Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

ESRB Ratings Unfairly Targeted?

Posted by Zonk on Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:13 AM
from the uneven-valuation dept.
Government Entertainment Games Politics
John Callaham writes "The US video game ratings system created by the industry and the ESRB has come under attack in recent months, but is it really all that bad? FiringSquad decided to take an informal retail survey and compare how the ESRB rates games to how the movie and TV industry rates DVD releases." From the article: "One person who has been highly critical of the ESRB system is Leland Yee, the California Assemblyman who authored the bill that was signed into law last fall in that state that would ban the sales of certain games with violent content to minors (the law is currently not being enforced pending the conclusion of a court case started by the video/PC game industry). When the study of content descriptions in M-rated games was issued by Harvard earlier this month, Yee was quick to send out a press release ..."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] ESRB Changes Oblivion's Rating to 'Mature' 282 comments
kukyfrope writes "Perhaps reacting based on the debacle that was the 'Hot Coffee' scandal, the ESRB today changed the rating on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion from Teen to Mature. From the article: 'The content causing the ESRB to change the rating involves more detailed depictions of blood and gore than were considered in the original rating, as well as the presence of a locked-out art file or 'skin' that, if accessed through a third party modification to the PC version of the game, allows the user to play with topless versions of female characters,' said the ESRB in a release."
[+] Bethesda Responds To Oblivion Re-Rating 341 comments
Gamespot has details on Bethesda's response to the ESRB for their (some would argue) knee-jerk reaction to fan-added elements of Oblivion. From the article: "There is no nudity in Oblivion without a third party modification. In the PC version of the game only - this doesn't apply to the Xbox 360 version - some modders have used a third party tool to hack into and modify an art archive file to make it possible to create a mesh for a partially nude (topless) female that they add into the game. Bethesda didn't create a game with nudity and does not intend that nudity appear in Oblivion." They go on to state they submitted a 60-page document detailing the violence in the game. If anyone is at fault here, I think it's the ESRB.
[+] Your Rights Online: ESRB Our Last Defense Against Game Censorship? 246 comments
1up is running a piece looking at the ESRB, and its role in politics. They assert the organization may be gaming's last defense against politicians seeking to censor games to increase their own political capital. The article discusses the Hays Code governing movies, and the limits on speech the comic book industry placed on itself as the result of similar pressures. From the article: "Ultimately, the best way to prevent the demise of gaming is to make use of the democratic process. Despite what the Internet would like to believe, mere emails and forum posts don't have much clout. Rather, posted letters to representatives (written on actual paper) are the best way to let politicians know your opinion -- the beliefs that they've been elected to represent."
[+] FTC and Rockstar Settle Hot Coffee Dispute 295 comments
kukyfrope writes "The FTC and Rockstar/Take-Two have reached a settlement surrounding the 'Hot Coffee' mod for GTA: San Andreas that will serve to prevent future incidents. The FTC has stated that Rockstar and Take-Two must disclose all content to the ESRB when rating games, or face an $11,000 fine per violation if undisclosed content is discovered. 'Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system. We allege that Take-Two and Rockstar's actions undermined the industry's own rating system and deceived consumers,' commented Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection."
[+] ESRB Outlines Publisher Fines 38 comments
1up reports that the ESRB has laid out what publishers can expect if they step out of line regarding game content. From the article: "Vance says the ESRB has the power to enforce up to $1 million in monetary fines for the 'most egregious offenses,' and could potentially suspend publisher's access to the ratings system. Most retailers will not carry games without a rating. Further corrective actions could include pulling advertising until content's corrected, stickered packaging, product recalls and 'other steps the publisher must take.'"
[+] Your Rights Online: Take Two Investigated by New York Grand Jury 65 comments
cjm182 writes "Over a year after the infamous sex minigame (aka Hot Coffee) was found in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, the New York District Attorney's office has subpoenaed Take Two Interactive and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games. Reuters reports that a grand jury requested documents relating to 'company officers' and directors' knowledge about the creation and inclusion of the 'Hot Coffee' minigame. This marks the first time Take Two has been asked to provide documents directly relating to the incident. Last week, GamePolitics.com ran an editorial calling for the U.S. Congress to subpoena Take Two directly, rather than criticize the FTC and the ESRB over the incident."
[+] The 64% Violent Pacman 435 comments
DreamWinkle writes "During the recent Senate hearings on video game violence, one expert claimed that the ESRB underrated violent games. They went on to say that Pacman was 64% violent. To some, this means you shouldn't play Pacman; to others, it highlights what's wrong with Senate hearings. Whether a game is violent or not depends on how you classify violence, and the ESRB has the job of doing just that. They're not regulated by the government, they let the game makers recommend their own ratings, and don't play every game they rate. Is the ESRB to be trusted?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

ESRB Ratings Unfairly Targeted? 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Not The ESRB's Fault (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zediker (885207) on Thursday April 27 2006, @11:17AM (#15212462)
    A rating system is only as good as those who enforce and follow it. So there is nothing wrong with the ESRB, its just that it isnt followed by purchasers and some stores just wont enforce it.

