ESRB To Automate Game Rating

The Entertainment Software Rating Board, which has struggled to keep up with the flood of games produced for app stores and other online markets, is now taking steps to automate the rating process. "Starting on Monday the ratings board plans to begin introducing computers to the job of deciding whether a game is appropriate for Everyone, for Teens or for Mature gamers (meaning older than 16). To do this the organization has written a program designed to replicate the ingrained cultural norms and predilections of the everyday American consumer, at least when it comes to what is appropriate for children and what isn’t. ... the main evaluation of hundreds of games each year will be based not on direct human judgment but instead on a detailed digital questionnaire meant to gauge every subtle nuance of violence, sexuality, profanity, drug use, gambling and bodily function that could possibly offend anyone. The questionnaire, to be filled out by a game’s makers (with penalties for nondisclosure), is like a psychological inquest into the depths of all the things our culture considers potentially unwholesome."

Comments

six days in Falujah

[SharpFang]

six days in Falujah would get T(13+) for moderate-to-high amounts of violence, no sexual themes, limited or no use of profanity, no drug use, no gambling and no bodily functions.

Re:six days in Falujah

[Vectormatic]

speak for yourself, i dont use moderate to high amounts of violence in my daily life (or drugs/gambling for that matter)

everything reduced to a meaningless number

[Hazel Bergeron]

I'm fed up with decisions being made by questionnaires and computers. I think we should stop tolerating analyses of health, fitness, credit, intelligence, etc based on simplistic tests and numbers. The expert system is one of the most horrible simplifications of human judgement ever to grace the confused world of AI, and is almost without exception implemented with some bias to fulfil a pre-determined aim and reinforce some prejudice.

Re:everything reduced to a meaningless number

[Eivind]

But -any- rating-system that in the end, delivers a recommendation for age-group, is going to have to choose some prejudice.

You have to compare different sorts of content and weigh them against eachother.

How does *this* sort of violence stack up against *this* sort of sex ?

There is no single correct answer to that, indeed any extreme is thinkable from "Any amount of sex is okay, but no violence" to the opposite extreme of "any amount of violence is okay, but no sex"

It doesn't really matter if the score is by computer+questionaire or by human judgement or by any other method. There simple *isn't* one single correct answer.

The method of judging, isn't the problem. The fundamental task, is.

I tend to ignore the age-recommendations completely - instead if I'm in doubt about a certain game being apropriate or not for my kids, I will play it myself for a while. (usually you don't have to play it for -that- long to get a fair guesstimate)

Re:everything reduced to a meaningless number

[Dhalka226]

Why?

I mean, look, I share your feelings -- I truly do. I think the fact that our lives can be boiled down to a set of various numbers is pretty disgusting in a lot of ways.

But the reason we do this is because, culturally, we feel we need to make these decisions and we have devised specific criteria for them. We feel there is value to a number that denotes how good we are with credit, how much of a risk we are to insurers, and other such. If that is the case, then I would prefer it be done with computers and done fairly and uniformly. If I'm going to be denied a house because of one of my numbers, or have my insurance rates hiked because of another, I want it to at least be the same situation for others in my situation and not because somebody forgot to carry the one on their worksheet or interpreted my response different than a different examiner.

In that sense, this is a really good use of computers. If there is any value to the ESRB system (which I'm not particularly sure of), then it may as well be administered uniformly and fairly.

Now whether or not the system itself has any value is certainly open to debate in each case. Whether it is really the best choice for our society is certainly open for debate. And of course, whether the tests are an accurate representation of what we hope they're an accurate representation of is open for debate as well. But these systems exist because the people who use them find value. The people who are debating lending you money want to know your credit score; insurance providers want the answers to their questionnaires; many stores use ESRB ratings to determine whether or not games are stocked and (some!) parents use them as a guide for what is an isn't appropriate for our children.

If it's a monster, it's one of our own creation, by our will. It may be sad, but it is what we want--and so long as we want it, it's what we deserve. May as well be consistent about it. Boiling disparate things down into a number is, at the very least, a result that is fairly unambiguous.

This isn't automation...

[Phoenix0]

This is shifting the work to the game developers, whose staff has to fill out the extremely long questionnaires. Which might make one wonder, what's the point of the rating board in the first place?

Re:This isn't automation...

[91degrees]

The developers already do most of the work. They develop games to fit the rating. They don't produce a game and then wonder what the rating's going to be.

And they had to fill in the questionnaire anyway. The ESRB doesn't play the game through to the end. They rely on honesty from the developers. The developers will be honest because getting a too low a rating will typically deter serious adult gamers from certain types of games.

Re:This isn't automation...

[Anonymous Coward]

They already had to do this for years. I've done the ESRB paperwork for games. Most ESRB submissions are put in with an extremely long form filled out, disclosing which red flags you hit. Then the developer has to put together a gameplay/cutscene video with an example of every single thing in the game that may change the rating, plus everything in the form. You have to list how many instances (and the circumstances) of things like tobacco use are in game. You know what this does? Makes is so the ESRB doesn't have to watch the video and the developer doesn't have to make it. Which will make a lot of low-paid employees very happy. Those videos were a pain to make. Oh, and the old system had the same penalties for non-disclosure this one does.

