I dont get the big thing
yea you shoot stuff, but isn't it better to shoot something in virtual reality rather than in real life?
i have GOW, GRAW and many, many shooters but do i want to kill people?
answer: NO
i dont get "if you play GRAW2 you will become violent" i'v been playing shooters all my life, and i am not violent
and ive shot real guns, but dont like them as much

@Stinking Kevin

Sorry it took so long to get back at you. Kingdom Hearts and DBZ Buduki 2 were most likely rated before expanding the ratings descriptors. They were an example of confusing content descriptors. To me and most people out there the content descriptors explain why a game receives a rating. If two different ratings have the same content descriptor, then it seems hypocritical or double standardish. If the two were rated today, KH would get a Fantasy Violence descriptor and DBZ would get maybe an Intense Violence descriptor.

The reason I think expanding the rating system beyond what you pointed out could be redundant is for certain types of violence. Say they decide to start listing 'Gang Violence', 'War Violence' and 'Gun Violence' GTA would most likely receive a 'Gang Violence' Descriptor, but would also need a 'Gun Violence' descriptor in order to appease the masses, even though gang violence would convey the use of guns. Same with CoD or other war games, would need both 'War Violence' and 'Gun Violence'. So that would be redundant but might appeal to the masses. It also gets into what the game is about, which is the back of the box's job. So you have three things telling the consumer about the use of guns in a game. Is that not the definition of redundancy? Using 'Gang Violence' or 'War Violence' could work as an addition, considering how many games of those genres are circulating. But 'Gun Violence is too broad to be of any use.

I do agree with you. The scale system that the ESRB works well. It is not the ESRB's job to describe the game to you. That is marketing's job.

An interesting point... but not one cogent to the video game debate. He's saying that the ESRB should have information on the gameplay style and not just objectionable material. Problems:
1) It's not the ESRB's job. They determine the suitability of a game for younger audiences, mainly, and a game with a heavier tactical emphasis is not inherently more dangerous than one more action oriented. I don't buy his argument that by emphasizing elements other than violence the violence becomes less significant.
2) If the ESRB said it would do as this guy suggests, how much tactics are needed to earn the descriptor? The ESRB gets a lot of flak for having descriptors like, "Violence", "Intense Violence", or "Cartoon Violence," but while the criteria for these isn't spelled out very clearly you can usually agree with which violence descriptor a game gets. Rating a gameplay element, though, becomes trickier.
3) What about elements that are recommended but optional? MGS3 emphasizes stealth, which would place emphasis on something other than violence. I sucked at sneaking in that game, however, and instead preferred to tranq every guard I saw, which placed less emphasis on sneaking and more on marksmanship. If something isn't required and isn't necessarily going to come up, should you be warned about it?

So, to sum up, interesting idea, but not the ESRB's job - I agree with Hayabusa, most game store clerks know their games and if you're unsure of something ask them.

"Those advisories aren’t different enough to signal how radically dissimilar the two games are..."

But the box art definitely could.

I don't really like Antonucci's description of Ghost Recon. I get attached to my teammates in the game, it's mostly anger if they fail something or relief that they succeeded in something I planned out. The destruction of the mindless enemies is what I think is the emotionless part, and developers won't be able to rid this until they actually make it a goal in their game design.

While I understand where he's coming from, which seems to be that "violence" and "blood and gore" both imply violent content, those labels are plenty descriptive.

I mean, really... gore is defined by m-w.com as "gruesomeness depicted in vivid detail". I think even uninformed parents could extrapolate the difference between that and "violence".

And if not, as others have already suggested, they could read reviews and such. The Internet makes this very easy.

It's that pesky responsibility thing again. Grr.

I think I know where he is coming from. Kingdom Hearts is rated E for everyone. It has a content descriptor of Violence. Dragonball Z Buduki 2 is rated T for teen. It has a content descriptor of Violence. Two different games, two different ratings but the same content descriptor.

What he is suggesting is to expand on the type of violence in the game. Its not a bad idea. It would be a bit redundant though because of all the types of violence there is out there.

@ Stinking Keven:

Perhaps you did not read the next sentence. It would be redundant, and difficult to do right.

As for the Kingdom Hearts, DragonBall thing, I believe that they have taken care of that sort of thing with ratings of Fantasy Violence and Martial Arts Violence, or something similar.

The ESRB is an ever adapting body. They will change when they need to. If something needs more clarity they will give it. If not they will focus on other issues.

Hi again, E. Zachary Knight.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to cause trouble with you, but I did read your post and I don't understand why you think descriptors for more particular types of violence would be "redundant," considering this is the solution your prescribe for denoting the Kingdom Hearts/DBZ dissimilarities. On the other hand, I also don't understand why such redundancy is not a bad idea, or how it could be "done right.".

My main point is that the ESRB's descriptor system is designed to note various elements in a game's content. It is not designed to describe the underlying narrative context in which these elements exist.

In its 13 year history, the ESRB has used at least 11 variations of its "Violence" descriptor: "Animated Violence," "Mild Animated Violence," "Mild Realistic Violence," "Realistic Violence," "Graphic Violence," "Mild Violence," "Violence," "Cartoon Violence," "Fantasy Violence," "Intense Violence," and "Sexual Violence."

So my rhetorical question is this: If the ESRB were to "adjust" for the sake of "clarity," how many more "Violence" descriptors will be needed before this system of standardized descriptors could be used to convey the contextual narrative differences between Gears of War and Ghost Recon that the article describes?

One other general comment: I don't think the real point of the article was that content descriptors should be expected to define contextual differences. I think the point of the article was that they can't, so we need to avoid treating all games that happen to have a particular descriptor as if they present the same narrative context.