  • Naturally. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by keyne9 (567528) on Thursday April 27 2006, @11:23AM (#15212531)
    Of course it is being unfairly targetted. Any fool can see that the majority of DVD/movies have ratings that are both miniscule and lack of information--nevermind being practically hidden in the coloring of the packaging--whereas the ESRB labels are very informative.

    Even further, "enforcement" of this voluntary ratings system is coming under fire. Despite being at or above the movie system's "Gold Rating" for 'improper' purchases, critics are decrying the system as being fundamentally broken.

    Is this simply policy-making at its worst? Have the VG industries not paid their protection dues ("donations") lately?

  • Mandatory (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Excuse me, Mr Government? Would you mind watching my child while I go about my business for a couple decades? Thanks, you're a peach.

    • Re:Mandatory (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PFI_Optix (936301) on Thursday April 27 2006, @11:49AM (#15212808) Journal
      Excuse me, Mr. Citizen? Would you mind not giving my child ready access to content he is not emotionally mature enough to handle? Thanks, I appreciate it.

      The old saying "it takes a village to raise a child" bears repeating here. I'm not saying that it's anyone's job but the parents to raise a child, but you have to be clueless to think that we as a society have no influence on children. It's hard for a parent to raise their children when they've got hundreds of idiots standing on the sidelines second-guessing all their decisions and waiting til they turn their backs so they can undermine their parenting.
      • Excuse me, Mr. Citizen? Would you mind not giving my child ready access to content he is not emotionally mature enough to handle? Thanks, I appreciate it.

        Excuse me, Mr. Parent? Would you mind actually doing your parenting job and stop trying to get others to do it for you?
        • Spoken like someone who is not a parent.

          And like someone who didn't read the rest of my post.
          • Please, stop with that 'not a parent crap.' My wife has kids from a previous marriage and feels the same as I do. I don't have kids but I do have parents. And when my mom was worried about the video games I was playing, she talked to me. She wanted to make sure that I understood whats ok in a game is not ok in real life. But she didn't even have to tell me; I already learned before that the difference between right and wrong.

            And I read the rest of your post. Its mindless junk. Let me clue you in on s
          • Spoken like someone who is not a parent.

            And like someone who didn't read the rest of my post.

            I'm a parent, I read your entire post, and it to me it reads like impractical and irresponsible whining.

            I don't expect others agree with my views of what is or is not appropriate for my child, so how on earth could I expect them to help limit his access to things I would consider inappropriate? Rather than deluding myself into thinking that the culture can be made "safe" for my child, I'm focusing my energies on ra
        • I won't argue that there are a lot of parents out there looking for something or someone to take over as much as possible so they can go about their business and not worry about their kids. I'd just as soon those people were sterilized and possibly lobotomized. It'd save us all a lot of grief.

          But every time game ratings and the legislation relating to it comes up, some witty guy feels the need to say "they just want the government to do their jobs". That's simply not the case for a lot of parents. The FTC h
            • The problem is it is not just a ban on sale to M+ games to minors, that would be illegal. The government cannot enforce a private orginazations ratings, they must come up with there own standards.

              So make the ESRB a contractor hired to set video game ratings. That would give the organization some added income so they could better screen games, in exchange for accountability (which isn't a bad thing). They just aren't willing to think around problems like that.

              Also, is it easier for 13 year olds to get ciggar
            • Yeah, because if only they'd do it "voluntarily" then you can pretend that you're not forcing them to.

              Err...no, what I'm saying is that it'd be nice if this had never become an issue because 99% of retailers carded on M+ games. As in, no one ever talked about legislating it because it was already being done by responsible businesses.
    • I guess your child doesn't go to a public school then?

  • I think it is also part of ESRB's fault (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SYSS Mouse (694626) on Thursday April 27 2006, @11:29AM (#15212578) Homepage
    Although the label tag ("Blood and Gore") are informative, the rating itself is something basically nonsense.
    Give the classic Doom as an example:
    The GameBoy Advance version of Doom got a Teen instead of Mature rating on all other platforms because id Software changed the blood into green. Does that makes the game less violent? Certainly not, beside the image of the Pentagram.
  • But we've also discovered that some games that I would rate "T" or even "E" get rated "M" - Metal Gear Acid and Acid II for the PSP are both rated "M", and for the life of me I can't figure out why.

    "Sexual Themes"? Huh? Other than the fact that the female characters are jiggle way to much, I didn't notice anything. The violence isn't especially graphic, either, and the "blood" is, well, a red ring on the floor after the dead NPC vanishes...