In the end, nothing really changed.

Rediculous

[TubeSteak]

The board says that publishersâ(TM) answers to the digital questionnaire will determine a gameâ(TM)s rating and that a human wonâ(TM)t review it until after the game is out the door.

As stated in a draft of the boardâ(TM)s news release, âoeAll games rated via this new process will be tested by E.S.R.B. staff shortly after they are made publicly available to verify that disclosure was complete and accurate.â

Their computer spits out a rating based on a questionaire and nobody double checks until after the public launch?
The ESRB is turning itself into a rubber stamp organization.

Re:Rediculous

[Anonymous Coward]

ESRB is already a rubber stamp organisation. They have always relied upon honestly from the developer (or publisher) as to the content of the game. We make games to fit a rating; I have been on projects where we have removed story elements and reduce particle effects in game to ensure that we get the rating that will make the game available to largest audience.

the Questionnaire

[mustPushCart]

Why dont we just put the answers to the questionnaire online and then any parent who cares enough to read them will know exactly what they are buying. That way no one will be judging at what age you can play a game and the ... unpleasantness of games is no longer reduced to a number. Parents who are sensitive to topics like drug abuse or gun control or sex can read the questionnaire and decide for themselves on a per topic basis.

Re:the Questionnaire

[mustPushCart]

The idea is to wash liability off the ESRB and everyone and let parents decide exactly what they want their kids to play. If they cant be bothered to read it then they have no right to complain. As it stands right now the parents are saying "this 13+ rated game has too much violence" and the other 'mature gamers group is saying "you cant decide at what age we should play these games!".

There might soon be a time when parents will set up a steam account for their kids and be shown a checklist of games they are allowed to own on that steam account with max limits based on the questionnaire like nothing more than moderate sexual themes but no restriction on violence.

Not As Much A Change As It Sounds

[mentil]

Game developers/publishers already submit a long questionnaire and a video detailing every instance of everything that might affect the rating. They're already on their honor to do this honestly. All this move involves is removing the human element, which was intended to be objective anyways, and replace it with automated computer analysis. They honestly probably already have an algorithm to determine how many swears gives a Teen rating or Profanity label; counting the exact number can be done by voice recognition, if it's not already part of the questionnaire.

Wow...

[whois]

Way to show you just don't care.. "hey, fill out this survey so a computer can determine how to rate your game. No, we aren't going to play it."

From the wikipedia article:

"To obtain a rating for a game, a publisher sends the ESRB videotaped footage of the most graphic and extreme content found in the game. The publisher also fills out a questionnaire describing the game's content and pays a fee based on the game's development cost:[5]

        $800 fee for development costs under USD $250k
        $4,000 fee for development costs over $250k"

So, the game developer is going to do all the work and pay you to certify their game and you aren't doing anything but running a website and pocketing money? You're trading on the name you've built as a "reliable standard" and you're going to be gone as soon as Sony/Microsoft/Apple/any other app store marketplace, realizes they can take your piece of the pie and do this same thing and take money for it.

I could understand if not enough games were being submitted and you were contemplating going out of business because nobody used you anymore, but you're claiming the exact opposite. Too many people are giving you money wanting you to rate games so you're stepping out of the game rating business?

I don't have any kids and have never cared what rating a game received, but I consider this move to be counterproductive to the people who are paying you. The first slip-up isn't going to be a publishers ass it's going to be the ESRB when people ask "who's minding the store?" and the answer is nobody.

Re:Different Point of View?

[gknoy]

I'm pretty sure Duke Nukem Forever will be coming out later this year.

Re:Anti-shoplift interferes with rating effectiven

[UserChrisCanter4]

In my experience (and I've been working as a cashier the last ~7 months at a Walmart), parents usually don't give a damn.

Sure, that's probably the biggest group. It's also why many stores require cashiers to ask for ID. If a parent doesn't care, well, there's not much you can do beyond follow your employer's policy and your own code of ethics.

The original post complained about how well a single letter rating could summarize the content. I pointed out that it isn't meant to, and that there's a fine-grained system in place to clarify where the rating came from. Someone else complains that Wal-Mart's anti-theft system prevents you from using the fine-grained content descriptors on a large scale, but those aren't really relevant until you've already selected a game and are trying to decide if it's appropriate. It's not really fair to fault what is a pretty robust rating system for apathy on the part of a parent or a lousy anti-theft system.

Assuming you can even find an electronics associate who isn't busy with another customer. Or knows anything about their department.

And that would be but one of the reasons why I won't even bother with Wal-Mart. Incidentally, they're the only major retailer (besides Toys R Us) that I'm aware of that still uses the glass case method. Most either use individual anti-theft cases, dummy boxes, or something like Target's new system (the game boxes are all tethered to a storage cabinet) so that customers can pick up, handle, and read the game box.