ESRB Supplements Rating System With Summaries

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) announced today that in addition to their standard ratings for video games, they'll begin including summaries of the games, highlighting the parts which earned the rating. As Giant Bomb points out, some are quite entertaining to read. The new policy drew praise from Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), both of whom have spoken out against "inappropriate" game content in the past. The summaries are viewable at the ESRB's website; thus far, they've only done them for games rated since July 1st.

Comments

Interesting

[dschmit1]

This will be interesting. I can see what they are trying to do, but its just going to entice some children into actually wanting the games based on the specific graphic nature that is depicted in the summaries. Interesting.

Re:Interesting

[WDot]

While Giant Bomb lampoons the ESRB summaries like this, I applaud them. Previously the only people who would give parents information about the inappropriateness of video game content were a few small parent group or Christian ministry sites that either were woefully incomplete in their games lists or tainted their reviews with particular ideologies. It's nice to see such graphic detail written by objective professionals. For example, Penny Arcade is definitely a niche game, but I can see why parents might be attracted to it--if they don't know better, the game does look pretty cute and cartoony. What could possibly land it an M rating?

Re:Interesting

[lysergic.acid]

i think it's a good thing that the ratings board is actually providing to the public more detailed explanations for the ratings they assign. however, like the MPAA's film rating system, there's still a lack of transparency in how the rating process is conducted--for instance, who is on the ratings board, how are these members selected, and what are their qualifications.

also, the AO rating for video games, like the NC-17 rating for films, is still in effect blacklisting creative works such that they are commercially inviable by making such works impossible to distribute. this means filmmakers & video game developers need to gain the approval of the ESRB/MPAA rating board before they can release their work, essentially giving each industry's self-appointed censors editorial power over all creative works that the mainstream public has access to.

one of the more ridiculous examples of this self-censorship process can be seen in the Manhunt 2 release for the PSP, which was crammed with so many blurry, staticky video filters and bloom effects overlaid one on top of the other, that it felt like you were watching a bad low-budget 80's grunge music video. within the game the main character was the one escaping from a psychiatric ward, but the developers were the ones who were actually stuck in an artistic straitjacket.

the ESRB and MPAA have no right to dictate what content the public should have access to, nor should they have any sort of editorial control over published works. this has given them an unreasonable level of influence over the media and our cultural landscape. but worse yet, they are not accountable to anyone except themselves. at least if the board were selected by the public via an open and transparent process that would give them some kind of democratic legitimacy. and while i don't know much about the ESRB, according to the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, the MPAA has had 2 clergy members on every ratings board since their film rating system was created. now, i'm fine with each religious establishment coming up with their own ratings for films/games/books/whatever, but why should the clergy be involved in the "official" rating system that everyone is subjected to.

there also seems to be no written or published rubric to ensure consistent ratings across all games/films. they don't solicit opinions from the public to determine how they should hand out ratings. who are they to decide what is acceptable for children/teenagers/mature adults and what's not? at the very least they should allow the public to give feedback on the ratings they assign. so if a film or game is given the rating of AO or NC-17 but public opinion does not agree with the rating, then the rating can be changed to reflect public opinion. perhaps the IMDb can add user ratings polls for films and games. it would be interesting to see how well public opinion matches up with actual assigned ratings.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares if their kids are exposed to profanity and violence? It's not like they don't hear those words a thousand times a day in 6th grade. Every person in the West is completely desensitized to all but the most viciously brutal torture scenes.. gunshot blood is nothing. Let them grow up and quit censoring their world. I love how they really nitpick on the Early Childhood rated games. LittleBigPlanet has "One ancillary character makes belching noises while talking to the player's character." FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WON'T SOMEBODY ANYBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN HERE?! BELCHING NOISES! IS THIS WHAT OUR TWISTED AND CORRUPT SOCIETY HAS COME TO?!

Slashdot

[gringer]

Slashdot: Game Experience May Change During Online Play

Slashdot is a game where individuals carry out unexpected attacks on boring everyday items. Individuals are occasionally rewarded with the 'moderator' skill, which allows them to negate or enhance other attacks. The attacks have real-world consequences, such as causing both computers and individual people to burst into flames, as well traffic congestion.

Re:Slashdot

[Tubal-Cain]

Slashdot is a game where individuals carry out unexpected attacks on boring everyday items.

Such as windows?

