid is playing, and what's in those games. But I'd hate to shell out $60, bring the game home, watch the kid get all excited, and then realize that it's too mature for him. Take the game away, and then go back to the store to get a refund.
And, I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to research every game on the internet for half an hour... I'd rather spend that time interacting with my child.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Is it time for the Entertainment Software Ratings Board to stand down in favor of a truly independent ratings system, thereby nullifying a major criticism levelled against our industry?
Do people who complain about excessive violence in videogames actually have any idea who the ESRB is? Or how it works?
It's like Anime. Clueless people see Japanese Animation and think "It's a cartoon. It's for kids." Likewise, they take the same stereotypical view of videogames and come to the same completely incorrect conclusion. And then they complain that they bought a game for their kid that had decapitations, disembowlments, or a bare woman's ankle showing.
If we're going anywhere, it should be to simplify the system even more. Do you know what I mean when I say G? T? T+? What about 13? 17? 21? Cut down on the symbology and the choice, parents just want to know if a particular game is reasonably appropriate for a kid the age of theirs. Or not. One simple answer.
The ______ Agenda
If you check the ESRB info on the back, it should have this info already. The rating should only be the first criteria to look at. I see no reason to replace the ESRB, they do a decent job in evaluating games. I am doubtful that any other reasonably funded ratings board would be any more thorough.
Two choices:
... and then check each product for a certification it may or may not have, depending on the publisher/manufacturer's whim.
...
- Publishers pay: publishers pick the ratings they want to try to get, they pay to have their game (or movie, or music, or book, or painting, etc.) reviewed. The problem is the conflict of interest: if a rating board is seen as being 'nicer' to companies (per dollar) than others, they'll get the business, creating an incentive to be nicer.
- Customers pay: removes the conflict of interest to a good degree. The only way I see for this to happen is for third parties to publish a non-free 'guide' to games on the market, listing their ratings for each. These guides could be centralized and cross-referenced by yet another company, also as a non-free guide. Stores could carry the cost of such guides (buy them in bulk, have them available at the counter or on the shelves) and just include the price of the game-rating service into the price of the games they sell.
In either case, customers can vote with their purchase. If the games they're interested in don't care the certifications they think are good (that is, they've looked into the rules the rating boards use, and picked a few they think are fair), they don't buy the game. That at least creates a (slight) incentive for publishers to get their games rated by as many review boards as they can, whether it costs them or not.
Should there be a requirement to publish what rating was received, if the publisher disagrees with it? If the review board self-publishes, that could be a problem. If the publisher is the one doing it, it at least physically has the choice not to include the rating on the box. There's also a difference between asking the board for a particular rating and getting a yes/no answer, and just asking the board to assign a rating -- I think it affects how the requirement to publish would affect publishers' willingness to ask.
Note that all of this could be said of, say, FDA approval. Rather than having a government agency approve foods and drugs, customers could choose to trust (or not trust) each independent review board, and each manufacturer could choose to ask (or not ask) each review board to check their practices, or review boards could themselves decide to review products (particularly if self-published.) After all, shouldn't you be the one deciding whether or not you want to take the risk of using a particular drug or eating a particular food that you might be allergic to?
There are a lot of areas though where we're:
a) not willing to trust a multi-party system (but willing to trust a black-box single-party, governmental, system)
b) not willing to take the time to investigate each rating board, ask around to find out if they're actually reliable, whether or not their ratings seem satisfactory, whether or not there have been 'bad surprises'
But this works with most product reviews already -- no standard label on the box lists the quality of the game, the flavor of the meat, etc. There are, what, hundreds of game-review sites on the 'net, and people seem to pick a few they like and trust, but cross-reference them to avoid bias?
But hey, from a libertarian standpoint
Well yah know, I like the idea of the rating system telling what the rating is for. Things like does the game have violence, sex, drugs use, and profanity. Wouldn't it be nice if those things are printed right on the box?
Oh yeah they are already doing that, Right next to the one letter ESRB rating. Here let me give you a few examples:
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
Mature (17+)
Blood and Gore,
Intense Violence,
Strong Language,
Strong Sexual Content,
Use of Drugs
The Sims 2
Teen (13+)
Crude Humor,
Sexual Themes,
Violence
Halo 2
Mature (17+)
Blood and Gore,
Violence
God of War
Mature (17+)
Blood and Gore,
Intense Violence,
Nudity,
Sexual Themes
Strong Language
This really seems like an example of people not paying attention to the rating labels. The extra description for what the title contains has been on games for a very long time now. If you want to know what is in the game read a little more then the big single letter in the rating box. Also each of these extra descriptors are already rated. That's the difference between some violence, violence, and intense violence.
This stoplight rating system seems like it would be a step in the wrong direction. It would end up giving you less information.
