Slashdot Mirror
Modern Games and Technology Challenging ESRB's Effectiveness
The Entertainment Software Rating Board has been around for 15 years now, overcoming an ineffective start and a host of controversial events to become a fairly well-respected ratings agency. However, as this article at The Escapist points out, the world of video games is changing, and the ESRB does not seem to be adapting along with it.
"The most pressing problem is the ESRB's reluctance to address online interactions. Seeing as we're moving more and more toward online and internet-enabled games, this inevitably limits the ESRB's authority as a ratings board. Although the ESRB rates the submitted developer content within online games, these ratings are always qualified by an important disclaimer: 'Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB.' To date, this has meant that the rating given to the designed game content doesn't cover chat and other forms of player-to-player communication. That's unfortunate, because the ESRB's intimate relationship with the game industry could provide it with a unique vantage point from which to evaluate aspects of online games that are beyond the purview of other would-be raters, including the quality of the game's moderation system, programmed restrictions on chat and known player demographics."
Every time someone takes their kids outside they run the risk of those kids being exposed to god knows what, I don't see how online experiences are any different.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I can't see how they would be able to rate online games.
The fact of the matter is, they can only rate the underlying content of the game, not the interactions in the game.
In a lot of games you can manipulate environment, and create scenarios which isn't covered in the rating.
For example, make a NPC standing behind a cow and moving in a certain way, making it look like he is fornicating with said cow.
There is no way they can rate against things like this. The above example may be harmless as it's only insinuating something sexual, however, it wasn't intentional in the game.
Same thing can be said of online play.
The moment you introduce human interaction, anything can (and will) happen.
Spore got entire solar systems inhabited by several "races" of penis' for crying out loud.
That's a pretty innocent rated game.
So alternatively, all online interactions should be rated "M+: Enter at own risk".
tl;dr: They can rate the underlying game, but cannot rate human interaction, and thus can't accurately rate online play, imo.
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
You know why they don't/can't rate online experiences? Here's an example of World of Warcraft Trade chat when in a city:
[2. Trade] Deringer: ANAL [Attack]
[2. Trade] Arrtthhaass: ANAL [Corpse Explosion]
[2. Trade] Treqir: ANAL [Injection]
[2. Trade] Arrtthhaass: lol
[2. Trade] Yosim: STFU an stay out of trade
[2. Trade] Deringer: lol u have downs
They should just design a few tier labels to classify online interaction types.
Controlled - Anonymous multiplay only. All user content must be approved. Chat limited to preset phrases.
Friends only - Unfiltered user content and open chat from Friends Only.
Unfiltered - Open online community. Supervision recommended under 17.
That would at least let parents know what's going on in the game. It's a lot more informative than a simple: "Online interactions not Rated"