Slashdot Mirror
The ESRB Doesn't Take Games Seriously?
Eurogamer has word of comments by the president of developer Factor 5, Julian Eggebrecht. The veteran game developer had some extremely pointed things to say about the ESRB, an organization he painted as 'not taking games seriously'. Says Eggebrecht, "I would be happy if in games we could talk about homosexuality, but we're not even at the point where we can admit that humans have heterosexual relationships, and that is a real problem - and it tends to show that games are not being seen, even by our own ratings boards, as an artform ... It's a flat out bizarre system...It makes it even harder for games than movies because we don't have the intermediate ratings. They don't really tell you what they will object to - they just say 'well, follow the standards that have been set before', which is a problem if you want to push the envelope." There's further discussion of this issue at Ars' Opposable Thumbs blog, which points out that the console makers hold some responsibility here too. Meanwhile, Rockstar is asking for help from the wider games industry to help them to fight the ESRB/BBFC rulings.
If you have a great game, it really doesn't matter what the rating is. Anyone would go and buy the game, even if you had to order it online, or pick it up at the local tiny computer store rather than wal-mart. This is how games like Doom got going; I remember seeing Doom, wolfenstein 3d, etc. for sale in random places when no regular stores were carrying games like that. It may not be as quick a return, but if the game is that good, then it will overcome the censors and be successful anyways (see mortal kombat series also.)
stuff |
Do these ratings have any legal weight? Surely PC gamers can just pay for and download the games that they want. Do people still go to shops and buy a shiny disc in a plastic case?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
The ESRB takes games too seriously - it's the gamers they don't take seriously.
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
Do we really need content descriptors such as "Crude Humor", "Alcohol Reference", and most shocking of all, "Comic Mischief"?c riptors
http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp#des
Originally, it was to protect the game industry from heavy handed government action. But lately, it has been even more heavy handed, because it isn't required to respect the first amendment, in order to appease all the helicopter parents that can't read labels and think videogames == kids.
However, there is only one real reason or goal that underlies the ESRBs actions and encompasses all of the above.
To keep getting paid for a job that doesn't require any heavy lifting or thinking.
And it will continue that way until videogame companies go the route of comic publishers, giving the ratings system the finger and putting out good "adult-only" title as out-of-store PC-only games until stores and consoles realize that there is money there and they show the ratings system who is the servant.
Or, does the video game industry have enough power (read: money) yet to get government to change the rules?
Obviously not, or some senators wouldn't be calling for probes into video games. They don't seem to have a problem with their buddies in Hollywood, though...
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
I think part of the problem is the AO rating, It looks too much like XXX in movies. I think if it was changed from Ao to 18+ that would take away a lot of the inherent fear that AO titles have. It is less threatening and it says exactly what age group it is for. I do think that is still a band aid solution but it is a start. A huge part of the problem is that all the console makers will not allow AO products on their gaming system and the big chains will not sell it. The industry needs to grow out of this impression that video games are for kids. The average gamer is in his 30's, they need to wake up to the huge market base out there they are missing out on.
Let's hope this means the ESRB will go the way of the National Legion of Decency. That is, maybe people will just stop paying attention.
Or, does the video game industry have enough power (read: money) yet to get government to change the rules?
The ESRB is the industry. Jesus Christ, how many times does it need to be said? The ESRB is comprised of representatives from the industry itself and is funded by dues paid by the industry. A quick glance of their web site would have confirmed this for you - what do you think "self-regulatory" means? All ESRB members are signatories of its charter and rules. That includes Rockstar, that includes Factor 5.
The ESRB has nothing whatsoever to do with government. That's why it exists; to head off government intervention.
I would be happy if in games we could talk about homosexuality...
And how would that conversation be fun exactly? How would it entertain your audience? Have the gamers of the world been asking for games that "talk about homosexuality"?
The game industry is facing a new threat. It's this Hollywood-ization factor. Game makers are starting to forget their audience and their mission, just as many film-makers have forgotten.
To game and film makers: You are in the entertainment business. No one wants to hear about your ridiculous opinions on politics, culture, or anything else. No one wants to play a videogame where the object of the game is to maximize the game-creators' social climbing.