"Hmmm. I wonder if '25 to Life' and 'Grand Theft Auto III' are acceptable games for my child. Better look at the back. Let's see... Hoodlum beating up someone with a baseball bat, guy with a machine gun mowing down cops, hookers...
Boy, I don't know what this 'M' means, and I don't really want to squint to read the text under it.
Oh well, I guess, since I don't know what this rating means, I'd better just blindly buy Timmy this game."
You don't let your kid watch "The Ring". You don't let your kid play "Grand Theft Auto". A quick look at the back of the box, in either case, fixes everything.
(Almost) everyone likes sex. The people who whine about it just aren't getting any.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
There's no debate whatsoever about physically abusing children. But you're telling me there's an actual law dictating what parents are allowed to show their children. I'm finding that hard to believe, and I'm not sure it's a good idea.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
How do they determine what's "more" violent? "More" sexually explicit? What's "better" for kids?
Some examples from other forms of entertainment:
Will the biases of the review board come out? I saw one television show that claimed to have "strong sexual content" and the only sexual content was two men kissing - and yet I've never seen *any* kind of "sexual content" warning, strong or otherwise, on shows where the equivalent (and more, really) heterosexual behavior is taking place.
What about with violence? "The Passion of the Christ" was basically just a snuff film to anyone who isn't Christian, and yet, because it was Jesus in there, it's okay. And then compare that to any run of the mill kill fest flick, and see how people complain about the violence, even though it's so much less than the torture doled out on screen in TPotC.
What about stuff like the South Park movie? Originally it was going to be given some absurd rating because of a few things - like the original title was "South Park: All Hell Breaks Loose" which got changed to the (somehow less "adult") title of Bigger, Longer and Uncut (which is only less adult if you're a fucking moron). In the "making of" extras, the creators were joking about how they took every complaint the ratings people had, made it 10x dirtier but *slightly* more subtle, and put it back in... And eventually got a lower rating because, basically, the board didn't get the jokes. (Not that I mind - I'm glad it had as wide an audience as possible because I do think the message was one worth spreading)
To me, I think it is enough to say "Sex, Violence, Drugs" or whatever and leave it at that. Trying to rank what's "worse" - consensual anal sex onscreen or obscured non consensual sex - eating another human being or hundreds of people being blown up in a battle on a beach - two men kissing, or a straight couple doing everything but fucking on-screen - is best left up to the individual.
This board thing is purely a political move. People are trying to show that they're doing something, even if that something is just a waste of time. The old ratings system was fine - just like any system, it didn't deal with people trying to get around it in unforseen ways.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
But how many parents will actually pay attention to that information and use it to make an informed decision about what to buy for their kids? The information is already available, to a certain extent. But many parents just hand the kid some cash and let them buy whatever they want.
It goes beyond the moral argument of what it's "right" to consume for entertainment, and what is "wrong". We're never all going to agree on that. But that's not the only issue. The problem is, there have been no conclusive studies that researchers can look at and agree on one way or another, whether video games cause problems, or exacerbate existing ones, or have no psychological effect at all. My personal hypothesis is that it's a case-by-case basis.
This is why so many groups are pushing for enforcement, rather than just education. They see the lack of parental involvement, and the resulting effects on some kids of being exposed to certain content, as a threat to society in general. I totally understand that position, though I don't completely agree with it. It assumes a threat from everyone, in a situation where the threat is neither particularly common, nor dire.
So we're left with the old security vs. freedom argument again. There are good points on both sides. Some people who use guns, or take certain drugs, or drink alcohol, or what-have-you, do so safely and responsibly, for reasonable purposes. They should be free to do so. But others don't, and cause big trouble not just for themselves but innocent bystanders as well. So it's not always about "what's right for your family", because your family isn't always the only one affected when a person in an unstable condition finally goes over the edge.
We need to decide as a society which is worse:
1) Dealing with restrictions on the front end to keep out the people for whom access results in danger to themselves and others.
2) Dealing with cleaning up the mess when some irresponsible or malintentioned individual gets unrestricted access and starts abusing the priviledge.
In the past, we've decided on either side, depending on the issue. Personally, I think that our best bet is to go the informatin/education route, but to have the ability to try the parents of the kids that go crazy, to see if the parent was negligent in allowing the kid to consume content that may exacerbate an already unstable condition.
IMHO, there are a lot of parenting practices that are viewed as "okay" that are, aside from being "right" or "wrong", just plain irresponsible. If you don't want to take responsibility for what your kids are doing, then you shouldn't have kids. It's kind of a package deal. I'm not saying a parent is responsible for everything a kid does. But a parent has a responsibility of a certain "due diligence" (which must naturally decrease with age) not only to protect the kid from others, but to protect the kid from himself, and to protect others from the kid.