ESRB To Automate Game Rating 119
The Entertainment Software Rating Board, which has struggled to keep up with the flood of games produced for app stores and other online markets, is now taking steps to automate the rating process.
"Starting on Monday the ratings board plans to begin introducing computers to the job of deciding whether a game is appropriate for Everyone, for Teens or for Mature gamers (meaning older than 16). To do this the organization has written a program designed to replicate the ingrained cultural norms and predilections of the everyday American consumer, at least when it comes to what is appropriate for children and what isn’t. ... the main evaluation of hundreds of games each year will be based not on direct human judgment but instead on a detailed digital questionnaire meant to gauge every subtle nuance of violence, sexuality, profanity, drug use, gambling and bodily function that could possibly offend anyone. The questionnaire, to be filled out by a game’s makers (with penalties for nondisclosure), is like a psychological inquest into the depths of all the things our culture considers potentially unwholesome."
six days in Falujah (Score:3)
six days in Falujah would get T(13+) for moderate-to-high amounts of violence, no sexual themes, limited or no use of profanity, no drug use, no gambling and no bodily functions.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure soldiers do all of those things you just mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure people do all of those things you just mentioned.
ftfy
Re:six days in Falujah (Score:4, Insightful)
speak for yourself, i dont use moderate to high amounts of violence in my daily life (or drugs/gambling for that matter)
Re: (Score:1)
no longer practicing kick-boxing, but still ingesting caffeine and I sometimes ride a bike in Brussels .. 2 out of 3 aint bad :)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.
Most casual conversation is pretty imprecise. We use the context to infer meaning *all the time*. Being 'technically' right, while also painfully wrong is generally considered a bad thing, particularly outside the trolly-goodness of the internet.
"Say no to drugs" is simply easier to say than "Say no to illegal, dangerous drugs unless you've been medically evaluated by a professional doctor (licensed by the AMA and in good standing with the licensing board) and then only take the prescribed drug
Re:people (Score:2)
Slashdotters have limited or no ineteraction with girlfriends, but heavy use of evil lairs.
Re: (Score:2)
six days in Falujah would get T(13+) for moderate-to-high amounts of violence, no sexual themes, limited or no use of profanity, no drug use, no gambling and no bodily functions.
Yeah, but at this point I'm expecting the new Duke Nukem game to be released before we see Six Days in Fallujah, which is sad because it is the one game I'm really looking forward to.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see my daily life:
moderate-to-high amounts of violence
I watch the news. Check.
sexual themes
Fuck? YEAH!
use of profanity
Fuck, YEAH!
drug use
Do coffee and beer count?
gambling
I cross the street, drive a car... does that count?
bodily functions
Who doesn't?
Re: (Score:2)
America, Fuck Yeah (Score:2)
moderate-to-high amounts of violence
I watch the news. Check.
FCC-regulated TV news does exercise discretion as to whether to show the gorier shots.
sexual themes
Fuck? YEAH!
use of profanity
Fuck, YEAH!
Now you've got that song from Team America: World Police running through my head.
gambling
I cross the street, drive a car... does that count?
Western culture generally doesn't consider pure risk [investopedia.com] to be forbidden gambling. As I understand it, forbidden gambling is any sort of risk that A. isn't a pure risk and B. isn't tied to a business concern's profit.
drug use
Do coffee and beer count?
Maybe and yes. Irresponsible drug use counts, as does use of age-restricted drugs.
bodily functions
Who doesn't?
Not flamboyantly in front of other people in the w
Nethack (Score:2)
Nethack [nethack.org] would probably get NC17 (or whatever their equivalent is) because it has:
1) Drugs (Magic mushrooms and potions that make you hallucinate),
2) Incubi and Succubi that have (implied) sex with you,
3) Violence against police* (the "keystone cops" that show up if you directly steal from a shop),
4) Cannibalism,
5) Sex changes, and
6) Devil worship and human sacrifice--by the player!**
Yet the whole thing is done with ascii character "graphics", and is purely tongue-in-cheek, and is about as dangerous for the
everything reduced to a meaningless number (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm fed up with decisions being made by questionnaires and computers. I think we should stop tolerating analyses of health, fitness, credit, intelligence, etc based on simplistic tests and numbers. The expert system is one of the most horrible simplifications of human judgement ever to grace the confused world of AI, and is almost without exception implemented with some bias to fulfil a pre-determined aim and reinforce some prejudice.
