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.
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.
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?
(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.