Tell a story. Show us some nice graphics and animation. Challenge us. Focus on game play.
Leave your teaching, preaching, whining, awareness-building, and all the rest of your nonsense -- anything that's about you and not about the audience -- for your blog entries that no one reads.
I would be happy if in games we could talk about homosexuality, but we're not even at the point where we can admit that humans have heterosexual relationships Apparently Eggebrecht has never played The Sims. In The Sims your characters can have relationships with whoever you want. This includes homosexual relations, and you can even have several partners at the same time. They even let you have sex (censored of course, and called a "woohoo") with a same sex partner. This is a T rated game too. I don't see a need to "talk about" homosexuality in games. If the developer wants homosexuality in the game they should just make it happen and not try to draw extra attention to it, like in The Sims. It should just be a normal thing and the characters shouldn't act weird about it, or it shouldn't be in there at all. It's just like real life. I don't care if you're gay, but you don't have to go around telling everyone you meet you are and putting stickers on your car, etc.
So why does more violence and sex make it more of an art form? How about more of a plot? More character development? I can understand about artists wanting no boundaries and not wanting their creativity stifled in any way, but I don't think boundaries are always bad. Eggebrecht draws a parallel with movies and complains about how much movies can get away with compared to video games. Well, let's look at movies in the old days, where they had to work around more limits. In a way that gave them the opportunity to be MORE creative, because they had to SUGGEST more than they could display. Hitchcock movies are VERY suspenseful, even though the violence and gore were pretty tame by today's standards.
You will always have ratings boards or something similar because some consumers WANT them. One person's "art" may offend someone else, so people want to know what they're getting into when they watch a movie or play a game. You may have the right to create whatever content you want, but you can't force me to watch it, and you can't force ESRB or anyone else to give it an "E for everyone" rating.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
That's not entirely true. The ESRB is caving in to government pressure and kissing politicians asses to try and keep the U.S. government from creating a ratings board. Much of the asshatery that is going on can be traced back to the influence of Jack Thompson who, as a snake-bellied moral grandstander, has cozied up to a number of politicians who should know better and fired them up over the hot coffee scandal.
This is the fall out, the ESRB is scared that it will be replaced with a real censor board, and so now they're ending up being stooges for the government even though they're supposed to the be the industries stooges.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
We need ratings. I said it. We need a group to help parents understand what level the game is at. There should be set policies about what rating a game should get. Right now there is a lot of gray area. Now me personally, I don't buy the "art form" garbage going around but at the same time they don't have much of a choice due to this gray area.
What we need more than anything are basic guidelines, or rather a checklist that a publisher must fill out about each game
1) Does this game contain nudity? (yes/no).
As a future parent... i don't give a damn if it's an art form or not, if billy is 6 years old he doesn't need to see that content. However if he's 16... I might be more apt to let him depending on my feelings about his maturity.
2) Does the game contain adult language (yes/no).
Adult language would contain curse words (S***, F***... you get the idea). It would also contain sexually explicit language... as to me that falls under ADULT language.
3) Does the game contain graphic violence? If so, are you jumping on their head? Are you shooting them in the head? Are you using a flame thrower in 1080i that slowly melts their skin as they scream in horrible pain?
While the above is a generalization, you can easily see the age differences with the examples.
The three above cover 99% of the problems we have encountered. Instead of having the agency rate the game, have the agency monitor how publishers rate their games. Create a system that is easy to follow and that publishers are then responsible for the content in their games and they know before they go up to the ESRB what their rating will be. If they mislabel it it will be obvious and they will be fined.
But right now... we don't have that. WE have a group of random individuals who rate games who have motives and different levels of beliefs on what is sexually explicit or not. We need to agree upon what makes a game this or that. Forget art. C'mon... that's an excuse. I'm glad you think it's art, it's still you pounding a hooker...
The problem comes with, WHO should be making up these rules. That's what the fights about right now. ESRB thinks they should, parents think they should, publishers think they should... so who should decide? Everyone has a motive for their own personal gain.
I think that "Eurogamer" being the first word in the summary should have been a hint right there.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!