Re:everything reduced to a meaningless number (Score:5, Insightful)
But -any- rating-system that in the end, delivers a recommendation for age-group, is going to have to choose some prejudice.
You have to compare different sorts of content and weigh them against eachother.
How does *this* sort of violence stack up against *this* sort of sex ?
There is no single correct answer to that, indeed any extreme is thinkable from "Any amount of sex is okay, but no violence" to the opposite extreme of "any amount of violence is okay, but no sex"
It doesn't really matter if the score is by computer+questionaire or by human judgement or by any other method. There simple *isn't* one single correct answer.
The method of judging, isn't the problem. The fundamental task, is.
I tend to ignore the age-recommendations completely - instead if I'm in doubt about a certain game being apropriate or not for my kids, I will play it myself for a while. (usually you don't have to play it for -that- long to get a fair guesstimate)
Re: (Score:2)
But that is AFTER you bought it, isn't it. How are you going to return it after you determined that it's unsuitable?
Re: (Score:2)
if it suitably unsuitable, that makes it probably more enjoyable for the GP himself
Assuming he reads his reviews and doesnt buy ultimate stinker games
Re: (Score:2)
Why should you have a right to return it if it doesn't fit your personal moral values for the intended user?
Vote with your wallet. Take your next purchase elsewhere.
And read reviews before you buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Here [esrb.org] is a list of the ratings and content descriptors. I'm not sure what a concise but detailed explanation would consist of, but the sexuality side of things is conveyed by a number of descriptors:
There are similar spectrums for v
Anti-shoplift interferes with rating effectiveness (Score:2)
a more detailed explanation on the back of the box
Walmart keeps its console games behind locked glass. Is each parent supposed to ask an associate to take every single game off the shelf, one by one, just to read the descriptor on the back? No, a parent in a Walmart store will probably look at the one-letter summary if anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you're looking at a pa
Re: (Score:1)
Once you're looking at a particular game (or a choice among a few), it's pretty trivial to ask the Wal-Mart employee to open the case and let you flip over the box.
Assuming you can even find an electronics associate who isn't busy with another customer. Or knows anything about their department.
In my experience, a parent was either concerned about the content of a particular game ("Joey said to get BloodSlaughter 5 for his birthday - is it appropriate?"), is asking for a recommendation from the staff ("What's good for a 13 year-old boy? Uh-huh, and is there a lot of adult stuff?") or was familiar enough with the games him/herself and not in need of running down each game.
In my experience (and I've been working as a cashier the last ~7 months at a Walmart), parents usually don't give a damn. I cite the mother who sent her ~11 year old to buy his M-rated game by himself (I made him go get his mom before I made the sale... she didn't seem to understand why I needed to talk to her before making the sale). Or maybe they've just made their decision by
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, that's probably the biggest group. It's also why many stores require cashiers to ask for ID. If a parent doesn't care, well, there's not much you can do beyond follow your employer's policy and your own code of ethics.
The original post complained about how well a single letter rating could summarize the content. I pointed out that it isn't meant to, and that there's a fine-gr
Re: (Score:1)
Walmart keeps its console games behind locked glass.
For accuracy's sake, this is not true at all Walmarts. The one I work at doesn't keep games behind glass, and I don't think any of the other local ones do, either (that's another 4+ stores in a 1.5 hour driving radius).
They're supposed to be putting the glass back up at all stores, though. Nationwide, apparently the theft rate went up ~1000% after the glass was removed.
a parent in a Walmart store will probably look at the one-letter summary if anything.
I think it's more accurate to say that the parents just buy what their kids want. As a cashier, I have to go through the rating speech if th
Re: (Score:2)
The proper solution would be for games to carry labels describing what they contain: e.g. "some sexuality" or "moderate violence"
The old "RSAC Advisory" used by PC games once upon a time had bar graphs for profanity, violence, and the like, and no MPAA/ESRB style one-letter summary. Parents were ignoring it. So the industry switched to ESRB, whose one-letter summary required less effort to train parents.
Re: (Score:2)
whose one-letter summary required less effort to train parents.
Thing is, except for maybe less than 1% of parents, they're STILL ignoring it. It's just that some segment of that <1% crowd is very, very vocal.
For example, as a kid my parents didn't really give a hoot about drugs, sexual violence, etc... I got a waiver letter every year to let me rent whatever I wanted from the video store(yes, I'm dating myself). I was watching R rated films while still in the single digits. Only thing they didn't want me watching was horror films.
