Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

ESRB Adds New 'Tween' Rating 114

Posted by Zonk from the for-all-the-nascar-fans-in-the-house dept.
The Entertainment Software Rating Board announced yesterday that it was adding a new category to the entertainment software rating format. The new "E10+" "would mark games that might contain moderate amounts of cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes." This puts the category between "E" and "T", and allows for racing games with violent crashes and superhero violence.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ESRB Adds New 'Tween' Rating More

ESRB Adds New 'Tween' Rating

Comments Filter:

  • Excellent. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Grey Ninja ( 739021 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @11:51AM (#11834440) Homepage Journal
    That means that overprotective parents will actually allow their kids to play the next Smash Bros. game. It irritated the hell out of me that they rated SSBM as Teen, and it irritated me even more that retarded parents actually listened to the rating on the game.

    • Re:Excellent. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mr. Competence ( 18431 )
      ...and it irritated me even more that retarded parents actually listened to the rating on the game.
      Yea, because we all know that Slashdotters want the government to regulate what children see not their parents. Heaven forbid that parents use the rating system to determine what they allow their kids to look at!
      My kids know that they can't play Teen games unless I individually approve them. If there is any question then they ask me and I say whether they can or not. If I can't evaluate it then they have
      • I think he was suggesting that anyone who'd played or researched Smash Bros. would be aware that it's fine for the average 10 year old. But the average parent probably just reads the letter on the box and puts it back on the shelf.

        Seriously though, unless your kids are actually mentally deficient they should be fine playing (and watching) whatever they want from ~12 or so. Children generally aren't as stupid as most people think.

        • Re:Excellent. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Grey Ninja ( 739021 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @05:05PM (#11837934) Homepage Journal
          Indeed. Summed up my thoughts exactly, and even added the footnote I was going to include. ;-)

          To continue that thought though, I might add that I was brought up in a free thinking environment, and I was free to watch, play, or read anything I wanted as soon as I was old enough to do so. (About 5 years old). My parents chose not to simply shelter me from the "bad stuff" like most parents, but to give me guidance on that sort of thing instead. As a result, I grew up much more prepared for the world than my peers.

          I personally wish that the world would do away with the archaic belief that sex, violence, and profanity are unfit for children to know about. I believe that knowledge is power, and kids should have all that they want.

          But yes, my original point was that there's absolutely nothing wrong with SSBM, and it just irritated the hell out of me to see parents blindly following the ratings without using any other form of judgement. I believe that people should think for themselves instead of just trying to get some letter on a box to think for them.
        • Surley there are things 12 year olds shouldn't watch/play.

          I can't speak for games, but there are plrobably things I would have been bettr off not reading that I did.

          An immersive environment that depicts you as the protagonist going around and brutaly murdering people in a realistic type setting cannot be a good thing for anybody, but especially not for someone 12 years old. I don't know if such a game exists, but such a blanket statement is just silly. Also anybody, of any age, that thinks wrestling is

    • Re:Excellent. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gameboyhippo ( 827141 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:51PM (#11835134) Journal
      I don't think parents are overprotected; I think they are being cautious. Of course I would rather see a more complex rating system for movies and games. Basically it could have on the front of the box something like this:

      l **
      i *
      v *
      e
      s ***

      That is v is violence, s is sexual themes, l is language, e is for evil or demonic themes, and i is illegal or harmful behavior. Then underneath it could highlight some of the things parents should be cautious about in the movie or game.

      Thus we can take a game such as Zelda.
      l
      i
      v **
      e *
      s
      Contains Mild Fantasy Violence
      Contains Ghosts

      Parents can then judge right away whether the want that game. Just as another example we can take Sonic Adventure 2: Battle
      l *
      i *
      v **
      e *
      s *
      Contains Mild Lyrics
      Contains Resisting Authorities
      Contains Fantasy Violence
      Contains Sports like Violence
      Contains Mild Romantic Themes

      If we used a rating system like that, parents could more easily pick out the right movie/games for thier kids based upon their moral values of what kids should be exposed to.
      • It seems most parents don't understand the current system. One parent thought the "M" stood for "Mild". I think you are right to give parents more specific information on the content of the games but it seems a bar chart would confuse the clueless parents more.

