Is the ESRB Broken? 88
Prompted by Senator's Brownback's legislation, an interesting discussion is taking place on the ESRB, and gaming related politics. Next Generation offers up a damning look at the ESRB, wherein author Aaron Ruby says that the organization is 'incapable of effectively communicating with consumers, nor of fending off attacks from the industry's many critics.' At the Sony Online 'Station Blog', SOE's John Smedley retorts, saying that an industry-wide mentality is to blame for the ESRB's precarious position. Meanwhile, EGM's editor Shoe has some choice words on claims the organization shouldn't have to 'play through' every game that comes to market. From this last piece: "Sure, you usually can't see 100% of a game on an average playthrough. But I guarantee if you get three guys to sit down and finish every product, you can learn a lot more about what these games contain than from watching a bunch of highlight reels, which, remember, are edited by companies who have huge stakes in what the ratings turn out to be -- talk about conflict of interest!"
Penny-arcade critique (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a major issue since we are seeing more and more online games. How can a publisher control what the users do in the game? The whole ESRB playing the games is a red herring.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And what does "completion" mean to an MMORPG anyways?
Sure, the ratings board people could play around on a beta server to check out the basic game play and whatnot. But human players - unlike scripted NPCs - don't come with ratings.
If I buy an online game that's rated "T", login, and find the server full of players spewing naughty words, does that mean I can now sue the board for not giving the game the "M" I now think it deserves?
I agree that the board should actua
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, regardless, the point is that a proposal is on the table to make the ESRB play through "all" of the video games it rates. They could've played San Andreas for years, and they never would've found the "hot coffee" content, since it was not directly reachable from in the game. Or are you saying ESRB
Re:Penny-arcade critique (Score:5, Insightful)
The only true record of content is an exact copy of the content. If you wish to find out if the content will offend you, you will have to risk being offended by viewing it yourself. Them's the breaks.
If you have some special thin skinned needs to be met the ESRB ratings aren't the only ones available. Many special interest groups produce their own reviews and rating systems. They aren't printed on the box, but you can still read 'em before you buy.
In a world where everyone has a "right" to not be offended everyone will have duct tape over their eyes, ears and mouths.
And what is the rating for those of us who are offended by that concept? Wal-Mart does not label the bowdlerized content they sell as such. Stamping a big, red "B" on 'em might be nice, to let me know to avoid them and go off in search of a true copy.
In future we might see somthing like an "L" rating; for "Libre."
Warning! Warning! This media is a free speech zone. We make no guarantees against its content. Use entirely at your own risk.
You might be surprised to find that I do not welcome that day, because I have always thought of that as the default.
KFG
Re: (Score:2)
Oh poor misguided youth... ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
Quite the contrary, I think that because I am old.
KFG
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, your original post still falls within the domain of "sad but true" :-(
Re: (Score:2)
As the parent point it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to create a rating system that can please the majority of users because of the extremely wide variations between individuals. Amish people are offended by ALL modern media. Most conservative Muslims are offended by ANY depiction or description of sexuality. Many pacifists are offended by ANY depiction of violence as entertainment. etc.
This is not about "protecting the children", the notion that media has a major impa
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping that I read that wrong, and that you don't actually equate soldiers with "wife-beaters and axe murderers". Unless the soldiers in your country are directly attacking its own civilians, do you honestly believe that your nation would be better off with no military at all, with absolutely no way to
Re: (Score:1)
Plato is the first person known to note the correspondence between soldiers and "wife-beaters and axe murderers." He was also the first person known to have proposed the formation of a permanant, professional army for defense of the state.
He did also note, however,
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to add "police officers and prison guards".
Violence is violence is violence. As pointed out by another poster, soldiers inevitably become psychologically damaged and more prone to aberrant behavior simply by the nature of their jobs, which is being professional killers. This is the point of all that tough discipline outfits like the Marines are famous for: keeping the soldiers from go
Bring in the lobbyists (Score:2)
Which lobbyists?
Game industry lobbyists? Representatives of the people who setup the ESRB in the first place?
Relegious fundy lobbyists? Who think dancing leads to fornication?
"Media" lobbyists? What do they care, they just want to turn games into movies.
So back to the original question: Which lobbyists?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Alright, bring in the lobbyists" is how that comic ends.
Which lobbyists?
Game industry lobbyists? Representatives of the people who setup the ESRB in the first place?
Relegious fundy lobbyists? Who think dancing leads to fornication?
"Media" lobbyists? What do they care, they just want to turn games into movies.
So back to the original question: Which lobbyists?
All of the above and more. That is the point. "Bring in the lobbyists." That's how Congress currently does things. If you have more lobbyists and
Re: (Score:1)
Don't tell me your fall for this. Many of those organizations who claim this often have church dances for their singles.
They really want to ban all places where "evil" "nonmembers"[1] can socialize and meet. This essentially happened in the place I lived. They believe those who don't join their church shouldn't have the right to the joys of friendship and companionship or even the right to life. [1] This is what they called everyone who
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they aren't safe from criticism, their frontpage has an article about some politicians going "think of the children!", demanding a ban on violence-promoting games and claiming the industry self-regulation has failed and has to be replaced with a federal agency. Well, guess what we've done three years ago... I realize politicians are dumb as hell but they should at least remember
Re: (Score:1)
I just find this whole thing so ridiculous
Shoe for Senate (Score:2)
Shoe is of course correct in his opinion here. A playthrough will show much more than a highlight reel. The problem is that the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Has anyone told Brownback that he too is naked under his clothing? Does he have no shame!?
Re: (Score:1)
Now that that's out of the way, all of this proves that the ESRB's system has been right all along: tell companies to show the most objectionable things available in the game, normally-accessable or otherwise, so they can rate it.
If a company lies about what is the most objectionable material, or is negligent to p
Re: (Score:1)
Not quite all money, but they do have a 1 million USD fine for failing to disclose material that leads to a re-rate. Plus there's the money lost from all the recalls
Re: (Score:2)
Do patches have to be evaluated before they're released since they're studio productions? Even if there's a critical update in the game? People aren't going to get upset at Congress for this mess, at least, the majority. They would just see it as a game company dragging their feet.
I doubt they'll be happy until every ga
Re: (Score:1)
Nah, just like P-A said, they'll be satisfied once their own lobbyists are in charge. Instead of those money-grubbing industry lobbyists.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that making sure you see ALL of a game is rather hard, let all ALL of every game released. Let's take, oh, Final Fantasy X-2, for no appearent reason. I've put in over 100 hours to get it to say I have 100%, but there's still a secret 100-floor dungeon that very clearly has more storyline down
Taliban on fire (was Re:Shoe for Senate) (Score:1)
It is whatever the residing taliban decides. Yesterday, it was nudity and violence. Today it is gambling. Tomorrow it might be kittens. Kittens are evil beings trying to take over the world. Mwahahahaaa!
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the current system does. The company making the game evaluates their product based on ESRB guidlines. They evaluate ALL OF IT. It is also in their enlightened self interest to not lie on these either.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I find it silly that people are equating this as censorship. They aren't saying what you can/cannot make/sell, they aren't (to my knowledge) even giving age limits for things as to who can buy.
What they are doing is providing one more piece of information on which to base a decision, and attempting to make it as accurate as possible.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As for the stores - that's their choice, and what's this about a 4 copy limit?
Re: (Score:1)
Ah but see THEIR lobby group has the support of the government.
As for the stores - that's their choice, and what's this about a 4 copy limit?
