Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Entertainment Games

Do Game Ratings Really Do Their Job? 56

Posted by simoniker from the anything-goes dept.
Thanks to CNN Money for its article exploring whether videogame ratings are as relevant as they need to be, with particular reference to Manhunt, the gory Rockstar-developed stealth action game which sparked similar discussions at Slashdot earlier this week over its M (Mature), but not AO (Adults Only) rating. The ESRB ratings board officially commented: "The ratings and content descriptors printed on all game boxes, including Manhunt, tell consumers what to expect from the game and provide the detail parents need to make informed purchasing decisions", but the CNN writer argues: "By way of comparison, 'Deus Ex: Invisible War', which hits streets next week, is also rated M... it's a game I wouldn't mind seeing a 15-year old play, whereas any responsible adult would cringe if they saw a child or young teen playing 'Manhunt'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Do Game Ratings Really Do Their Job? More

Do Game Ratings Really Do Their Job?

Comments Filter:

  • Trust your kids (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 )
    You were once kids too. Games aren't going to warp their minds if their minds aren't already warped by you, their parents.

    • Re:Trust your kids (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hawkbug ( 94280 ) <.psx. .at. .fimble.com.> on Wednesday November 26, 2003 @09:38PM (#7574589) Homepage
      Just something to think about - I never had video games like "Man Hunt" when I was a kid, I was busy playing Super Mario Brothers and Rad Racer. I do think I turned out fine.... but man, I think games like Man Hunt are disturbing to anyone, not just kids. I don't want to know what kind of 10 year would want to play that game.

      • Re:Trust your kids (Score:2, Insightful)

        by tibike77 ( 611880 )
        I used to LAUGH (as a late-teenager) at gross stuff such games had in them instead of actually playing them for that.
        But... it's the curiosity that will make a 10-year-old play it. The fact that is "restricted" makes it only more desirable. And nobody will make him *not* play it if he sets his mind on it.

        Me, I would rather let kids play this game and forbid them to watch the evening news... the problem nowadays is DE-sensitivisation.
        People are subjected from a younger age to information about violence, cri

    • Re: Times change (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There comes a time when we have to stop lumping all games under the same category and that time is now. Manhunt is far from being comparable to "Forbidden Forest" (C64 game where your character could get his head chewed off by a spider, with blood spattering profusely everywhere--in 1 red color and big chunky pixels) or even Apple's "Bilestoad". We're at a sufficient level of reality now where some content in video games truly is not appropriate. You have to consider it the same as you would a gory slasher
      • Actually, i'd rather a kid watched (the original) Texas Chainsaw Massacre than played Man Hunt. TCM has very little blood (though half of the on-screen blood is actually real) and some very interesting themes about the end of the sixties generation, meat consumption, etc, etc.

        I don't know if Man Hunt has any redeeming qualities or if it's just mindless carnage...
  • OK, I'll admit it, it seems slightly harder to get into an R-rated movie like T3 today than it did 10 years ago, to get into, say T2. In some ways they actually seem to be checking IDs.

    But videogames are another story. Sure, Target asked me for ID when I purchased GTA3, but what about ordering from amazon.com or even renting from blockbuster? Those are simple enough to avoid the ID checks (and yes, credit cards are for those 18+, but you can always purchase temporary amex cards, webcertificates, etc).
    • "OK, I'll admit it, it seems slightly harder to get into an R-rated movie like T3 today than it did 10 years ago, to get into, say T2. In some ways they actually seem to be checking IDs."

      This might be because... you're ten years older?

      Thanks folks, I'll be here all week.

      • RTFP (read the f'n parent) - if you read my actual post and I had written the OPPOSITE of what I actually wrote, I would have said that it's easier to get in today than it did 10 years ago.

        As it is, I find myself showing more ID not (i'm 24) then when I was 14, simply because they check it more these days. It's harder today..
      • The older you get, the harder it is to get into R movies? So, when I'm 50 I'm going to have to sneak in the back door?