        • Re:Excellent. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by realityfighter ( 811522 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @10:48PM (#11840822) Homepage
          I overheard this conversation in my local Target while I was trying to find something to spend a gift card on.

          Girl: Um....What about this one?
          Mother: Diabolo? Isn't that a devil game? Why don't you get a book with your money instead? All these games are too violent.
          Girl: But I want a game! Oh, I like this one, mommy! (Picking up a copy of Roller Coaster Tycoon.)
          Mother: (sarcastic) Are you sure? But you don't kill anybody in this one. (Puts RCT back on the shelf, picks up a copy of Spider-Man 2.) How about this one? You can kill this guy on the box here.

          Similarly, when my boyfriend showed his mother the gameplay in Animal Crossing, she said, "I bet nobody really plays this game. It doesn't have any shooting." It's a sad thing when the parents are so convinced that video games are bad, they go after the violent games because they can't think of games having any other appeal. Geesh.

      • Re:Excellent. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Toddarooski ( 12363 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @02:23PM (#11836165)
        We had a bar chart like that many years back. It was the RSAC rating system, where several different thermometers measured how much violence, sexual content, and naughtly language appeared in videogames.

        As you may have noticed, it's not around anymore. My guess is, it was too confusing for people. All that information is nice for some people, but a lot of parents just want to know, "Is it okay to buy for my 10-year-old, or not?" Frankly, I'm not sure I could look at your bar charts above and, without reading the titles of the game, know whether they were appropriate for kids or not.

        Personally, I think the current ESRB system, with one big rating, along with several reasons why it got that rating ("Graphic violence", "Suggestive themes", "Super-exaggerated boobie animation", etc.) is probably a good comprosmise.

        • All that information is nice for some people, but a lot of parents just want to know, "Is it okay to buy for my 10-year-old, or not?"

          Well, that gets to the crux of the problem. There are really only two sides. The parents who research (anywhere from actually reading the box to looking at a trusted online review) and those who can't be bothered (notice my bias).

          Those parents who care enough to research, don't need a more detailed rating system, they have already evaluated the product for themselves.
      • ... to tell us PRECISELY what is wrong with any major film out there. At least for a very specific subset of the population.
        Read it for a laugh, read it for a look into a closed mind; for whatever reason, it's an interesting place. And they count ALL of the naughty bits and tell you what they are.

        http://www.capalert.com/capreports/ [capalert.com]

        An excerpt from their analysis of Daredevil (The guy thought it sucked too), specifically the "I" from the WISDOM scale:

        Impudence/Hate:
        * six uses of the three/four l
        • I'm trying to figure out why morality constitutes closed minds. I personally feel that it is pretty closed minded to think that just because something is "good" it is not good for you.

          I think parents should be able to determine every minute detail of bad stuff in a movie. If a parent really don't want to glorify lies then that's their choice. If they don't want to glorify facial piercing then that's their choice.

          I'm a grown man, but I don't like hearing four letter words in every other sentence. I don

      • Re:Excellent. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bitwiseNomad ( 814756 )
        Good idea. I think maybe I could improve on it a bit. Here's a rating system that I think would be useful to parents trying to choose a video game for thier child. It consists of five categories of things that may be harmful to children, M-O-D-U-P:

        M - Misrepresentation of non-western ideas as being evils.

        O - One dimensional characters and/or one-sided plot which may promote the conception that ideas and people are either singularly good or singularly evil.

        D - Discourages personal autonomy
    • Heh... Final Fantasy has been locked into the T category since it got moved Sony. FF3/VI was rated E for the SNES.

      Part of it is due to the addition of the modifier thingys: the comic mischief, mild violence stuff, which was later slapped onto the FF series.

      I wouldn't be surprised if FFXII is E10+... Although this may scare off the fanboys... lol
    • Heck! My parents wouldn't let me play the first one!

  • Cheer This On! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Landaras ( 159892 ) <neil AT wehneman DOT com> on Thursday March 03, 2005 @11:53AM (#11834458) Homepage
    Remember, the more the industry self-regulates and (supposedly) empowers parents to make informed decisions, the weaker the argument for government decency regulation.

