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."

Comments

RSAC

[syrinx]

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.

Sounds good...

[Slow Smurf]

As long as they do the same for movies.

Sorry, buddy

[Red Flayer]

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.

The ESRWho?

[cgenman]

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.

ESRB has PSV info

[p7]

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.

it's already done.

[joystickgenie]

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.

A better solution

[hambonewilkins]

Every game should ship with an airhorn and a flashing light. Now, bear with me here: low-level games, like, say, Lion King or Mario Sunshine, will flash a green light (the light will be affixed to the top of the box and should be the size of a soda can). The airhorn will let out a mild sound, much like a bike horn when touched. This is warning parents - hey, there might be some jumping or kicking involved, but mostly it is okay.

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.