I was referring to the abysmally low sales figures of "Adults Only" games, which most stores refuse to carry. So by holding the AO rating as a sword over the profits of companies, you force them through the chilling effect to "tone down" their games. It's because AO is generally assoc
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Q. Did those testers spot Hot Coffee?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
True, but they didn't spot Oblivion either, and it was only rated T & 16+. Granted EU countries don't bust a hernia over nudity, but they didn't exactly spot it either.
"The ESRB could split the M rating into a 16 M rating and an 18 S (severe) or something rating while AO remains reserved for hardcore pornography."
I completely agree. I've always thought it silly that their highest rating for non-porn is 17, but por
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never checked: has the ESRB applied ratings to those classic game collection systems that let you play a dozen old Atari 2600 games or six Midway arcade classics?
Plug and Play TV Games (Score:1)
Yes. "Plug and Play TV Games" boxes sold in Wal-Mart are rated. I even saw one that had an M sticker over an E rating for a poker game whose rating was changed when the ESRB changed its policy about gambling.
Re: (Score:2)
Even this does not show all the problems that can occur. More or less summing up the Penny Arcade rant on it, how does one play through a game where there are a dozen possible ways to encounter the same t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
But you've got to remember, what one reviewer may find offensive or "M"-worthy, may not even bother another reviewer. For instance, what if Dead Rising had an easter egg which allowed you to see a semi-nude zombie. Would that bump the game from a "
"casual" vs "100%" play-through (Score:2)
At work I have to regularly explain complex technical things to people who don't really care and likely never will. I still have to figure out a way to make them understand the importance of whatever point I'm making, regardless of whether or not they previously had any damn clue what I was talking about.
This is a similar kind of situa
The problem with 100% playthrough (Score:1)
The problem is that the average congresscritter has absolutely NO clue what a 100% playthrough would cost. Obviously, they've never played through any of the Final Fantasy games, and from what I'm seeing, they're small potatoes compared to some of the newer games.
What about games like World of Warcraft, where the content is constantly being updated? How about Unreal Tournament? Sure, the package doesn't ship with content containing nudity, but nothing is stopping 3rd party mapmakers from making a map set
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nowadays it's all about "It's not my fault!"
Bullsh*t legislation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Oblivion nudity patch simply removed certain textures that were layered in sequence. I'm not sure, but I think the Sims use the same technique (although they cover the "naughty" bits in the lowest texture level). Should a game have a higher rating just because the textures are there? I suspect these people will believe that they should be.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Mods didn't make headlines for Rockstar.
It began with in game content: "Kill the Haitians."
Rule No. 1.
If you release a video game that celebrates gun violence and the inner city gang culture you had better be prepared for a gut reaction from the inner city itself.
--- and from the suburban soccer moms whose adolescent boys are your prime market.
It ended in the AO button-mashing sex play of Hot Coffee---which
Re: (Score:1)
As for Hot Coffee, even being able to play through the complete content of
Re: (Score:2)
It is not ridiculous to argue that Rockstar had a reputation for pushing the limits of public tolerance for adult content in sn M rated game. It is not ridiculous to argue that Rockstar was playing with fire.
If it requires additional steps and third party modifications or tools not available in the disk itself to access content beyond what
aaah (Score:1)
Completely unnecessary. (Score:4, Interesting)
The holy shrine of game sales is Walmart. If you can't get into Walmart, you're going to have a hell of a time making it big. (I'm purposefully excluding online content delivery systems for now!)
In order to get on the shelf at Walmart, you NEED to have an ESRB rating. Not only that, you need to have a M rating or below.
If your rating is changed after the release, and Walmart pulls every single copy of your game off their shelves and sends them all back to you (at your expense), your company (or the producers) will likely take a huge financial blow.
Investors see this. They know that the game has to meet the ESRB's bar for M rated and below games, and that any deviation from that bar will result in a loss of potential revenue. So the Investors are telling the producers that the game has to be spot on for the ESRB review. The Producers work hard on the developers making sure there is nothing questionable that is on the disk.