    - Neil Wehneman

  • Why don't they just specify an age? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LordNimon ( 85072 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @11:58AM (#11834509)
    Why bother with all these abbreviations? Why don't they just specify a number from 0 to 18 on the box, indicating the minimum age. If they had done that in the beginning, they wouldn't have need to introduce this new rating level. They could have just used "10".
    • because the rating system like anything else in states is a business.

    • IIRC, the UK does something like this for movies. I would have preferred a numerical-based rating system for games in the US, anyway. It is much easier for a parent to see "13+" and know that little 8-year-old Timmy probably shouldn't play that game.

    • Re:Why don't they just specify an age? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Walkiry ( 698192 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @01:50PM (#11835755) Homepage
      It's much easier if you just have a few "standard brackets" of where a game should fall, simply because that way you can have clear guidelines of what should go where. If you subdivide too much (like, the differences between a 13 and a 14 years game would be pretty darned small) you create a problem when it comes to actually classifying a game, whereas this way both the consumer AND the developer know much better what the games are adjusted to.
    • I don't think the purely age-driven rating system would work because not every 10 year old has the same level of maturity. One kid may be able to handle mild lyrics and some violence, knowing full well that it's not real and he shouldn't repeat anything he sees or hears. Another may run around screaming curses and imitating the game like an idiot, because he doesn't know any better.

      The current system gives an approximate age group to give you an idea of what level of maturity is needed (T meaning 13+, M
    • Agreed. It should be similar to what the anime and manga ratings are.

      Sometimes it's hard to tell from a box / book cover just what's going on inside the video / manga (especially with anime - it can be totally cutesy-looking, but really be a hardcore hentai nightmare inside). A quick flip over of the package tells you that it's "17+", "13+", "7+", etc. It's nice and easy for me to figure out, and I'm sure it's just as easy (and even more relevant) for a concerned parent buying something for their kids.

  • Good move (Score:3, Insightful)

    by castleguardian ( 711240 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @11:58AM (#11834515)
    This is a rating that has been sorely needed, IMO. Parents shopping for games for their not-quite-teenaged children may balk at picking up games rated "T", but also do not want to get most of the "E"-rated games that only pre-schoolers would enjoy. Most (not all of course) 8-12 year olds have outgrown Bob the Builder, Barbie, and other Cute & Cuddly (TM) characters and shows. They want to start sinking their teeth into whatever their big brother/sister or parents are doing...it's simply a stage of their growing up. This will defintely help parents puchase more age-appropriate games. Smart move, ESRB.
    • What about Frogger 3D? My wife and I love that and we're in our late 20's (almost 30, eek).

      Damien
      • Because Frogger kicks ass. Hands down.

        I especially love to see them get squished on the highway. Hey, wait a minute.. that VIOLENT!!!11one1!

    • Re:Good move (Score:4, Informative)

      by MarkGriz ( 520778 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:41PM (#11835033)
      " but also do not want to get most of the "E"-rated games that only pre-schoolers would enjoy"

      E-rated games are not only for preschoolers. E stands for "everyone". Gran Turismo 4 is rated E, and is surely a game that appeals to kids and adults. Dismissing an E-rated game as "for preschoolers" is missing the point of the rating system.

      Having kids myself though, I do agree that the new rating is a good idea.

  • Basically, Almost No 'E' Games Anymore (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Heck, even Mario games have some cartoonish, fantasy violence. I guess that will get them a 'Tween' ranking now.

    So what would qualify as 'E'? I guess puzzle games (not Super Puzzle Fighter, though) and stuff like Mary Kate and Ashley games.

  • Upcoming ratings (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:08PM (#11834650)
    ICU2+ Excessive nudity
    IML8! Discusses teen pregnancy

  • Cartoon violence (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FirienFirien ( 857374 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:11PM (#11834679) Homepage
    Why does 'cartoon violence' mean 10+? From what I remember of the kiddie cartoons (tom and jerry, coyote vs roadrunner, etc etc), they're about 70% violence and 30% preparation of violence; it's funny,(Laugh.) because it's toon violence.