  • Can't be enforced... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DarkBlackFox ( 643814 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2003 @09:38PM (#7574592)
    The problem with video game ratings is that they are extremely difficult to enforce. With a movie, it's pretty easy to stick a drone at the entrance of the auditorium to ensure no one under 17 gets into an R rated movie. With games though, while they may restrict the sales to minors, all it takes is an older friend or clueless parent to pick up the latest Grand Theft Auto and hand it to a 7 year old.

    Sure, the ratings may help for more conscious parents whom read the box before they buy, but for the majority of people out there, the ratings are useless. Same goes for ratings on DVD/videos- people either just don't look or don't care.
    • With a movie, it's pretty easy to stick a drone at the entrance of the auditorium to ensure no one under 17 gets into an R rated movie. With games though, while they may restrict the sales to minors, all it takes is an older friend or clueless parent to pick up the latest Grand Theft Auto and hand it to a 7 year old.

      Sure, the ratings may help for more conscious parents whom read the box before they buy, but for the majority of people out there, the ratings are useless. Same goes for ratings on DVD/videos-

      • That's not quite what I mean. I realize the current system is better than nothing.

        and i'm sure younger kids can convince older kids to buy tickets for them at a theatre.

        Around here, tickets are checked at the gate to the theatre. If a ticket is found to be for an R rated movie, the ticketholder is promptly checked for ID. Sure, an older kid can buy the tickets, but they still won't be let into the theatre, unless a parent is present and can producte sufficient ID. I'm 19, and when I tried to get tic
      • What exactly do you propose as an alternative? Perhaps we should imbed microchips in all children, and consoles can be programed not to let Mature or Adult games play unless the person holding the controller is over 18 according to the chip? There's no way to enforce strict adherence to the ratings without going completly Orwellian.

        Here's a novel idea, why not instead of fancy microchips (or the equivalently effective m-16 weilding guard in the video game section) and the like, let's get parents to make s

  • Gee... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Captain Splendid ( 673276 )
    Manhunt is causing a flap. How predictable. Can we get over ourselves and please give the responsibility for parenting children back to parents? That would be nice.
    • It would also be nice if game makers would have enough taste *not* to make games based on snuff films, or at the very least if the ESRB would rate this one Adults Only.

      America's priorities are totally screwed up if Manhunt ends up in the same ratings group as Deus Ex, the new Legacy of Kain game, and even GTA (all three of which I wouldn't have a problem with highschoolers playing), while a hypothetical sexually-themed game would immediately be dropped into Adults Only.

      How is it more appropriate for young
      • There you go, you've missed the point entirely. To recap: some sixteen year olds are ready to handle a game like Manhunt. Some aren't. Why don't we let their parents decide, and that way, Rockstar can concentrate on making games, not trying to work around some sort of arbritrary content rating system.
  • I mean, your kid comes running and says "dad, dad, I want this new game, it's awesome".
    Do you just buy it by looking at the E-something rating, or do you at least have the decency to read the darn package first?

    And anyway... as a previous poster said: there is no "irreparable damage" dealt to any kid for seing something... the damage comes if you LET him play that game for too long and have no ideea later why he starts poking people's eyes out or something like that.

    Hey, it's not *that* long ago since I w
    • In pre-conclusion: buy your kid just about anything he can play... but look at him the first times he plays it... then again in about one week, etc (ok, I'm *NOT* going to start a child-psychology lecture here).

      What? I'm pretty liberal, but that's just ridiculous. There are very good reasons not to expose children, especially very young children, to certain material and no reputable child psychologist would say different. We put limits on what children are permitted to explore so that they can experien

      • but look at him the first times he plays it...

        I took that to mean make sure the child wasn't being affected by the material. I would agree with not giving younger children such exposure, and they'd probably have just as much fun playing with Ninja Turtles.
      • Umm, you have the correct ideea yet you take it a bit too far... We all tend to UNDERESTIMATE the power of understanding of a child.