I recently got to sit in on a presentation by the project lead for the Human Head game 'Prey'. And he accounted how they presented to the ESRB, and the similar groups in other countries. They put all of the worst parts of the game in a demo. Blood, guts, egg crapping rectums and all. They had backup material ready to replace anything that the ESRB thought was out of line for their rating. They worked hard to make sure that they were in the clear.
There is really no incentive to poorly represent a game to the ESRB if the game is for mainstream sales. And the retailers are putting a lot of pressure on the ESRB to accurately rate those games. There is nothing in this process that requires government intervention.
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
You may recall that Oblivion's ESRB rating was increased from "T" to "M" a few months ago (see here [gamedaily.com])...
If your statement above is true (If your rating is changed after the release, and Walmart pulls every single copy of your game off their shelves and sends them all back to
Follow the MPAA's example? (Score:2)
Would he rather the ESRB more closely follow the MPAA's example: talk softly and carry a big subpoena?
Re: (Score:2)
He's saying that the ESRB hasn't done a good job of informing consumers about the rating system.
The government tried (and notably failed) to educate people about the V-Chip [fcc.gov]
Which makes me wonder: Are these ratings even the point?
Despite the V-Chip, Fundies still try to impose their morality on everyone instead of educating peo
The alternative (Score:2)
ESRB critics == anti-freedom fanatics full of shit (Score:2)
The fact is, game companies have been fairly honest about the content in their games from day one. The political bullshit with
Not ESRBs fault (Score:2)
A single rating, plus a slightly more detailed description of the precise concerns.
If they're not communicating with the parents, it's because the parents can't read, or don't want to. Lawmakers can't make parents become responsible by beating up on the ESRB or game industry.
I've seen the parents argue with the salesmen about buying age appropriate games for their kids. It really is disgusting to witness the reaction of some parents when someone dares suggest GTA may not be a
Re: (Score:1)
I've also see more than few kids grab GTA or some other M game off a shelf, hand it to a parent who just puts it into their basket without even bothering to glance at the box - much less read it.
Honestly, ignoring the government and the fundie groups, what would happen if the ESRB just decided to mark *EVERY* game as "early
Re: (Score:1)
This is a crock of shit. I played plenty of "evil" video games and saw plenty of "evil" violent movies, yet I haven't killed anyone yet. Not even people who clearly deserved it, and I have kidney failure, two strokes, and a bunch of other medical problems to prove it. Maybe those parents have realized such and are not the bad parents you seem to be making them out to be.
People who do screwed up things (then it is blamed on video games or whatever) were
In the wake of Hot Coffee (Score:1)
No, the ESRB should not be changed ... (Score:2)
Maybe the ESRB should form a playtest group to make it's own vids for rating purposes.
But they should absolutely not bow -in any form- to political whim in an even-numbered year.
So what of the modder? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If modders have become a larger target, it is because Rockstar tried to sell the idea that they were ones to blame for Hot Coffee. That said, I think we can expect gatekeepers like Valve (Steam) and Microsoft (XNA Express) to exert more control.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have it both ways. No sanctioned nude skins. Except in the Easter Eggs left behind by your own developers.
Nope (Score:2)
The only people that have failed to do their jobs are parents.
And please don't bring up Hot Coffee or any nude mods that other games have had...these have nothing to do with the ESRB. They were either user created content to access the hidden content (Hot Coffee), or user created content to implement the nudity.
If you have a problem with this then do some parenting. You
Scapegoat (Score:1)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/29/14 1209 [slashdot.org]
As I stated in a comment I placed under that article, I strongly believe that all of this is just people trying to find a scapegoat for their ignorance and the problems that come from it.
There is nothin
Does the MPAA rate computer games in the US? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So the answer would be no, the MPAA does not rate games. Just movies.
I'm guessing the brouhaha in the US was mostly because people weren't paying attention to the ratings anyway, si
This is where this leads. (Score:2)
Ok...so... (Score:1)