GTA? They'd of had no problem w
Re: (Score:2)
There is no single correct answer to that, indeed any extreme is thinkable from "Any amount of sex is okay, but no violence" to the opposite extreme of "any amount of violence is okay, but no sex"
You missed "No amount of sex or violence is okay" and "Any amount of sex and violence is okay". There are definitely those out there with biases in those directions...
Re: (Score:2)
"Any amount of sex is okay, but no violence"
Totally with you on that one, mate.
Oh, you were still talking about computer games? Dang.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
i'd say 7 pairs and a sideboob
Re: (Score:2)
i'd say 7 pairs and a sideboob
Sorry, Joe Biden is busy until 2012. [rimshot]
Thanks, I'll be here all week.
Tip the steaks and try your waitress.
~Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And who do you think builds the software which performs the "automated decision making process"?
Centralisation leads to corruption. All automation does is centralise the decision-making process so the (often intentional) bias of one small, elite group becomes the whole system's prejudice.
It's not that I don't trust computers - any more or less than I "trust" any tool or weapon. It's that I don't trust humans.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd still tend to go with the machines because in the end they're auditable, if you leave it to human judgement then it's easy for the humans involved to waffle on about something irrelevant and make up justifications when challenged .
but if it's in code then it's effectively in writing and you can check it and see "hey, look, it's been programmed to outright [reject]/[give AO rating to] anything with even a trace of homosexuality no matter how wholesome free of sex and violence "
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All this will do is allow publishers to game the system.
Activision Exec: We need to make our ultraviolent game available to kids.
Activision Project Manager: Easy, we've already found enough flaws in the automated system to allow Medal of Duty 117 to pass under the G category.
Activision Exec: But isn't that game full of violence and gore.
Activision PM: Yes, but we've diversified the gore just enough that no single criteria breaches the G category.
Activision Exec: Excellent, Lo
If anyone is interested. (Score:1)
Activision exec: My lord Kotik, the 117th iteration of Medal of Duty is ready for release.
Bobby Kotik: Has there been any changes to the gameplay?
Activision exec: Uh, my lord Kotic
Bobby Kotik:
Activision exec: One of the junior developers thought of some improvements.
Bobby Kotik: I SAID NO CHANGES.
Bobby Kotik:
Ju
Reskin (Score:2)
Bobby Kotik: Has there been any changes to the gameplay?
It's possible to tone down the violence by changing the setting while leaving the gameplay unchanged. One extreme is the tack taken by early first-person shooters, such as Battlezone and Faceball 2000, which didn't have any blood or even humanoid forms. A slightly less extreme example is the localization of Contra into Probotector for Germany and neighbors, where most characters were turned into android robots.
Re: (Score:1)
Games are targeted at a specific age group. There's really very little interest in selling to people outside that age group. Scandals are too much hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong. They, being the publishers are interested in getting games into as many hands as possible. This means getting the game the lowest rating possible whilst
Re: (Score:1)
Adult gamers like violence. If a game is rated as suitable for teens then you would expect it to be pretty tame. Call of Duty sounds liek a marketing screw-up where marketing wanted to target it at the Teen age group and the developers were developing for an adult age group. Scandals are great free publicity
They're unpredictable. It might work out well. It could backfire, especially if it turns out that you actively tried to cr
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked in the industry for 10 years. We're just not that cynical.
Adult gamers like violence. If a game is rated as suitable for teens then you would expect it to be pretty tame. Call of Duty sounds liek a marketing screw-up where marketing wanted to target it at the Teen age group and the developers were developing for an adult age group. Scandals are great free publicity
They're unpredictable. It might work out well. It could backfire, especially if it turns out that you actively tried to create the scandal. They're expensive to manage and cause share prices to go a little crazy. This does not please investors.
I'm cynical of publishers, not developers. Dev's always start out with good intentions but publishers hold the purse strings. So who ends up making the decision.
As the AC pointed out,
Adult gamers don't mind violence. Teenage gamers LOVE violence.
I'm not going all "OMG Protects the children" on you. Quite the contrary, the fascination with violence is normal and 99.999999999% of teenage boys grow out of it by the age of 18 but it's true. Unscrupulous publishers do target violent games at the male, 13 and upwards demographic.
I'm simply saying, automating a ratings
Re: (Score:3)
Why?
I mean, look, I share your feelings -- I truly do. I think the fact that our lives can be boiled down to a set of various numbers is pretty disgusting in a lot of ways.
But the reason we do this is because, culturally, we feel we need to make these decisions and we have devised specific criteria for them. We feel there is value to a number that denotes how good we are with credit, how much of a risk we are to insurers, and other such. If that is the case, then I would prefer it be done with comput
Re: (Score:2)
If that is the case, then I would prefer it be done with computers and done fairly and uniformly.
The first thing you do with any automated process is learn how to game the system. It's much easier to game a system which relies on simplistic computerised parameters than the thorough review of well-trained humans.
Just as with DRM, or any technical solution to a social problem, only the honest user loses out.
Re: (Score:2)
Bank loans and car insurance are already fairly heavily automated.
wasn't there an article a while back where it was pointed out you get better rates if you use certain browsers when applying for the loan(it only cared out correlations and apparently used that as a datapoint of some kind).
Re: (Score:2)
Having spent many years on the "Oh gods what will the ESRB think" side of things, it will be nice to have some Actual criteria for judgement laid out. Right now, you have absolutely no idea if a piece of content is going to hit the rating that you think it will. Is X too gross? Is Y unacceptable to middle america? Even genuinely important things like having a single person die in a sad and impactful way will effect your rating, because the more you grip the reviewer, the more likely it is to be adult ra
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why you're so worried about the rating, anyway, unless you're targeting children as a demographic. If you're targeting children, then perhaps your product is under a great deal of pressure to be "safe", but that's a choice you made, isn't it? Nobody is forcing you to go after that demographic.
Personally, I generally favor violent games (though I also like some harmless simulations, like SimCity), and I find it a little frustrating that the game companies keep making kid-safe games that
This isn't automation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This isn't automation... (Score:4, Insightful)
And they had to fill in the questionnaire anyway. The ESRB doesn't play the game through to the end. They rely on honesty from the developers. The developers will be honest because getting a too low a rating will typically deter serious adult gamers from certain types of games.
Re:This isn't automation... (Score:5, Informative)
They already had to do this for years. I've done the ESRB paperwork for games. Most ESRB submissions are put in with an extremely long form filled out, disclosing which red flags you hit. Then the developer has to put together a gameplay/cutscene video with an example of every single thing in the game that may change the rating, plus everything in the form. You have to list how many instances (and the circumstances) of things like tobacco use are in game. You know what this does? Makes is so the ESRB doesn't have to watch the video and the developer doesn't have to make it. Which will make a lot of low-paid employees very happy. Those videos were a pain to make. Oh, and the old system had the same penalties for non-disclosure this one does.
In the end, nothing really changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Duke Nukem 3D did have a "parental lock" type mode that got rid of the blood, tits and profanity, though IIRC it was easy to get around just by editing the config file.
Re: (Score:2)
The "parental lock" was ever intened to be difficult to get around. It is only an ass-cover for the publisher. It don't need to be efficient, it only need to be present. If anyone complain, the publisher blame the 'evil hacker' that got around.
Rediculous (Score:4, Insightful)
The board says that publishersâ(TM) answers to the digital questionnaire will determine a gameâ(TM)s rating and that a human wonâ(TM)t review it until after the game is out the door.
As stated in a draft of the boardâ(TM)s news release, âoeAll games rated via this new process will be tested by E.S.R.B. staff shortly after they are made publicly available to verify that disclosure was complete and accurate.â
Their computer spits out a rating based on a questionaire and nobody double checks until after the public launch?
The ESRB is turning itself into a rubber stamp organization.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
ESRB is already a rubber stamp organisation. They have always relied upon honestly from the developer (or publisher) as to the content of the game. We make games to fit a rating; I have been on projects where we have removed story elements and reduce particle effects in game to ensure that we get the rating that will make the game available to largest audience.
Re: (Score:2)
They already are, and they can't not be.
Do you really think ESBR staff played all the way through Dragon Age as every character type, doing every quest, and choosing every option?
There's no way they can check everything anyway, a developer can stick in an easter egg that you will never figure about by just playing the game that shows some content you don't otherwise see. So why should they pretend to?
Re: (Score:1)
The point of the ESRB is to keep Congress from legislating that games must be rated. They are an industry group, not a government organization. They will figure out the cheapest, fastest way to make sure Congress doesn't get involved with game ratings. That is the only purpose of the ESRB. If you think they were created to do something silly like protect children, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...
the Questionnaire (Score:5, Interesting)
Why dont we just put the answers to the questionnaire online and then any parent who cares enough to read them will know exactly what they are buying. That way no one will be judging at what age you can play a game and the ... unpleasantness of games is no longer reduced to a number. Parents who are sensitive to topics like drug abuse or gun control or sex can read the questionnaire and decide for themselves on a per topic basis.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea is to wash liability off the ESRB and everyone and let parents decide exactly what they want their kids to play. If they cant be bothered to read it then they have no right to complain. As it stands right now the parents are saying "this 13+ rated game has too much violence" and the other 'mature gamers group is saying "you cant decide at what age we should play these games!".
There might soon be a time when parents will set up a steam account for their kids and be shown a checklist of games they ar
Re: (Score:2)
That would be awesome, even as a way to filter games people buy for themselves. However, as a parent, it's especially important, as it lets me make sure that my kids play games which I feel are wholesome. ... which the more I think about it, seems to be "none of them". ;) I kid, I kid. Hardly any of the games I consider formative and awesome are ones I'd want my kid playing for Quite Some Time, though (Fallout, Deus Ex, Call of Duty, etc). In some ways, I think the simplicity and enforced abstraction of th
Re: (Score:2)
Mmm. I just thought of something, I'll be right back!
Re: (Score:2)
The silliest things also red-flag some games. For instance, if you dare mention homosexuality in any way or form, even if it is part of a normal storyline or background character, it's automatically kicked into the mature level by the Puritan Squad. Another one is to mention or deal with sex in technical terms or just simply discuss it in a normal and realistic manner. This puts many RPG type games into the M category because the developers are caught between the idiots at the ESRB and similar groups and
Dropping ESRB? Drop retail and consoles too (Score:2)
I think what this will end up doing is making developers revert to either their own rating system or not rating their games at all.
Dropping ESRB will have three consequences:
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the most important point. The whole reason why the ESRB was created - to avoid government from doing it!
It's one of those necessary evils that seems to keep the legislators at bay, other than trying (and failing) to get actual enforcement of the ratings.
Yes, scrap the ESRB and you'll start finding calls from parents on the evils of games and trying to get video games
Re: (Score:2)
I completely understand, but if the ESRB starts to act like the RIAA and similar agencies and start to dictate terms to the programmers (artists as it were) instead of just giving ratings, lt'll surely be dumped for something else that the industry creates. Or they'll just release it without a rating. If it's a war between a major supplier like EA games or Sony versus Gamestop, well, you know who's going to flinch first.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a bad idea, but I would do both the rating and make the questionnaire available. I like seeing the little rating icon in the corner of the box. Just like movies, you can quickly see what type of contents it contains and then decide whether or not it's appropriate; very practical when you just want to buy a random game, the questionnaire comes in when you kid tells you exactly what he wants so you can do your research beforehand.
Re: (Score:2)
Why dont we just put the answers to the questionnaire online and then any parent who cares enough to read them will know exactly what they are buying. That way no one will be judging at what age you can play a game and the ... unpleasantness of games is no longer reduced to a number. Parents who are sensitive to topics like drug abuse or gun control or sex can read the questionnaire and decide for themselves on a per topic basis.
What makes you think that parents want this, instead of the right to sue a games manufacturer or go to a news station and get their fifteen minutes of fame?
There are already plenty of reviews parents can read before buying games for their children. And even videos for those who can't read.
Re: (Score:2)
There are already plenty of reviews parents can read before buying games for their children. And even videos for those who can't read.
People who can't read shouldn't have children.
Mentally, illiterate people are at the pre-school level, equivalent to about 5 years old. Sex at that age is harmful, ask the ESRB.
Re: (Score:2)
because "more information" is not always a good thing. There have been numerous studies showing that something like 5 key pieces of information is optimal, additional information beyond that does not improve decision-making, counter-intuitive as that may be.
I wouldn't mind the info being available, but you do need a layer of summary information.
2,000 Dollars (Score:1)
It's understandale right now, since they have to play the whole... No wait, they just watch a video of the game. But s omeone has to make the video... oh, yeah... The publisher does that. Well, buying retail copies for records, and future checks of... No, they demand three retail copies after the rating is completed. Well, they are located on Madison Avenue.
There's no follow up to that one. They are a non-profit on Madison Avenue that charge you 2
Re: (Score:2)
There is more then 1 culture (Score:1)
I'm really getting annoyed that we are importing American culture, their values and norms.