        For your example on the holocaust and the 8-year-old... my approach would be something like this (and I am talking about an eastern-european kid, my presumptive kid):

        "Daddy, what's the Holocaust?"
        "Well, some time ago, about when your grand-dad was born, in the war, there was an insane man who could not suffer some other people and he tried to kill them all... it was not somet
        • I had nightmares about nuclear war from about age 10 to age 20. Some of that has to do with what was going on the world while I was growing up, but some of it was due to specific images to which I was exposed as a child (specifically, a rather sensationalist special about Nostradamus and the movie The Day After). When I heard jets flying over head, I would experience a fleeting fear that I was hearing a missile. I thought about the possibility of nuclear war a LOT. All this, despite being talked to and
        • Excelent Advice! Right on!
    • Even if the violence levels in today's games are worse, it takes more than a single factor to warp a child's mind. If anyone wants to dispute that, read "Youth Violence: A Report by the Surgeon General" for free online (and then talk to the dozens of doctors involved - what can I say about it without my PhD, other than cite their authority).

      If a parent is otherwise good, but doesn't check their child's games, the kid will be fine. My parents had no idea I played Doom, Wolfenstein, Grand Theft Auto 1, etc

  • Relevant, yes; perfect guide, no. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday November 26, 2003 @09:55PM (#7574655) Homepage
    The main problem lies in the expectations for game ratings. Some people expect that the rating of a game will tell them all they need to know about whether or not it's suitable for particular age groups. Those who know better understand that knowing the rating can only be the start of that process.

    As is standard for this kind of discussion, I'll use a movie comparison. Both "Bound" and "The Matrix" were rated R by the MPAA. However, one (The Matrix) is far more likely to be acceptable to a parent for viewing by their 14-year-old than the other (Bound). The Matrix was rated R primarily for violence, secondarily for language with a relatively small amount of [non-sexual] nudity. Bound, on the other hand, was rated R primarily for violence and sexual content (specifically, the homosexual aspect) and secondarily for language. Thus we have two movies with the same rating that are going to be judged differently as to appropriateness by parents.

    The same applies to the ESRB ratings. "Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball" was rated M primarily for its perceived sexual content/nudity while "Manhunt" received an M based on graphic violence. The former would be acceptable to any parent whose children would be permitted to peruse the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, while the latter would probably bother most parents of children under 16 (and probably many parents of children OVER 16).

    I think the television ratings system [tvguidelines.org] is probably a better direction for video games in that it provides a much better breakdown of ratings (seven ratings plus descriptors) and it covers content which parents are less likely to view in full (few parents want to sit through a half-hour of Pokemon, and even fewer want to sit and watch their children play two hours of a video game).

    So, I think the ESRB is doing its job within the framework that already exists (five ratings with only three that truly matter - E for Everyone, T for Teen and M for Mature). It's just that some people are expecting that simple framework to provide more information than it truly can. Adopting a system with a larger number of simple ratings based on a more complex decision-making process would probably provide the information in a way that would be more useful.

    • Maybe I'm not entirely familiar with the rating system used in the USA (I think it's the same as in Canada), but many of the old game boxes I had wouldn't just have a rating, they'd include descriptions.

      I had an old Blizzard game whose name I forgot, but it included a mention of violence, and "human's killed." Isn't it the same for games today? I think I remember boxes that mentioned degrees of sexual content too.

      Having ratings and a short list of reasons seems like a great system, whether it is used
    • The ESRB ratings system works exactly the way you describe.

      In TV they have TV-Y7, TV-G (I think, something denoting that's it's fine for everyone), TV-14, and TV-MA, with modifiers displayed underneath the rating. Modifiers descibe Adult situations, Profane language, Nudity, and Violence.

      Games have a rating EC (basically for games that only a young child would enjoy), E (for everyone), T for Teen, M for mature, and Ao for the rare porno game that bothers being submitted to the ESRB. Turn the package ove
  • I disagree with the rating of a single [insert product category here], I therefore believe that the ratings systems for said product category are broken. Do you A: Agree with me or 2: Want to lose some Karma?
  • America can care less about the level of violence in something. America is more worried about sex than violence.
  • As long as the government is not setting the rules for who and at what age people can buy games, then the ESRB (a self-governing industry regulatory body) is continuing to do its job; namely, that of keeping the government out of the business of legislating which games be sold to certain groups.

