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.
To make a great game usually takes a lot of cash. Using alternate distribution channels severely lowers your sales potential. While it's a nice thought, I doubt no matter how good, the big blockbuster games couldn't pay for themselves if they couldn't sell retail.
Not true. For a game to be successful, it has to hit the shelves. Since NOBODY carries AO games (the rating reserved for porno and GTA:SA), you have to be careful to avoid that scarlet letter.
The problem, of course, is any comparison against movies/TV makes this look moronic. If a game was flaunting naked breasts, it would get an AO rating (fundamentally an NC-17 rating for a movie). Meanwhile, movies with topless shots can squeeze in an AA rating if they're careful. Not to mention violence - your average episode of CSI is nastier than what we see in most videogames. Headcrabs are creepy, but they're nothing on that episode of Miami where a guy was wanking off and a giant lampful of maggots fell on him... maggots that were later revealed, graphically, to be coming from the head of a live-but-dying woman on the floor above.
Which, of course, is why I laugh my ass off about political panderers who talk about "tightening up" the ESRB.
Lots of big blockbuster games are terrible. Lots of small scale indie games are fantastic. Take a title like Zee-3's "Naked War" http://www.naked-war.com/ - a play-by-email game similar to Advance Wars on the Nintendo DS - written by a 2 person team (albeit with shedloads of experience), very cheap to create compared to big titles, and insanely good fun to play.
There's absolutely no correlation between the cost of production and how enjoyable a game ends up being.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
The ratings are used as a prefilter on your brick-and-mortar selection by said shops' managers. So while they have no legal weight other than age verification at the point of sale a la movies, they impact your ability to obtain a physical copy of some games. Walmart was one of the first and most successful to do this sort of thing among the well known store brands and they're still more conservative than say, EB or (insert mall software shop here.) As to why people still patronize brick and mortar stores, it has several factors.
Most importantly is the available bandwidth in most homes. While you may be sitting on your cable modem on an under-subscribed segment or on your FiOS link or whatever, most of America, and indeed most of the gaming world has less than a 1Mbps pipe. This makes 7+GB downloads intolerable, especially since most of us have alternate uses for our internet service. Yes you can get a browser that will throttle your download in order to allow other traffic, but that just slows down the download.
Alternatively, some of us like having backup copies of the games we play and don't trust magnetic media for it.
Further, there is still a strong psychological tie to purchasing something physical, which trend is especially prevalent in the previous generations buying for their children and grandchildren. Think about it: would all of these businesses maintain shop space in all these cities and personnel to staff them if it weren't profitable. It's not like it's a lark that a single chain recently took that has yet to prove itself.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
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.
A modern video game (above the level of Xbox Live Arcade material) requires a staff of 20 or more people (not including voice work) and can cost millions of dollars and years of work to develop. This means that money is a VERY real consideration in videogame development. No one is going to spend millions to develop a game that only a handful of stores in the whole country will carry.
Now, you can point out that doing a cheap flash game or simple tetris-like title can be done much cheaper and easier than a full-fledged game. But that's clearly not the kind of game the OP was referring to.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
I don't think it could ever have created the hype if it wasn't the 5th(?) game in a massively popular series. A new game, without a massive PR budget, would have serious trouble with an AO rating. Hell, look at Manhunt II; Rockstar didn't just say, "Hah! GTA:SA sold great once it was AO, who cares if they AO this game!" they pushed the release date so they could rework the game to get an M rating.
If anyone knows the difference in sales, it's Rockstar.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I take it you prefer dime-a-dozen hollywood direct-to-DVD releases to art-house movies?
For some of us, using our brain is a form of entertainment.
Though I don't see how homosexuality would make for a good game, I welcome games which actually bring more than just superficial action. And I'm sure somebody would be able to make a good game out of that subject (or in fact _any_ kind of sexuality, if given the chance. It's about time games started tackling more delicate subject manner in a thoughtful way.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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
Right. That's why Michael Moore is out of business and makes no money. Agree with him or not, you can't deny the fact his films are political, and quite popular (and make money).
The fact is that people are entertained by political, cultural, etc films. Why should games be any different? The problem is so far those political, cultural, etc games are just bad, racist, or both (super-columbine-massacre was bad, those nazi extermination camp games are racist (and likely very bad, I've never played them). In any media it's a lot harder to make politics or culture entertaining. Just because YOU don't want those games doesn't mean others don't.
AccountKiller
It's already easy to talk about homosexuality in games. Just jump on Xbox Live.
You may also encounter discourse on race relations.
"If a game was flaunting naked breasts, it would get an AO rating (fundamentally an NC-17 rating for a movie)."
Incorrect.
Example. Playboy, the Mansion. It not only flaunts naked breasts, it revels and rejoices in them. They are everywhere. Some of the characters cannot wait to get topless in any situation. You are encouraged to photograph them repeatedly. Then, there is the "sex". Ok, so the characters are still partially dressed while having this "sex" (Once you've seen it, you realize it is not actually sex, although the shower animation is pretty close), however, it is still more graphic than GTA:SA. You, as the player controlling Hugh Hefner, are encouraged to have as much sex as possible, with as many different partners. You are encouraged to have multiple girlfriends all living with you under the same roof. Fantasy? Sure. Unrealistic standard? You betcha. Moreso than a Barbie Doll.
Anyone known what Playboy The Mansion is Rated? Anyone? Anyone?
M For Mature.
It makes GTA:SA look like GTA the original, as far as nudity and sex is concerned.
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams