Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Entertainment Games

ESRB Survey Fights Back Against Criticism 26

Posted by simoniker from the the-parent-trap dept.
Thanks to GameInfoWire for the press release showing the Entertainment Software Rating Board's attempts to deflect recent criticism by publishing a new survey claiming that "...parents overwhelmingly approve of the ratings assigned to computer and video games." Following some notable critiques of the ESRB ratings, particularly in relation to the release of gory stealth action title Manhunt, an independent ESRB-commissioned study "...showed 400 randomly selected parents footage from popular computer and video games... an overwhelming majority of the time (84%), parents agreed with the ESRB ratings [for those games] or thought the ratings were too strict."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ESRB Survey Fights Back Against Criticism More

ESRB Survey Fights Back Against Criticism

Comments Filter:

  • Not enough info... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mechanik ( 104328 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @10:16AM (#7653271) Homepage
    Ok, playing Devil's Advocate here...

    With the given info stated in the article, these results mean nothing. Yes, it says footage from video games was shown to the survey participants, but it doesn't say what footage. Was the footage truly representative of the game? Did it show the nastiest, most controversial content that the game had to offer?

    Fictitious example: They show you footage from Grand Theft Auto III, but all they show you doing is racing your car around town, and don't show you killing Chinese Triad members with a flamethrower, screwing hookers to up your health points, beating up random pedestrians with a baseball bat, etc. If you're not shown anything nasty, of course you're going to say the rating is a good match or is too strict. If all they show is you racing around trying to get fast times, they'll probably think that the worst content this game has to offer is encouraging you to break traffic laws. Of course, anyone familiar with the game knows better.

    Without knowing the games they showed the survey participants and what particular content from those games was shown, these numbers are pretty meaningless.

    Note that this is not to say that the footage shown was not representative. It might have been. We just don't know.

    Note also that as previously stated, I am playing Devil's Advocate here. Personally I think the ratings system as already implemented is pretty darn good. It just bugs me when people trot out statistics like these that quite possibly don't mean shit because statistics are so easily manipulated. Even when I agree with them, it still bothers me.


    Mechanik

    • Re:Not enough info... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by smothra ( 725684 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @10:26AM (#7653310)
      Agreed. It's also a fallacy of appeal to the majority. I know it's conventional wisdom that fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong, but how is it significant that 87% of any group agrees with the ESRB rating? Who cares. Does the study group have a background in human psychology and can they provide any insight into what a rating *should* be? Shouldn't the ESRB (or whoever) spend some time on legitimate psychological study to peel back at least some of the curtain covering the "video games made me do it" question?

    • Re:Not enough info... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by StocDred ( 691816 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @01:26PM (#7654287) Homepage Journal
      "Screwing hookers" is a little exaggerated, don't you think? All that happens is the car bounces up and down, which is a visual comedy gag that happens on prime time TV about six times a week, more if they're double-running That 70s Show.

      It's that kind of hyperbole that gets games in trouble! Mainly because the Watchdog groups have more vivid imaginations than any of us.

      Aside: my boss made his teen kids throw out their copies of GTA because "you can kill hookers." I have to wonder how he feels about killing convicts or murderers or terrorists or gang members, the other common types of black-and-white baddies in video games.

      • Aside: my boss made his teen kids throw out their copies of GTA because "you can kill hookers." Yet another victim of "word-of-mouth" ratings. The ESRB has had less and less sway, as the internet allows people to tell others what a game is like and SEE what's in the game. You can hear from a friend who heard from a friend who heard from a friend that you "kill hookers", when the only place that that is EVER mentioned or done in GTA is on the MadTV sketch parodying the game.

  • Fighting fire with fire (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MMaestro ( 585010 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @10:30AM (#7653328)
    So long as anti-video game critics continue to use 'surveys', 'statisically data', and/or 'scientific evidence' to 'claim' that video games cause violence or the ESRB is not doing a good job, trying to disclaim the ESRB for doing this is like the pot calling the kettle black. Compared to whats been said AGAINST the ESRB, this is just a drop in the bucket.

  • Strict ESRB (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zevets ( 728720 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @10:45AM (#7653392) Journal

    I think the ESRB is way to strict. The article says that 84% of parents agreed with the ESRB, or thought that they were too strict.

    On TV there is more blood and violence than some videogames, and TV is free. If you dont want your kids to buy violent videogames, dont give them enough money to afford it.

    On the flip side however, Americas Army, which contains M worthy material, blood and guns, recieved a T. It is also free, available for a download by anybody, not even checking their age. Why? Because it is a US Army recruiting tool. Lets face it, we have to indoctrinate our children while they are young.

    Your kids will also get their hands on bad games anyway, at a friend house or some other uncontrollable way. And if you wnat to shelter your kids from porn and other forms of sexual entertainment you would have to take away the internet.

    So what happens is that once developers realize that they cant have just a smidgen of violence, they turn games into SOF2, which has buckets of gore and blood.

    The ESRB is a big fat corrupt organization, designed to give parents a security bubble, when parents should be responsible for thier kids.

    • America's Army also has one feature that most other games of that type don't: consequences. If you get killed, you're dead for the rest of the round. If you shoot a teammate, you get kicked out. If you shoot a non-combatant, you get kicked out. Do any of this too often, you get thrown in Levenworth.

  • Usually close enough... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tprime ( 673835 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @10:53AM (#7653423)
    As a rule, I have usually agreed with the ESRB ratings of games. Manhunt however, seemed a little over the top and is the first game I have EVER played that honestly deserved an AO (Adults Only) rating. Don't get me wrong, some of the parts of this game were suspenseful and nail-biting, but the whole point behind this game is to sneak up on skin-heads and gang members and kill them as graphically as possible via a cut scene movie.

    Like I stated earlier, I usually agree with the ratings (GTAIII and VC deserve the M they got) and I believe that Manhunt is the exception, not the rule.

    Basically what it comes down to is that parents, in addition to looking at the ratings, need to ACTUALLY SPEND SOME TIME WITH THEIR KIDS to see what they are playing, especially when it is a Mature rated game.

    • Re:Usually close enough... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by magic ( 19621 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @11:17AM (#7653531) Homepage
      I agree. The ESRB rating system is pretty strict. As a game industry insider, I know that game developers go to incredible lengths to remove objectionable content and get a Teen or Everyone rating (just like movies do for PG/13)


      BUT: If Manhunt, a game where you play a serial killer and act out ghastly murders, doesn't get an Adults Only rating, I don't know what does. The ESRB blew it on that one.


      -m

  • inconsistencies... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bansuki ( 540068 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @11:37AM (#7653650) Homepage

    How is it that this game [deusex.com] got the same ESRB rating as Manhunt? They both get an M rating for mature though the comments may be different. But anyone who's played Deus Ex (the original or the sequel) can tell you it involves little violence. The only thing "mature" about it is the complex plot and gameplay. Look at this story [slashdot.org] for some perspective on how the ESRB needs to redefine its ratings.

    Also note this statement from the article linked in the story above:

    "Game ratings are decided upon in a subjective process that leans heavily on the honor system. Publishers submit footage of what they consider to be the extreme elements of their game. That footage is then viewed by three individuals, who submit a recommended rating. If there is a consensus, the rating stands. If not, more people are brought in to view the elements."

    Here's another article [slashdot.org].

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

      by tprime ( 673835 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @05:39PM (#7655626)
      This is a situation that the makers of Deus Ex2 probably submitted footage MORE harsh than the average. Any FPS games NEED to have a M rating or greater to succeed. Non-violent shooters, regardless of how good the games are, will not sell based on the current standard of good FPS (Half Life, Resident Evil, etc.) being violent.
      • Postal 2 sold 40,000, got an M, and it sucked.
      • This is a situation that the makers of Deus Ex2 probably submitted footage MORE harsh than the average.

        They're supposed to submit the worst possible footage, so it's quite possible in a game like Deus Ex 2 or many other games that most players will never see why an M rating was given. That doesn't mean, however, that the rating wasn't justified. That being said, they still submit the final game so that the ESRB can make sure the footage was representative of the actual game, and the rating and comments

  • Incredible (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Daddio ( 171891 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:15PM (#7653867)
    I am a parent, 12 year old boy. I let him play GTA3 & VC. Big deal. Manhunt, my nephew has it we watched him play. Looks rather boring compared to a good slasher movie.