    You might not believe me, but the ESRB is the best compromise between total censorship (ala SNES Mortal Kombat), and total outrage by the public enough to try and get things legislated (ala the outcry on Mortal Komb
    • Ooops, to be serious, I never looked at it this way. You might be 95% or more correct in your assumption.

      Reading this... and considering how American politicians behave (?lately?), it might be the "next best thing since sliced bread"...

      That is, if somebody doesn't get the bright ideea to (warning: semi-offtopic) have personal implanted RFID tags signaling birthdate and only allowing children of appropriate age to play it... ouch.

  • Shouldn't we be asking something else? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Not, "Do game ratings really do their job?"

    But, "Are game ratings doing your job?"

    Don't let the answer to the second one be Yes.

  • Violence vs Sex (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2003 @10:48PM (#7574872) Homepage
    America, and by extension the ESRB, has an odd relationship with violence and sex. Violence is, by and large, seen as a viable solution to the problems of the world (usually violence). Sex, on the other hand, is a morally corrupt abhorration. While videogames, movies, and television have no problems showing camera pans through the heads of suicide victims, women put onto meathooks, gun-toting henchmen having their heads severed in half, sex seems to put the industry in a tussle.

    NYPD Blue, a show whose subject is violent homicide, caused quite an uproar when they showed a female breast for a fraction of a second. The violence equivalence of flashing a breast would be to show a quick clip of a knife under someone's jacket. How dare they! In a PG-13 movie, you are allowed to show a gun shooting and have someone falling over in death throes, though you cannot show the gun pointing at someone in the same frame. That's reserved for R. A sex equivalent would be to show someone pointing their "gun" at someone else, and the other person bouncing up and down in pleasure. Not something you could get away with in... For example... Pirates of the Carribbean.

    Very few movies have ever received an X or MA for violence, and the few that did were re-cut. Paul Verhoeven [imdb.com] is probably the only Hollywood director to achieve such a plateau, but even then the discrepancy shows through. Total Recall had a total of 3 shots altered to achieve an R rating, with no screentime lost. Verhoeven's Basic Instinct had to be re-submitted 7 times before it was accepted, and had 16 minutes altered. It made it to the European market intact. However, his movie RoboCop lost between 4 and 24 minutes depending upon the European market, yet hit the Americans largely unadulterated.

    After watching the violence prevalent in, for example, Freddy vs. Jason, it becomes painfully obvious that no amount of videogame violence will draw an AO rating in this country. Not only is violence the core crutch for designers, but no amount of violence will truly exceed the threshold of the movie screen. And while we claim to worry about children's exposure to violence, parents get truly livid when the possibility of sex arises. Ever wonder why we see hostages take bullets to the head in the gritty, realistic world of Max Payne 2, but all sexual activity must be very generally implied?

    Simple bloody violence is perfectly OK in this country. Despite most R-rated movies being violence pornography, there is little movement to stop them. When people talk of the sexualization of the youth, they usually point to Brittany Spears or some such. Sex is apparently such a horrific thing that we must protect our youth from the symbols that represent it. Brittany spears doesn't have sex on television. Brittany spears doesn't simulate having sex on television. Many people on MTV either kill or die in their videos.

    Theories about the ramifications this prioritization has on international affairs are welcome. However, WRT the subject at hand, Manhunt doesn't achieve the level of violence required to be considered perverse because we have given up all concept that pure violence can be perverse: That there is anything at all wrong with watching a man use a lawnmower against a room full of the rotting undead, or melting a man's skin off his body then running him over with a car is a foreign concept to us Americans.

    Show all of the pain you like. Just don't have any characters pleasure eachother.
    • Slightly offtopic, but on the subject of Violence vs. Sex:

      If I remember correctly (if not, I'll be corrected), the Kevin Smith flick 'Clerks' orignally got slapped with a NC-17 rating. For what you ask?