It's not that they are conflicting with my culture there is already a lot of overlap, but there is a difference in values and norms. And it annoys me that problems are being made of things that are no problem or less of a problem in my culture and vice versa.
Cultures are meant to be different let's respect that and keep it so.
Not As Much A Change As It Sounds (Score:3)
Game developers/publishers already submit a long questionnaire and a video detailing every instance of everything that might affect the rating. They're already on their honor to do this honestly. All this move involves is removing the human element, which was intended to be objective anyways, and replace it with automated computer analysis. They honestly probably already have an algorithm to determine how many swears gives a Teen rating or Profanity label; counting the exact number can be done by voice recognition, if it's not already part of the questionnaire.
Wow... (Score:3)
Way to show you just don't care.. "hey, fill out this survey so a computer can determine how to rate your game. No, we aren't going to play it."
From the wikipedia article:
"To obtain a rating for a game, a publisher sends the ESRB videotaped footage of the most graphic and extreme content found in the game. The publisher also fills out a questionnaire describing the game's content and pays a fee based on the game's development cost:[5]
$800 fee for development costs under USD $250k
$4,000 fee for development costs over $250k"
So, the game developer is going to do all the work and pay you to certify their game and you aren't doing anything but running a website and pocketing money? You're trading on the name you've built as a "reliable standard" and you're going to be gone as soon as Sony/Microsoft/Apple/any other app store marketplace, realizes they can take your piece of the pie and do this same thing and take money for it.
I could understand if not enough games were being submitted and you were contemplating going out of business because nobody used you anymore, but you're claiming the exact opposite. Too many people are giving you money wanting you to rate games so you're stepping out of the game rating business?
I don't have any kids and have never cared what rating a game received, but I consider this move to be counterproductive to the people who are paying you. The first slip-up isn't going to be a publishers ass it's going to be the ESRB when people ask "who's minding the store?" and the answer is nobody.
Re: (Score:2)
The ESRB is a creature of the publishers' trade association, not the independent product of free-floating moralists. They exist as a(comparatively) low cost combination Objective Entity/shield for the publishers. "Did little timmy see a tit? Well, that product was rated M(17+), by the ESRB, don't talk to us."
Clearly, something with the overhead of the ESRB
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, they already don't play the games. Instead, they have the same list of questions that have to be filled in by the developers, on which they base their judgement. Developers also supply videos of gameplay, to clarify some of the answers/explanations.
I really don't see too much wrong with this: I think it makes it much clearer for developers how to target th
If we produce stuff that offends no one . . . (Score:2)
. . . we will have stuff that pleases no one . . .
"Bland New World"
load of crap (Score:2)
Nonlethal violence (Score:2)
My 3rd old commits more violence in the 1hr after he wakes up and the 1hr before bed to his own family than you'll ever find in a game like "Call of Duty."
How? In my experience, the violence of a single-digit-year-old is nonlethal,* unlike the violence in Call of Duty games.
* Apart from reports of accidents involving unsafely stored firearms.
Different Point of View? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure Duke Nukem Forever will be coming out later this year.
Mandatory? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Will it be like some auto essay gradeing system (Score:2)
Will it be like some auto essay gradeing systems where you can game it to pass? Also auto Software QA and Testing systems can pass a APP that fails but not to the point of tripping the QA system.
I'm curious how it will be decided what's "bad" (Score:2)
So will there be a category for promiscuity? Adultery? Bearing false witness (cruelly lying)? Inter-species love? Homosexual love? I bet you that only the last one will be asked about, but on any way of looking at the issue (weather biblical fundamentalist or humanistic or whatever) that sort of focus makes no sense. Should interest groups now call in and request certain lines which play to their issues? Can someone force them to ask about abortion on the questionnaire, for example? Or about cancer, which i
How can it possibly work (Score:2)
How does a questionnaire and automated system deal with the tone and nuance of a game through a bunch of questions? Maybe it might work as a prescreening system but there still has to be some measure of human review. If necessary charge games developers t
Hot Coffee Mod (Score:2)
I wonder if this also covers unintentional content that gets released to the public through less than obvious means? (bugs, hacks/cracks)
I mean, when the hot coffee mod was dropped, independent of the developer or publishers control, didn't that send the ESRB into a tizzy?
Re: (Score:2)
Useful for gamers? (Score:1)
Anyone else think this sounds kind of cool from a gamer's perspective?
I'd like a game with high violence, low sexual themes, medium amounts of profanity, and some gambling on the side, please.
Assuming there's an accessible database.