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."
I think the traffic light system is a good idea if only because of the seperate ratings for s l & v... I don't care about violence, but I can always do without excessive profanity and sex... Previously I had to find independent reviews to get that info.
Oh... and I know this isn't FRIST PSOT!!!!!
--Nick
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.
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
Kinney believes that the industry would be better able to defend itself with an independent system, rather one that was set up by the industry itself.
So when do Movies get their own independant system like this? If we "need" one for games and TV already has (a detailed) one, when do the movies get their own version of this? Although, does anyone know if the TV reviews are actually independant or by the producers/networks?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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.
to restore the faith of consumers in the game ratings system.
Did I miss something? Was faith ever lost in the ESRB? The ESRB didn't create the "hot coffee" mod, and last I knew they were quite capable of rating a game "M for mature" if it contained sex or violence.
The only thing that "Hot Coffee" made me loose a little more faith in are parents who refuse to care what they buy their children - or talking heads screaming about how videogames are apparently murdering babies in their sleep.
instead of judging a game to be appropriate for a certain age
But I think that judging a game by a certain age is a perfect rating system. It's worked for movies for decades. If I could change one thing about the ESRB rating system, it would be to use the age limit instead of an obscure symbol. Current ratings are:
"EC, E, E10, T, M, AO, RP"
Those would become:
"EC, E, 10, 13, 17, 18, RP"
Although until I looked up the ratings to type them out above, I didn't know that an "E" for "Everyone" was actually a more severe rating than "Early Childhood" (so clearly "E" is not really "everyone").
Nobody would have a problem thinking: "Gee, this game is rated '18', I wonder if I should buy it for little Timmy" - but if they see a benign "M" symbol, parents are not necessarily going to make a mental connection if they're not looking out for it.
I wonder if that 7-year-old could go buy an R-rated action movie without a parent accompanying him.
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.
Good question. As far as I'm aware there's laws against it which are pretty fairly enforced (as the store can be fined if they sell to minors). But letting your kids watch an R rated film is still legal I believe. That's just an example of the age old american way: violence? A-ok. Tits? No way!
How we know is more important than what we know.
For, say, Grand Theft Auto, the game would ship with a giant red light (the size of your head) that flashes like a strobe light. An airhorn, much like those used on a tug boat, will sound when the game is picked up. That way, parents can know - "Hey, warning! I should pay attention to this!"
Obviously we can't trust parents to see the big letter M on the front or take note of either the game's title or graphics on the box. Parents must just be picking up these boxes and staring straight ahead when they throw them on the counter. My solution of enormous siren/light combo will clearly inform parents and at a minimal cost of $5-25 per box.
God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
Is the rating system a law?
No, the rating system is strictly voluntary and carries no force of law
and
Who enforces the ratings? While the decision to enforce the rating system is purely voluntary, the National Association of Theatre Owners estimate that the majority of theaters observe the Classification and Rating Administration's guidelines
Sounds pretty clear to me that the ratings are not enforced by law in any way. This includes the actual rating of the movies and the actual enforcement of the ratings.
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
Wow. So you let kids into R-rated movies in the US? No wonder Hillary Clinton is on a crusade.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It would be awesome if someone actually could sell a game with nudity in it these days. I remember back when Duke Nukem 3D was out and there wasn't any coverage but recently with the video game industry becoming increasingly mainstream we have a ban on all nudity.
;-)
A video game containing but not allowing access to nudity (GTA) is switched to adult cause of some boobs and therefore EVERYONE BANS ITS SALE until there is a new version. So apparently the british can see tits on TV but we can't allow a 17+ mature only game from including it. Let alone we can't even sell it if its adult only (18+)!
Of course its all in our imagination that video games are being targetted. California banning violent video games for minors is so normal. Cause you know I never noticed that bond movies were rated PG-13 and contained violence.
Its all in the heads of the video game industry! They are being treated fairly
which is why they say, right there under the rating, what it's rated for, just like under the rating for a movie.
Problem is that the detailed ratings for movies and games are on the back of the box, but at (for example) Target, Wal-Mart, and Meijer stores, game boxes are behind locked glass and cannot be rotated to read the detailed rating, unlike movie boxes.
Well, sorta. Theatres generally don't sell the tickets to kids, but kids can generally get in with a ticket (on the assumption that an adult responsible for the child bought the ticket). Generally speaking, theatres trying to keep up good appearances (most of them) won't allow kids in.
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
But in too many stores, all that a parent can see is "EA Games The Sims 2 for PlayStation 2, rated Teen (13+)" because "Crude Humor, Sexual Themes, Violence" is on the back of the box, which is behind a locked glass door.
Yeah, but scumbag theatre owners who don't give a shit are free to sell tickets to minors. Great system.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Considering how people generally don't (most people still think it's a law anyway), I'd say it is a great system. It's working quite well, even if it doesn't sound like it would.