    When are people going to realise that games like movies and books are for all ages and not just kids? There are books for children and books that you wouldn't want a 12 year old to read. There are movies that you wouldn't want your 12 year old to watch.

    Get over it America, games are not just for kids, any more than books or movies are.

    • Re:Incredible (Score:4, Insightful)

      by lidocaineus ( 661282 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @02:52PM (#7654737)
      It's a bit more complicated than that.

      If a parent teaches their kid about morals, gray areas, why some things are considered right and why some are considered wrong, as well as take an active role in seeing what influences their kids to open up avenues of possible discussion later (video games, movies, tv, etc), then the child will most likely grow up to be well balanced enough to know that something like Manhunt *is* just a game.

      For example, my parents never gave out blanket statements that "DRUGS ARE BAD - DON'T DO THEM!" Instead, when the subject came up, they would point out examples of drug abuse and out of control behavior, as well as why people ended up going in that direction. They pointed out exactly what made abusing drugs a danger and what the consequences were. So whenever the opportunity comes up to do whatever, I may still be curious, but I also know what the potential end result might be, and judgement calls come into play. It was never preachy stuff - it was just them being honest, and it worked wonders beyond saying "STAY AWAY!!!!" which we all knows just makes people want to do things more.

      The problem is when parents just let their kids lose, don't pay any attention to what they're partaking in, and blindly buy them movies and games without even talking about the more controversial types (such as Manhunt) with them.

      Video games are just like any other part of parenting - you're supposed to communicate with your kids and put things in context. Is this easy? Hell no. But no one said parenting was supposed to be easy in the first place.

  • The problem with the system is this... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gmezero ( 4448 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @12:33PM (#7653978) Homepage
    Publishers will send a video tape of "typical gameplay" to the ESRB for them to generate their evaluation from. The ESRB just does not have the professional gamers or the time to play every game to the finish, and this has been my gripe from the day they founded the stupid organization. It's not like movie ratings based on someone watching a film. I have always felt that the ESRB should hire gamers to solve and evaluate the games, or require the publishers to provide a video of a complete solve for them to scan through.

    Case in point Castlevania: Bloodlines, one of the goriest games released in 1994 received a GA rating. At the E3 trade show we confronted the ESRB staff about this title, and asked if they didn't think that the GA rating was a bit soft for the title given the fact that you spend an entire stage decapitating enemies which then spurt volumes of blood from their necks?

    Their reply? They were shocked and horrified and completly agreed that that was certainly not GA level content and that they would look into it.

    Right. Apparently Konami never provided any footage to them of this part of the game, and in 1994 anything lower than a GA was suicide for your game in the market unless you were Mortal Kombat, so publishers were playing the system to get the rating they felt would best help their game sell.

    The ESRB is all BS. It always has been and still is.
    • Put it this way: when idiots like Leland Yee from that article the other day come around saying there's no regulation on content in games, you can point to the ESRB ratings as at least a guideline for parents. Ideally parents will be watching their children play these games, so they'll KNOW what the content is like.

      It can be improved, certainly, but it's better than no rating system at all in 95% of cases.
      • But it is not a guideline, it's a marketing tool. And I don't know what country you've been living in but most people in the U.S. use the TV and video games as a discount babysitter service here. It's a rare case where a parent will watch more than a moment of what their kid is playing and even rarer yet when they actually sit down and share the experience with them.

  • Should be based on content (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Well Metal Gear Solid 2:The Sons of Liberty got the same rating as Manhunt. Granted, there is Libreal amounts on blood when you shoot somebody but it is nowhere as detailed as Manhunt. For Violence's sake I say it should have got a T. But, becuase of the Mature content matter presented towards the latter half, I think it deserves an M.

    But what was the ESRB thinking?? Manhunt should be AO and should be sold in Adult Stores. Rockstar went to far with this one

Slashdot Top Deals

This is now. Later is later.

Close