Re:Slashdot

[hcdejong]

NOBODY expects the Slashdot Inquisition! Our chief weapon is FUD...FUD and DDOS attacks...DDOS attacks and FUD....
Our two weapons are DDOS attacks and FUD... and ruthless bickering....
Our three weapons are DDOS attacks, FUD, and ruthless bickering...and an almost fanatical devotion to our own opinion....
Our four... no, Amongst our weapons... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as DDOS attacks, FUD...
I'll come in again.

ESRB

[mfh]

Rating summary: Penny Arcade Adventures: On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness, Episode 2 is a 'point-and-click' adventure game based on characters from the online comic Penny Arcade. Players battle enemies using a role-playing game style combat system, taking turns using fists and weapons to harm various robots and humans. Several cutscenes depict 'cartoony,' over-the-top instances of violence, including heads being blown off, characters sliced up by lasers, splattering blood and flying body parts. Humor is often based on bodily functions and 'by-products' (e.g., syringe injections full of urine) and sometimes sexuality (e.g., robots humping legs, testicles and taxidermy). The game also contains frequent use of strong profanity (e.g., "f*ck" and "sh*t").

Parents won't read these and if they do, it will only be after the kid has played it.

Why not just axe ratings all together?

[alvinrod]

I don't think the current rating system which just lumps things into categories like 'T' and 'M' work all that well. Take for instance, the hypothetical game "Bert and Ernie's Fucking Amazing Adventure!" where characters perform no violent actions at all and there is no sexual content in the game. The only catch is that every other word is the foulest profanity known to man. The game will probably be rated 'M' simply due to the language content, but being completely devoid of sexual or violent content, it's still fine for a child to play assuming you don't care if they pick up any fowl language.

Why not rate games based on a few categories: Violence, Sex, Language, etc. Each category is given a score where a higher score indicates more objectionable content. I think that this gives consumers looking at the box a better understanding of what the game's content is like without actually lumping it into some other person's idea of "Mature." This would also go a long way towards stopping games that are labeled "Adults Only" from essentially being banned from store shelves.

If you actually define the ratings fairly well you really don't need an ERSB as companies can actually determine where the ratings should be at themselves. It will probably never happen, but it's just another solution that's considerably better than the ERSB and all the incompetence and idiocy that comes along with it.

Re:Why not just axe ratings all together?

[prestomation]

....it's still fine for a child to play assuming you don't care if they pick up any fowl language.

I wouldn't want my kid talking like a bird, what the hell is wrong with you?

Re:Why not just axe ratings all together?

[Hexedian]

Parents (and people in general) already seem to have trouble keeping up with the current, simple system. Not to mention, there would be significantly less room on the box for the art.

ESRB, AKA useless

[ZekoMal]

Let's see...my Nintendo 64 Hexen has an M for mature rating, due to extreme gore and violence (also known as giant red squares falling away from 16-bit monsters as you blast them with magical attacks).

This same rating was slapped on GTA, and that same rating sat on Splinter Cell as well (a game where shooting someone in the head sometimes doesn't even kill the guy, and there is absolutely no blood, even when you cut a dudes throat on the third game).

They can slap those ratings on all day; kids are still gonna play them. Parents will give it a cursory glance, some cashiers don't even bother with an ID check when they sell a kid a game.

If you play a video game and get transformed into a violent, horrible person that then purchases an axe and steel toed boots so you can go slaughter people, chances are the video game was not the cause.

Of course, in a country of scape goats, video games are an easy way to pass the buck. Couldn't be the 24 hour news networks, that often times spend hours on the wanton slaughter of civilians in war, shootings, rape trials, and robberies. Couldn't possibly be that war is almost celebrated by our government as a 'tactic' to mend the economy (or ruin it if you can't finish it up fast). Couldn't possibly be because the parents of these kids don't seem to notice any subtle changes in their kid (such as no friends, suicidal tendencies, gun purchasing, shooting lessons, and books on resurrection). Couldn't possibly be the fault of parents or politicians. Nope, it has to be the video games that billions of people play; just like owning a car means that you drink and drive, and owning a gun means that you murder people regularly...oh wait.

Here's how it will go

[ucblockhead]

"Mommy, I want 'AssRaper 2'!"

She will then dutifully go to Gamestop and ask for "AssRaper 2", the box of which will feature a masked man with a butcher's smock and a bloody chainsaw and will feature the add text "More Carnage than AssRaper!" and "With Decapitation Physics!" The warning label will have a large 'M' and will say "Rated for Mature audiences only because of massive death counts, realistic exploding bodies and scenes of torture". She will buy it, give it to her ten year old for Christmas.

Around March, she will walk in on her kid when he has reached a scene where a female NPC shows up topless. She will then promptly have a complete cow and write her congressman demanding that children be protected from this vile content.