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
Profanity Sex Violence (PSV) Ratings differ from the ESRB in that they... ...are inspired by the BTK killer?
Next thing you know we'll be listening to nothing but commercial jingles on the radio and eating at Taco Bell.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
THINK OF THE MOTHER FUCKING CHILDREN!! IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, YOU ARE IS WIT H THE MOLEST!!!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Yep, you're so into freedom you are willing to silence others to prove it. Genius.
How we know is more important than what we know.
And your conspiracy theory nonsense about EA being involved with selling porn to minors, possibly even child porn(yes, folks, scan back through his posts to find the reference, if you feel so inclined) grows tiring. Especially when there are, real, actual nefarious things afoot in the world.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
This is a good idea. Describing the types of violence/mayhem/sex/etc. in games would go farther to inform parents of what they are buying their kids. Unfortunatly, as most of us know, a lot of parents can't be trusted to be "informed" and other gibberish like that. So what we need to do is take this PSV and attach some sort of suggested age. You know, "This game has comic mischief, but no dirty words or sex. Best for kids ages 10 and up, in general."
That way, parents would get a better idea by just comparing the suggested age with their kid's current age, and then look at the other items individually. (Unfortunatly, they probably won't know what their kid can handle and will probably give it to him/her anyway. After all, parental responsibility is SO early 90s.)
I highly back this and...
Wait, why does that sound familiar...
Honestly, people, is that so difficult? Don't put up with stores that put things behind glass and then get annoyed when you want to look at them.
They can either a) stop putting them behind glass, b) not mind when you ask to see them before giving them money, or c) lose a customer.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
This entire discussion is completely pointless. The ESRB can keep rating whatever games they want as long as game publishers support them.
And people have forgotten the reason we rate movies, TV, and games with voluntary ratings is that there are 1st amendment issues if the government were to step in, so no one can make the video game people use any rating system at all, and the fact they already have a system would make it much harder to overcome the 1st amendment issues, as the courts tend to find for the 'least restrictive' means.
And, no, a few supposed 'issues' aren't going to cut it, when these 'issues' are, respectively, some sexual content in a game rated for 17 year-olds, and Ken and Barbie nudity in a game for kids. (You know, kids can actually buy Ken and Barbie dolls. With a few mods to the actual dolls, they can be a lot more obscene than The Sims.) If there was massive abuse where hardcore porn was rated E, possibly the courts would allow the government to step in, but there isn't.
It's possible that someone could step in with an extra rating, and either get it on the box or issue labels to stores to put on the box. However...who is going to pay for that? The game publishers already have a system they pay for, they're not getting another.
This whole article is an excersize in mental masturbation. There is no 'hugely lucrative contract' that someone can 'win'. People who make games, of their own free will, send the games off to be rated. No one makes them do that, no one can make them use another service. ESRB doesn't even have to fight these people.
And this idiot who thinks he can use 'differing community standards' to fight them is, well, an idiot. That's obscenity he's thinking of, and that has nothing to do with what kids can be exposed to. That's stuff that is so bad it can just be outlawed, period, and no video game, not even Hot Coffee, would qualify. Almost no hardcore porn qualifies.
If he thinks there is some law that forbids labeling a game for children and putting the word 'shit' in it if the community doesn't approve of that, he's sadly mistaken.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Yeah, yeah, it's a big debate. On the one hand you've got responsible parents who declare they should be free to raise their kids as they see fit. On the other hand you've got parents who starve their kids, lock em in closets, hit em with things, force them to watch porn and even rape them. They have the right to raise their kids as they see fit right? No? Well which is it? Not only is the child's welfare at stake, there's also the affect this child will have on society when it grows up.
How we know is more important than what we know.
For example, the movie, Minority Report, carries red for violence and profanity and yellow for sex.
For all I try I simply can't remember anything close to sex in that film. They had nude female bodies, yes, but they were lying in a pool hooked up to machinery. Only someone who's totally perverted anyway would even think the word "sex" upon seeing the Precog's Temple. Other than that, I don't even recall a kissing scene.
Let's not hand these people our video games until they can get their damned facts straight.
...with another. I'm not entirely sure what that's going to accomplish; there's still going to be very little legal clarity regarding who's responsible if a minor is sold a violent game or is bought one by a parent/guardian.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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.
Let's be honest most people outside of the games industry are morons.
They believe Hot Coffee is horrendous and all. The fact is that code was NOT available in the retail package, a mod had to be used for it. There's about a million mods for Morrowind, each one can change the experience up from making it more mild, to making it M (the "real body" setup for instance adds nudity... There is a cat fighting mod, and others) This doesn't change the original rating of the game and it shouldn't! ESRB understands that code available in the pure form in the retail package is what they grade NOT the potential for mods.