      Sexual Dialogue. That's right, not nudity, not hardcore horse on chick action, but for making dick and snowblowing jokes/comments..

      He had to petition the MPAA to get it changed to an R rating.

    • Re:Violence vs Sex (Score:2, Informative)

      by GTarrant ( 726871 )
      A key point here is the interesting fact that everything you mention in your (excellent) post could be flipped on top of itself if we just cross the Altantic (something alluded to in your movie examples).

      In Europe, for the most part, violence is completely taboo - movies, television, wherever, American movies often must be edited an incredible amount to reduce instances of graphic violence. Television shows rarely show the types of violence that are routine on CSI, NYPD Blue, or numerous other shows. He

    • While I agree with almost everything you have written, I have only one mild quibble: you said that "no amount of videogame violence will draw an AO rating in this country...no amount of violence will truly exceed the threshold of the movie screen."

      If you mean that no game could get an AO for quantity of violence, I agree. However, I think it would be possible to get one for type of violence. True, no major publishers would put it out, but imagine some indie/publicity hound budget game maker creating a g

  • Out of the mouths of babes... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dmorin ( 25609 ) <dmorin@gmail . c om> on Wednesday November 26, 2003 @10:52PM (#7574891) Homepage Journal
    Just this weekend my team met the boss's son, who is about 11. We were discussing the purchase of a new game console for the office. When the question came up of PS/2 versus X-Box, this 11yr old said "The PS/2 has mostly E for Everyone games. The X-Box is better, it has lots of M titles."
  • Hi,

    Fisrt, as many of /.ers put it in previous posts, the rating system can only at best be a piece of advice, not a perfect rule. Parents remain, in the last times, the rulers of their offspring.

    But beyond that, the rating system is flawed, because the raters take into account the amount of violence, but do not put it into perspective with the overall meaning of the game.

    Let's take two games that have been rating similarly : Manhunt and Diablo II. Both received the M17+ rating from the ESRB. How can a comm

  • Ratings systems in general (Score:4, Informative)

    by randomlogik ( 694788 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2003 @11:38PM (#7575094) Homepage
    You seem to have quite a interesting range of ratings in the states.

    In Australia, we have a standardized rating system (sorry its called a classification system here) for Games, Music, Movies and most of tv.

    It goes like this:

    G - General Exhibition
    PG - Parental Guidance for those under 15
    M15+ - Recommended for Mature Audiences 15 and over
    MA15+ - Restricted to audienced 15 and over
    R18+ - Restricted to adults 18+
    X - Hard core porn

    This is used across the board, however it is enforced unfairly. I can't get my friends 17 year old girlfriend into Kill Bill, however she can buy it when it comes out on DVD.

    What is funny here is the R18+ category doesnt exist for games. Basically if the game is too violent and/or too much sex - it gets banned (ie GTA3, Postal).

    The ratings system here has always been under controversy by one group or another. And the moment some other game gets banned (possibly Manhunt) there will be another gamer's uproar.

    I agree with restricted classification for children (but not overkill), but I do not believe anyone has the right to BAN films or games and the such.

  • Basic human psycology here (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 1eyedhive ( 664431 ) * on Wednesday November 26, 2003 @11:48PM (#7575138) Homepage Journal
    Human psych 101:
    If something is Taboo, it is desired more

    Example:
    10 year old wants T or M rated game, say Half-Life. His parents deny it to him because of the rating, ergo he wants it even MORE, eventually getting it off an older friend or someone with more liberal parents.

    Violence vs Sex:
    American society was hugely victorian at the turn of the century, and with the outlawing of prostitution, sex, depicted in an form became taboo. Granted, society has made several leaps in the past few decades, but the conservatives seem to always prevail, thus the victorian mentality continues here in the US, anything of a sexual nature is restricted to 18+, even though we humans are aware of it's allure from age 12 or so, and because it's taboo, it is desired greatly, leading to misconceptions, and curiosity, and due to the taboos of discussing it in public, we have a massive teen pregnancy rate.