    And now the games industry says only ten year olds and older are the appropriate category for it? What? This also implies that before now, it was higher? (Yeah, where have I been. I just never needed to look at or understand the reasoning behind)

    If kids watch cartoon violence regulated by their parents, the same levels should be taken to games. As the cartoons become more realistic, then sure - but as the adult is still the regulator, this 10+ seems incomprehensible.
    • from what i remember from toy and jerry (wasnt a big fan) whenever tom or jerry would fire a cannon or whatever you rarely saw the cannon bullet hit them. it was obvious but you rarely saw it. and when they got into "cat" fights the were replaced by smog version of hands and feet moving around.

      compare that to DBZ where lasers shoot from each othes hands blowing up worlds and martial arts action in mid air.

      obviously i agree with you somewhat. tom and jerry was cartoon violence. however can you see the diff

    • Why does 'cartoon violence' mean 10+? From what I remember of the kiddie cartoons (tom and jerry, coyote vs roadrunner, etc etc), they're about 70% violence and 30% preparation of violence; it's funny,(Laugh.) because it's toon violence.

      And now the games industry says only ten year olds and older are the appropriate category for it? What? This also implies that before now, it was higher? (Yeah, where have I been. I just never needed to look at or understand the reasoning behind)

      Keep in mind that many of

      • Keep in mind that many of those 'kiddie cartoons' were not originally made for kids. The were made for older audiences and shown before the main feature at the movies.

        No, they were made for kids. The experience of a weekly movie visit was meant for the whole family, and each element ("picture", newsreel, and cartoon) had to appeal to all ages and genders (with a bias towards the adult males who bought the tickets). But the cartoons where intentionally the childrens' favorite parts.

  • Tween defined . . . (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dausha ( 546002 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:16PM (#11834735) Homepage
    Come on, "tween" is for those in their "twenties." That is, if you're twenty-four, you're a tween-ager. Trying to apply this to pre-teens is absurd.
    • Actually, if i remember correctly, 'tween' was coined by Mary Kate and Ashley when they were trying to describe the period in life where they were older then 8 but not teenagers.

      Thus, it's the age be'tween' youth and teenage.

      A quick Google search will find lots of places to back that up.
  • Didn't they already have the KA rating? (Kids to adults). How is this any different?
  • allows for racing games with violent crashes and superhero violence.
    I've yet to see a racing game with any super heros, let alone superhero violence.

  • This is good news. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by porkchop_d_clown ( 39923 ) <<moc.em> <ta> <zniehwm>> on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:39PM (#11835016)
    As a parent of a teen and an 8 year old, I find the 8 year old constantly frustrated at why some games are off limits but not others, even though they are all rated "T". (Yes, I actually check the games on a case by case basis).

    To be honest, I'd prefer a game rating system similar to the toy rating system - something that measured difficulty/playability rather than simple violence. I mean, there's nothing in FF7 that my daughter shouldn't see or hear, but that doesn't mean she's capable of enjoying it.
    • I dunno... I can't remember how old I was when my friend (much older than me) got FF7. I think I was about 8 or 9, and it was so awesome to watch! It is still, to this day, the best game IMO.
    • To be honest, I'd prefer a game rating system similar to the toy rating system - something that measured difficulty/playability rather than simple violence. I mean, there's nothing in FF7 that my daughter shouldn't see or hear, but that doesn't mean she's capable of enjoying it.

      FF7 had cursing, a whorehouse, sexual innuendos, and implied sexual situations. Would you be ok with your 8 year old daughter seeing or hearing all of that?
    • You might reconsider if your 8 year-old would enjoy FF7, or any other RPG (maybe ease her in with something like Paper Mario).
      I remember being 6 or 7 and I got Dragon Warrior on NES. My dad (who was never really into games himself) sat down with me while I played it and helped me with some of the strategy (don't waste all your MP at once), and understanding some of that god-awful pseudo-old-english dialog.
      From there I moved on to Final Fanasy, then to the SNES with FFII/III, Breath of Fire/II, Chrono Tri
    • Well, I'm not so sure about that.

      I received The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening for GameBoy when I was in first grade, but I beat it within the next 2-3 months. Also, I received Super Mario RPG in second grade, and I beat it before I graduated to 3rd grade.

      RPG's have helped me not only reason better, but expand my vocabulary, concentrate on puzzles more efficiently, and focus on the big picture, rather than what enemy I am currently facing.