If one was to do potential mods no game would be under a M because I bet if We wanted We could make a dildo, a hatchet and racial slurs in every game out there if I really wanted to. Sims 2? I can easily mess with that game, Morrowind? check. GTA? oh yeah. hell go back farther, Half-life? Never Winter Nights? Quake even? yeah, they are all modable to an extent and you can make them more mature.
But the point is this. The ESRB understands this, the only reason they upgraded this game's rating is because of the public outcry and pressure from Washington. However the ESRB also understands at least how the games work. If we want an independant group, we'll get either people like Jack Thompson, or people like those concerned mothers who actually have no knowledge about what their kids do. "Little johnie is learning about sex from GTA! Take two must be perverts" (If you can't find three errors in that sentance, then you must not know her kid's name is Jimmy, what a caring parent)
I also would welcome a traffic light system, however it needs to be clear and easy to understand like these games are, we get exactly the problems with the games on the back cover, but grading on those is better then generic M or It'd just let us know if I'm getting my daily recommended hard core violence fills.
Personally I don't care about ratings, I'm 24, so even when games get M I just sigh because I've seen too many gorefests that just had no substance, maybe if they put a score on it to say how fun it was I'd be interested, and by that I mean REAL fun not that magazine bullshit of "We like this game". But alas that's impossible (personally some of my favorite games are ones I can just enjoy the game casually like Ratchet and Clank, Katamari Damacy, and Shadows of the Colossus. GTA and morrowind are both up there as well.)
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.
Why not simply label games G, PG, PG13, R and NC-17? EVERYBODY is familiar with the movie ratings, and even those include descriptors now. It seems so simple, because parents will then know to compare an R rated game to an R rated movie, and they are probably familiar with the content contained in such a film. With the descriptors, certanly there would be much less confusion.
If you read the article, it is basically saying that another company - Media Data Corporation - believes that they can do a better job of rating games than the ESRB currently does.
The quote that really turns me off of MDC's "stoplight" idea is where the Next Generation author notes "Apart from a desire to take over what would be a hugely lucrative contract, we wanted to know what David Kinney, head of MDC, had against ESRB's way of working..." (emphasis mine)
The autor just nailed this new rating scheme on the head. The "stoplight" proposal really isn't anything newer or better than what is being used by the ESRB now. It's simply that this particular company wants all the alleged "payoff money" for themselves!
It looks to me like the folks at MDC are just being greedy and hypocritical. As far as I'm concerned, the ESRB rating are good enough as is. Like many other posters here have stated, it only takes a parent a few seconds to look at the ratings label on the front, the label on the back, and the artwork/screenshots on the box to see how (in)appropriate a game is. If a parent can't be spared the whole 30 seconds it takes to read the obvious warnings, then they shouldn't be allowed to complain when they find that their kids are playing objectionable games.
Jack Thompson? Is that you?
Is it really? While I wouldn't advocate giving porn to 7 year olds, there's very definitely something that doesn't sound right about there being a law telling parents what type of content is ok to pass by their children.
As far as I know, there's nothing of the sort.
Obviously we should adopt a "Jack Thompson" scheme. This is where the rating is replaced with a letter representing which social outcast the game turns you into.
For instance, Grand Theft Auto would be rated "CK" for Cop Killer.
Sims 2 would simply be rated "P" for Pedophile.
Seeing how Doom 3 is a murder simulator, it would obviously get an "M" rating.
Lego Starwars would be rated "W" for Whore. Why? Well because P for Prostitute was already taken!
Ill Second that! People should decide or not decide what to do for their kids, its not the governments job!
You can measure it completely objectively. You just get a bunch of guys to watch the screen standing naked and measure the average angle. A droopy -90 degrees means no sexual content, 0 is medium, ranging up to a proud upstanding maximum of 90 for hot! hot! hot!
The REAL problem lies in asshat parents/grandparents who buy these games for their children then hear about the Hot Coffee Mod or hack to remove nudity dithering in Sims 2. They screan and yell about how children are being trained how to murder, rape and pillage(even though nobody is), demanding that the government step in and take over thier parenting responsibilities.
If it suddenly became *illegal* to sell certain games to children, absolutely nothing would change. Retarded parent would still buy the games for their kids, regardless(or due to) ever-changing ratings systems printed all over the boxes. Then they'll scream and yell some more. It will eventually get to the point where you won't be able to buy any games whatsoever due to Stores not willing to face the criminal charges brought against them when some religious nut finds out that Billy is playing with naked animal avatars in ToonTown.
This BS needs to be stopped now. There's nothing wrong with the current Rating system. Changing it will only confuse parents who don't even know how to turn on a PS2. Media outlets need to be held accountable for the lies and idiocy they report to the non-gamer masses.