Ex-ESRB Rater Offers Harsh Critique of System
In his editorial, Bonner called on the ESRB to make a number of changes to its current system and policies for rating games, asking that the Board drop its insistence on secrecy and make the process of rating games more transparent.
Bonner also suggested that the ESRB should consider splitting the T for Teen rating into the age-specific ratings of T13 and T16. He advocated eliminating the AO for Adults Only rating altogether, and changing the M for Mature rating to apply for gamers 18 and older, a one year increase to the current age limit.
The former rater also shed some light on the goings-on within the organization, revealing that more than once the ESRB has overruled designations agreed upon by its raters. Though many of the changes were minor tweaks to descriptive terms and the like, Bonner claimed that the ESRB would occasionally step in to switch up a T rating to an M rating or vice versa. The raters were rarely given explanations as to why the changes were made.
Moreover, the editorial suggested that the ESRB's announcement that full-time raters would get hands-on time with products, time permitting, was false. Bonner wrote that the only games he and his fellow raters got to play were random titles from the ESRB's archive. The ESRB's current policy only requires that employees watch selected footage of a game, rather than play it themselves.
In the same issue of EGM, ESRB president Patricia Vance responded to Bonner's commentary, saying that the article "contains numerous misleading statements, factual inaccuracies, and misrepresentations with respect to key aspects of the rating system."
-
RomSteady
replyI've submitted multiple titles to the ESRB, so I've only seen this process from the outside, but I do want to talk briefly about my experiences.
Over the last decade, the ESRB rating system has become much more predictable. Predictability in ratings is a GOOD THING. The quality of your content doesn't matter; only the experience itself. Crudely modeled mass slaughter will be rated the same as highly detailed mass slaughter if both are meant to convey the same experience.
That said, it would be helpful if the ESRB would play at least a small portion of the game, even in a pre-release state, prior to assigning ratings. The ESRB is the only rating system worldwide that does not play the game at least in part before assigning the ratings.
That isn't to say they don't play the games. They pick games at random after release and verify the questionnaire and video properly represent the final product. Games that don't line up can get fined, re-stickered, etc.
Regarding ratings "tweaks," they do happen, but there are reasons why the raters wouldn't be involved. Publishers and developers work with representatives at the ESRB as part of an appeal process and many times we'll get a higher rating or a descriptor because of a single item on the questionnaire or in the video. We will negotiate via phone to decide what needs to change in order to get a lower rating or lose a descriptor, we'll make the change, the publisher will sign a sworn affidavit saying the content or code was removed, and then we get the changed rating.
While I agree that a T-rating split could be beneficial, I don't see changing M as being beneficial at all. Right now, M and AO are perfect corollaries for R and NC-17, and I wouldn't mess with that dividing line.-
-
Can you share what the costs are to get games rated by various agencies around the world? I think ESRB is 2K?
-
-
I dunno, AO is a fairly pointless rating since no company in the US will allow AO games on their system.
I guess it might be used for PC titles, if anyone ever wanted to make an AO game for PC. -
If M and AO are corollaries for R and NC-17 and thus shouldn't be messed with in your opinion then why are you okay with splitting Teen which is a corollary of PG-13?
Really the biggest problem with the ESRB is that parents don't even know there are ratings or are unaware of what they mean. I guarantee you half of ESRB's problems would simply go away if it was G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17. The other half would be if retailers were more like theaters and actually enforced the age limits. Retailers don't even bother. They'd sell an AO game to a 4 year old so long as they get their 60 bucks.
The double standard that the video game industry is held to is ludicrous though. M-rated games like Grand Theft Auto get reamed by the media and parental groups, but an R-rated movie like Saw goes without any controversy whatsoever. That's really another problem - that the media and these parental groups just haven't accepted that the average age of a gamer is closer to 30 instead of 10.-
Haaahaha, agreed. I bought GTAIII from a store when I was like 14, EB games, before they merged with Gamestop (yes yes I know, evil empire blah blah, I was young and ignorant), and never got asked a question, just "You sure your PC can run this kid?" to which I pretty much laughed and left the store. But yeah, retailers enforce it a bit more these days, but it's still by no means as enforced as movie ratings. I've seen cops at the multiplex checking ID's on the release night of really gory or violent movies.
-
-
[deleted]
-
Because there is still the mistaken impression out there that only kids play games.
-
With regards to GTA controversy, are you referring to the violence or the hot coffee incident?