      All kids are different in how they learn, but they sure made

  • In opinion, I'm hoping that this will better inform parents driven solely on ESRB ratings. There are too many cartoon/fantasy violence games out there that have been "overrated" with a T rating. SSBM is THE perfect example of this, seeing that its predecessor was given an E. (The way it was put by Nintendo Power was that it was up to a T because of the better quality graphics, which is the biggest BS I've ever heard.)

    So yes, hopefully this will ease the minds of many a parent and makes the decision ea
    • The story I've heard is that the teen rating is due to Princess Peach and Zelda being added to the game. Supposedly violence against women automatically bumps a game up to a Teen rating. Yes, Samus was in the original game, but you can't tell that Samus is female due to the full body armor.
  • ...why can't the just place a label.. must be at least X age to play this game.
  • Why can't video game companies do what board games and other toys do and post an age range on the box. Alot of people don't know the video game rating system already and adding a new rating makes it more difficult. Board games/toys say like: "Ages: 4-10", "Ages: 2 and up", etc. So GTA could be "Ages: 18 and up" and Mario could be "Ages 6 and up", etc. If they would print that on the box I do not think it would be as confusing as the current rating system is.

  • Still Doesn't Tell Parents Anything (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stinkyfingers ( 588428 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @01:34PM (#11835592)
    What is acceptable for 16-year-olds isn't necessarily acceptable for my 16-year-old. What is acceptable for 10-year-olds isn't necessarily acceptable for my 10-year-old.

    The basic flaw of age-based rating systems - this in includes movies, too - is that parents should know their kids best and determine what is most appropriate for them. A Mormon 13-year-old probably is going to be scandalized by relatively tame material.

    That's why ratings should be based on content - language, sexuality, violence, etc. That way, that special population who think it's okay for games and movies to contain gratuitous violence, but absolutely no sex know which games to buy their children.
    • Actually, justification for the rating is on the box, usually on the back at the bottom of the ratings box, in the form of qualifiers like "Cartoon Violence," "Mild Language," or "Drug Use."
      http://www.esrb.com/ [esrb.com]
      IMO, the ESRB has a much better system than film or TV: the (extremely challenging) problem is teaching people about it. They can make the qualifiers more prominent, but it's hard enough trying to teach every mom who comes into Wal-Mart what a "T" means.
    • Just as with toys, more detailed ratings would still help you match up your kid with appropriate games.

      If you know your kid is precocious for a 9 year old, you might feel comfortable giving him a game rated for 12 year olds - but it still helps to know that the game is aimed at 12 year olds and not 22 year olds.
    • I'm a teenager myself, and i find that games ratings don't really seem to matter. No games store i have ever bought something in has asked my age, and i don't think they care. Neither of my parents ever check what games i buy, and its the same for all of my friends, will it really make that much of a difference?

      • Congratulations! (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by Thedalek ( 473015 )
        You, sir, have demonstrated that your family is part of the problem! I doubt this will have much of an effect on you directly, as very few teenagers will take the stance of, "Gee, I wish my parents would take a more active role in my life."

        Of course, the true litmus test is who you blame for your own actions.
  • The real issue here is that the PG - 13 system has been flawed since its inception - Instead of dividing the current content, It allowed studios to flex their power even more - movies added or subtracted content to hit that magic line - good movies dropped scenes to draw in crowds, and bad movies added fluf to appear more violent/etc. What does a new rating in a defunct system do? Make it even more confusing.
  • This is very good! Its like having a PG rating as teen is the PG-13. For kids who are too old to stand games like Finding Nemo, or other disney games marketed to younger audiences, but aren't able to purchase teen rated games yet. I myself am only 16 (on monday anyway) but i dont really see the ratings as restrictive, but as an effective means of keeping ridiculous charges from being levied against the makers of such stress relieving games as GTA and Quake 3. Many problems like those could be avoided if the
  • Let us not forget that a Tween is someone who is between the ages of 20 and 29, inclusive. Didn't the Lord of the Rings teach us this?
  • This is actually a very clever legislative compromise...we can still steal cars, sell drugs and kill hookers in Grand Theft Auto, but now the game stars Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen.
  • Isn't this what K-A used to be? Personally, i yearn for the days when games weren't rated, and the titles and covers gave you a damn good idea if the game was appropriate for your kid.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah

Close