    OK, back to the games, violence is more socially accepted than sex for no good reason. I have no qualms in seeing someone get shot up in a bloody mess (very violent), but a scene of a nude body is FORBIDDEN.

    What a strange would we live in, eh?
    • "American society was hugely victorian at the turn of the century"

      While Victorian society wasn't as victorian as you might believe, and the parallel starts to completely unravel at that point.

      All your other arguments tend to come down on a particular side of hotly debated subjects, and I wouldn't necessarily blame everything on the Conservatives....quite a few of them in the US and UK have contributed to the teen pregnancy rate.

      For the humour restricted, the above was a joke with a leedle hint of fact

  • What IS the job of video game ratings? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nanojath ( 265940 ) on Monday December 01, 2003 @01:03PM (#7600529) Homepage Journal
    The author's primary argument is that Manhunt should have received an AO (Adults Only) rating: his secondary argument is that the rating system is inconsistent and consequently does not do the job of serving as an information source for parents.


    I agree with the author in one sense: the infrequent application of an AO rating mirrors the reality of movie ratings, which is that the only thing we, as a culture, seem to think really justifies restriction for adults only is sexual content. And this is a sick, twisted reflection of modern society: that it is perceived as somehow healthier to see depictions of humans brutally killing one another than to see nudity or even the graphic depiction of sex.


    Meanwhile mainstream pop culture is so saturated with sex in every kind of portrayal except an honest, direct and complex one that the sexual sophistication of modern humanity seems to be in the ballpark of a socially retarded fourteen-year-old.


    Having said this, I don't really agree with the author. Personally I think rating levels are mostly pointless - they can serve a function as an arbitrary cut-off point for the restriction of sales based on age, but you can't expect a handfull of broad classifications to give you the information you need if you want to make an informed choice as a parent, which is the only rational function of ratings. A voluntary rating should, like a movie, accurately list the relevant components of a game. It should specify whether there is language, crime, drug use, violence (and whether the violence is prevalent, gory, and/or sadistic), sexuality and/or nudity. Maybe I'm missing some categories of vice. But this is basically the best that can be done. It's up to a parent to decide how involved they're going to be with the media their children consume.


    I do question some of the ratings I see. Enter the Matrix is rated Teen. This is a game that could be called Let's Kill Some Cops. The violence isn't particularly bloody or gory but I question whether that should be the fundamental issue. You just blow away an awful lot of cops. This reflects the movies, of course, but then the movies are rated R. You can also blow away innocent bystanders if you feel like it. You can give random maintenance workers a rap on the head to get them to lie down and surrender... and then, if you feel like it, you can switch to sniper mode and put a cap in the back of their heads, execution style. Versatile. There is no punishment or disincentive for this behavior. Contrast, say, Eternal Darkness, where I recently got stuck for a while in a level and, in the spirit of trying everything, cut down an innocent monk. And boy did my character lose some serious sanity for that decision... I'm not saying video games should be obligated to impose some sort of moral code of behavior, just pointing out that the distinctions can get pretty subtle.


    On the other hand, by the time I was seventeen my parents had pretty much stopped exercising control over the media I consumed and that seems appropriate to me. My folks actually paid attention to what I was consuming and gave their input, whether I wanted it or not, of what they thought of questionable components. I find it significant that the main, pretty much the only objection my dad ever voiced to the video games I played was the way my brother and I would get into loud, foul-mouthed arguments when we played against each other. Apparently he had this crazy idea that actual behavior towards actual human beings required the most active parenting.


    I have very broad tastes and consume a lot of media I don't imagine my parents would enjoy or "approve" of. What I received as a child that made a difference was not some checklist of permitted and forbidden content, but rather parental engagement in how I spent my time, input on the kinds of things I was seeing or listening to, and a strong influence on my real behavior in the real world. I haven't had an uncontrollable urge to kill people so far.

  • The real Chris Morris is so much cooler.

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close