Modern Games and Technology Challenging ESRB's Effectiveness 136
The Entertainment Software Rating Board has been around for 15 years now, overcoming an ineffective start and a host of controversial events to become a fairly well-respected ratings agency. However, as this article at The Escapist points out, the world of video games is changing, and the ESRB does not seem to be adapting along with it.
"The most pressing problem is the ESRB's reluctance to address online interactions. Seeing as we're moving more and more toward online and internet-enabled games, this inevitably limits the ESRB's authority as a ratings board. Although the ESRB rates the submitted developer content within online games, these ratings are always qualified by an important disclaimer: 'Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB.' To date, this has meant that the rating given to the designed game content doesn't cover chat and other forms of player-to-player communication. That's unfortunate, because the ESRB's intimate relationship with the game industry could provide it with a unique vantage point from which to evaluate aspects of online games that are beyond the purview of other would-be raters, including the quality of the game's moderation system, programmed restrictions on chat and known player demographics."
You have it easy (Score:5, Interesting)
1) The South Korea's Games Rating Board is supposed to certify every game.
2) The Jesus Phone is finally about to be launched in South Korea and it will be widely popular for lots of reasons (you can trust me on this one).
But because of 1), the South Korean AppStore will not include games... [koreatimes.co.kr] Now that's not keeping up with the times.
I can't see how (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't see how they would be able to rate online games.
The fact of the matter is, they can only rate the underlying content of the game, not the interactions in the game.
In a lot of games you can manipulate environment, and create scenarios which isn't covered in the rating.
For example, make a NPC standing behind a cow and moving in a certain way, making it look like he is fornicating with said cow.
There is no way they can rate against things like this. The above example may be harmless as it's only insinuating something sexual, however, it wasn't intentional in the game.
Same thing can be said of online play.
The moment you introduce human interaction, anything can (and will) happen.
Spore got entire solar systems inhabited by several "races" of penis' for crying out loud.
That's a pretty innocent rated game.
So alternatively, all online interactions should be rated "M+: Enter at own risk".
tl;dr: They can rate the underlying game, but cannot rate human interaction, and thus can't accurately rate online play, imo.
Anything is better than nothing. (Score:5, Interesting)
They should just design a few tier labels to classify online interaction types.
Controlled - Anonymous multiplay only. All user content must be approved. Chat limited to preset phrases.
Friends only - Unfiltered user content and open chat from Friends Only.
Unfiltered - Open online community. Supervision recommended under 17.
That would at least let parents know what's going on in the game. It's a lot more informative than a simple: "Online interactions not Rated"
Re:I don't see why this is a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
The last sentence is the one to focus on:
It's like saying "Hey parents, we can't control what other people write on Slashdot, but they have a really decent moderation system." If (for those poor at comprehension, we call this a hypothetical statement) Slashdot offered parental controls to set the minimum threshold on your kids' accounts, they could conclude "While there is some nasty stuff when browsing at -1 which we have no control over, fortunately Slashdot offers you the ability to restrict your kids viewing to a much higher threshold and mitigate the risk of them reading material inappropriate for their age."
Re:I can't see how (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. They talk about how the ESRB can make these ratings based on censor technology, moderation schemes etc. but at the end of the day any game where you can interact with other players will go one of two ways:
1) Chat and interaction will be free enough that people can be offensive, obscene or agressive
2) Chat and interaction will be severely limited to avoid any potentially upset parents, so communication and interaction are likely to feel unnatural and clunky
Generally speaking there will always be idiots out there who will go to great lengths to upset and offend others. How can the ESRB make a rating for online interactions with that in mind?
Re:I don't see why this is a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
I find it more problematic that I, as a German EVE player, playing a game of a company from Iceland, who's (main) game servers are hosted in the U.K., am greeted each time I log in with an U.S. American content notice.
Re:I don't see why this is a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
My experience is somewhat different, but mostly because the only online game I've played really is WoW.
In my experience in WoW, kids have been a real mixed bag. Some of the better players I've had in guilds have been 12-14, and so have some of the worst. In general, once someone is known to be a little kid, the ventspeak gets somewhat less "mature". It always feels weird, though, when you know your tank is 12 or so, even if he's doing a great job.
I suppose my server (Lightninghoof) tends to be pretty good communitywise. Sure we have our share of dickheads, but much less than other servers I've played on. Probably because we're an RP server, for what that's worth.