Violence-wise, GTA games have always been controversial but it's the "weatherable" kind of controversy. The violence is no more than a movie, like Payback or The Godfather, and so by handling it and (in some cases) ignoring it, it translates into big bucks and big success. Sure, Jack Thompson is a cancer on the industry but he's going to be going away soon due to being disbarred.
As for the hot coffee incident - this was handled wrong from the word go. Rockstar should have come right out and admitted what happened, should have pulled the game a lot sooner, should have communicated to the media that yes this is possible but it does involve hacking/tweaking on the part of the user, should have noted to the public that the "nude skins" were an unauthorized 3rd party modification (as all mods are) should have communicated to the media and the non-gamer public reminders that this is an M-rated game and that children should not be playing it anyway, etc. It should have never gotten to the point where Hillary Clinton is on television denouncing the game.
I'm going to take the unpopular (here anyway) tack that yes, the idea of a minigame where you use the analog controller to thrust your penis into a woman to have sex with her is worthy of an AO rating - it's one step away from being what hardcore pornography would show you and is at best what you see late at night on Cinemax. It is ludicrious that "unrated" versions of movies can be sold at Target on DVD but that same chain won't carry unrated games, and even rejects the occasional M-rated game (Manhunt 2) -
In Saw you don't press X to torture a dude, you watch someone else do it. I mean... the difference is negligible in terms of what's depicted on screem (video games are usually tamer in this department) but I think it is suspicious when gamers argue about how much better games are at immersion and interactivity than films, and then gripe when they're proven right by people being more shocked by a shocking game moment than a shocking film moment. (also: shocking)
That said, I'm probably being optimistic by actually giving games credit for the over the top response they get. Most people still have no idea what a game actally is and isn't.
Also, yeah, even though complications would arise since games and movies really are a bit different*, I would love if the ESRB would pony up whatever gigantic painful royalties the MPAA would charge them to use the same rating system (which I'm sure they've somehow copyrighted up the ass, despite it being a series of letters).
* a scene in a film where someone is being beat with a golf club would probably be rated lower than a scene in a game where every time you pressed X your dude on screen would beat someone with a golf club, so the same scene in a film and a game wouldn't get the same rating, which people might think is weird and argue about online. ... which, I guess, is actually irrelevant.-
I agree with this and it's not a double standard so much as it's two very different forms of media. One that you simply watch and digest and another in which you directly interact with. A good game should be immersive, no? Perhaps to the point you "immerse" yourself in this alternate world and pretend for a bit that you are fighting the bad guys, or the dragon, or the space zombies as this character. Some people have trouble after a while of being immersed into these worlds that it affects their real life; see WoW. It only stands to also reason that someone playing violent video games for so long can actually be affected by them in some fashion, especially those with a childlike mindset or.. a child. Not the majority of people, no, but it is fair to say that there is a difference between watching someone else on TV shooting someone and you yourself aiming a reticule and pushing the button to fire the gun over and over and over.
I'm not too sure I know too many people that have quit their jobs or lost a girl because they just couldn't stop watching LoTR or Star Wars but I do know plenty of folks that have due to WoW showing that there is something about this immersion in an interactive virtual world that can affect the outcome of their real lives unlike TV shows or movies can.-
Well the thing with a game like WoW is that it can have that social or work element. Plenty of people have lost girls over their job or lost jobs and girls over screwing around with friends. MMO games are meant to suck a player in for really long amounts of time. It sucks. Games in general though don't cause those problems very often.
-
-
-
The UK's absolutely MASSIVE age ratings seem to work just fine (!?) - I mean, how hard is it to understand 6 years and up, 18 years and up etc.? :) Fuck all this MOE-17, DO-13 and AOSIJSOEJSRNC-17+
-
Well Sega tried to introduce a system that was more akin to movie ratings than the ESRB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videogame_Rating_Council
It never caught on outside of Sega products. I still have some Game Gear and Genesis carts with these ratings on them.
id Software was a fan of the RSAC which gave 1-4 ratings in three different areas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_Software_Advisory_Council
in theory this one was the most fair since it actually gave you indicators of what was in each game, but it proved to be way too confusing for end users (parents, in this case).
Really though, I bet it's that the UK has less whiny bitchy parents and politicians than the US. Also fewer random shootings that can be pegged on violence in the media.
-
-
-
Man, all we need is another fucking MPAA in the world. I can see that happening as games becaome bigger and bigger.
-
