The many faces of ESRB

[MaceVanHoffen]

There's a rather interesting piece I found on the Hollywood Reporter (linked from Slashdot) entitled "Video game rating board don't get no respect".  It discusses the differing perceptions of the ESRB among game developers, the general public, and politicians.  It's too long to completely repost, but here's some thought-provoking excerpts:

The 11-year-old self-regulatory body whose job it is to rate video games attracts flak like a magnet, the latest salvo coming from Congressman Joe Baca, D-Calif., who is demanding that the Federal Trade Commission review that ratings system; he believes it may be allowing adult material to fall into the hands of younger gamers.

But wait! If the Entertainment Software Rating Board(ESRB) is soft on sex and violence, you wouldn't know it from speaking to game makers. At the Game Developers Conference (GDC) in San Francisco last month, developers speaking out at a roundtable sponsored by the International Game Developers Association's (IGDA) Anti-Censorship Committee related one tale after another about how unrelenting the ESRB is when it comes to ratings. One developer summed it up nicely: "The ESRB is a pain in the butt."

Similarly, last month, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) called for Congress to launch a $90-million investigation into the effects of games on children, singling out Rockstar Games' M-rated "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" for its emphasis on crime.

And on the topic of retail stores refusing to sell AO titles?

"Then they have to work with the retailers to try and get them to understand that there is an older audience now who might want some of those products," advises Vance. "But, to date, at least from what I can tell, there's been no proven demand for AO products. So the developers may want to be creating it, but if no one wants to buy it, hey, not my problem."

[Jayce]

The 11-year-old self-regulatory body whose job it is to rate video games attracts flak like a magnet, the latest salvo coming from Congressman Joe Baca, D-Calif., who is demanding that the Federal Trade Commission review that ratings system; he believes it may be allowing adult material to fall into the hands of younger gamers.

How's that the ratings system's fault?  I'd say it's the retailers instead.

But wait! If the Entertainment Software Rating Board(ESRB) is soft on sex and violence, you wouldn't know it from speaking to game makers. At the Game Developers Conference (GDC) in San Francisco last month, developers speaking out at a roundtable sponsored by the International Game Developers Association's (IGDA) Anti-Censorship Committee related one tale after another about how unrelenting the ESRB is when it comes to ratings. One developer summed it up nicely: "The ESRB is a pain in the butt."

My theory is that if both sides of an issue complain it's biased toward the other, then that thing must be balanced... or as close as you can get.

Similarly, last month, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) called for Congress to launch a $90-million investigation into the effects of games on children, singling out Rockstar Games' M-rated "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" for its emphasis on crime.

Another investigation?  Haven't we seen enough of these already?  What findings is this one going to be told to come up with?

[MaceVanHoffen]

How's that the ratings system's fault?  I'd say it's the retailers instead.

The viewpoint of some mentioned in that article is that games that should have received an M or an AO rating are getting a much lesser rating from the ESRB.  Hence, they believe that the ESRB is allowing [what should have been] M- and AO-rated games to fall into the hands of minors.  Then you have the counterpoint that the ESRB is a "pain in the butt" for developers, being very strict about the content that gets in for a certain rating.

I just find it fascinating the we have all this bruhaha over an organization (the ESRB) that amounts to voluntary censorship.  And for some politicians, that isn't good enough.  They feel the need to keep picking at the problem until the censorship becomes federally enforced.

[HaemishM]

Seduction of the Innocent, circa 2005. Lots of grandstanding and brouhaha from politicos, which will eventually amount to nothing other than putting a seed into the minds of those who give a shit about such things that "that Hillary Clinton cares about our children getting bad video games."

[Mesozoic]

Meanwhile, teenage crime rates continue to drop...

[voodoolily]

I'm frankly surprised that Hillary Clinton is in on this. Looks like that cunt Tipper Gore rubbed off on her.

[schild]

$90 Million?

I've always said Hillary Clinton was a piece of shit. This just confirms it.

[voodoolily]

How about a $90 million study on the effects of education on children?

[Strazos]

How about a $90 million study on the effects of education on children?

Pff, that's boring.

How about they give me $90m to study the effects of using a paintball gun as negative reinforcement to encourage kids to study? I even have the gun and paint already.

[TheWalrus]

Cattle prods! Shit yeah!

[Alkiera]

I'm frankly surprised that Hillary Clinton is in on this. Looks like that cunt Tipper Gore rubbed off on her.

I'm surprised that this surprised anyone at all.

And for some politicians, that isn't good enough.  They feel the need to keep picking at the problem until everything becomes federally enforced.

Yeah... Which sucks.  Especially for those of us with libertarian leanings.

Alkiera

[Strazos]

And for some politicians, that isn't good enough.  They feel the need to keep picking at the problem until everything becomes federally enforced.

Yeah... Which sucks.  Especially for those of us with libertarian leanings.

Alkiera

It also sucks for those of us who are not retarded and know what games young kids should and should not have.

[MaceVanHoffen]

It also sucks for those of us who are not retarded and know what games young kids should and should not have.

Or for those of us who recognize that people's opinions can differ as to what games young kids should have.  An example:  I personally would never allow a small child to play Resident Evil, for a number of reasons.  However, I do not have the right to say that you cannot let your small child play that game.  Neither do censors.

[Alkiera]

It also sucks for those of us who are not retarded and know what games young kids should and should not have.

Or for those of us who recognize that people's opinions can differ as to what games young kids should have.  An example:  I personally would never allow a small child to play Resident Evil, for a number of reasons.  However, I do not have the right to say that you cannot let your small child play that game.  Neither do censors.

On the other hand, while I disagree that video games cause kids to be violent, the kind of parents that let their young children play Resident Evil, or GTA, etc, are also likely to pay little enough attention to their children's raising that they can go purchase weapons and shoot up their middle school.  Games don't make kids violent, bad parents do.

I think we need to bring back laws that make parents responsible for their children's behavior... your teen shoots up his school, then shoots himself?  The parent(s) get the multiple murder charges, and the resulting jail time.  And in a perfect world, they'd have their reproductive privledges revoked.

Alkiera

[Strazos]

It also sucks for those of us who are not retarded and know what games MY young kids should and should not have.

Edited for Clarity.

[AOFanboi]

The Political forum is thataway. *points*

The lack of enforcement of ESRB ratings would mean that they have less influence over what content game developers put into their games than the MPAA ratings have over films. Any developers care to comment on whether they "aim" for a given rating, or whether they just make their game then let the ESRB slap their pointless tag on it before release?

Would it make a difference if a dominant chain like Gamestopboutique stopped carrying very mature games, like the effect Blockbuster has on NC-17 movies?

[Llava]

There are problems inherent in the whole system anyways.

If you've got a game with a crazy ninja dude who slices through hordes of badguys with blood spurting everywhere, it'd be violent.

Replace those badguys with robots and the blood with oil, and it's all good.

Nevermind that it has the exact same meaning and impact.