  • Duh. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SatanicPuppy (611928) <Satanicpuppy.gmail@com> on Thursday April 27 2006, @11:33AM (#15212625) Journal
    The basic MPAA movie rating system is a joke. You never see anything with the highest "public-consumption" rating (NC-17).

    Contrast that with ESRB...You see games rated M all the damn time. They've just flopped it in the other direction. M is the equivalent of NC-17, and AO is the equivalent of X, but you see parents buying their kids M rated games, who would collapse with heart failure if they found out their kid had an NC-17 movie in his posession.

    Just stupid. People need to get over themselves, and use the damn ratings accurately. I'm tired of listening to parents wigging out because they took their 6 year old to an R movie that should have been damn NC-17, and I'm dead tired of granny buying her 9 year old grandson a fricking M rated game, and then losing it because of how violent it is. It's supposed to be violent, and if they were decent parents, they wouldn't let their kids have access to that stuff in the first place.

    • Re:Duh. (Score:5, Informative)

      by sqlrob (173498) on Thursday April 27 2006, @11:45AM (#15212756)
      They've just flopped it in the other direction. M is the equivalent of NC-17, and AO is the equivalent of X

      No.

      R = M
      NC-17 = AO

      There is no X, it was replaced with NC-17 because they didn't register the mark. Just like NC-17 movies, there's only a handful of AO games.
      • That's a good parallel, but not really the case. If you compare the level of violence in an M game to an R movie, you'll find the M is (often) much higher. M is actually more closely matched to NC-17 in terms of actual content, and AO is the equivalent of the type of movie you cannot get at blockbuster, and which will not be shown in conventional movie theaters.
    • R = M
      NC-17 = AO

      There is no "X" rating for movies anymore and there never really was an offical "X" rating to begin with.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-rated#United_States [wikipedia.org]

    • I think that the main problem is a rating system can never convey what a reviewer can in terms of exactly WHY a movie is rated "R" or why a game is rated "M". That's why I usually check out a site like Screen It [screenit.com] before I see a movie...because even as an adult, there are some things in movies that I frankly just don't care to see. I've seen stuff in PG-13 movies that I could have done without and I've seen R movies that I had no problem with, so the rating system is definitely not "one size fits all".

      So is

    • Re:Duh. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BaronHethorSamedi (970820) <thebaronsamedi@gmail.com> on Thursday April 27 2006, @12:02PM (#15212931)
      Reminds me of the lawsuit brought by that grandmother several months back over the whole "Hot Coffee" debacle. She apparently wasn't bothered by her grandson playing a game--clearly marked for the 17 and up crowd--that involved shooting cops and beating crack whores, but the moment she finds out there's a poorly-rendered naughty scene that can be viewed by any child enterprising enough to buy additional hardware and download hacks off the internet, there's grounds to seek a multimillion dollar judgment against Rock Star.

      Legislators complaining over ratings inadequacy, opportunistic adults seeking cash awards after the fact rather than reading the letter on the box--the fact is, criticizing the ESRB is a good way to move capital, be it economic or political.

      Brass tacks: the ratings do *exactly* what they're designed to do: they give any parent with a modicum of common sense the information needed to make an initial thumbs up/thumbs down call as to the appropriateness of a given title relative to the maturity of their individual child. Grandstanding house reps don't know how mature your child is, nor does the ESRB--that's mom and dad's responsibility. Of course, you don't have to go to Game Stop or the local cineplex to know that common sense isn't a legal prerequisite to having children, but so far neither the courts nor the legislature have done anything to remedy that.

      • Reminds me of the lawsuit brought by that grandmother several months back over the whole "Hot Coffee" debacle. She apparently wasn't bothered by her grandson playing a game--clearly marked for the 17 and up crowd--that involved shooting cops and beating crack whores, but the moment she finds out there's a poorly-rendered naughty scene that can be viewed by any child enterprising enough to buy additional hardware and download hacks off the internet, there's grounds to seek a multimillion dollar judgment aga

    • Why is everyone blaming the ESRB? The parents are the main reason why the ratings system fails. The ESRB rates the games relatively well (occasionally slightly off, but normally right on the money). It's up to the parents to make sure their kids are playing age-appropriate games...would you let an 8 year old play postal 2 or GTA? And also...why are parents complaining about their kids playing games that the parents bought for them...
    • How come nobody ever gets upset over the ratings on Movie trailers? Does anyone really *look* at what's in them?

      Nearly every trailer you'll see is rated "For All Audiences", yet if you look at them and ask yourself "Is this trailer appropriate to show before 'Bambi'?", you'd have to say "No way".

      Been thinking this for years. Glad I'm not the only one. I generally only watch G/PG movies. Mostly because I don't find the higher rated movies interesting. I've often wondered why many of those trailers r

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.