[...] Best Buy waffled on the ESRB yesterday by adding Common Sense Media ratings to their online listings. The new Best Buy page redesign also has larger ESRB ratings and reviews by GameSpot and GamePro. [...]

The first thing I noticed at 'Common Sense Media's' site was its glaring and distracting attempt to coax a visitor into signing up for membership before giving access to the media-content rating and description page(Though only on the first visit). When I read their page defining criteria for what was, and wasn't age appropriate, I thought its definitions were unrealistic and cumbersome, and would be difficult to enforce for some age groups. Also the on/off/pause button style of the system required more than an at a glancing look to recognize its meaning. As someone unfamiliar the rating system, it appeared to promote consumers NOT to purchase the item when marked with a red labeling and approval when marked with a green one, but not clearly why(it seemed to imply that that other ratings for the game would not be based on who was likely to play the game). What exactly are they implying? On the plus side for them the ratings seem well developed until the preteen/teen age group where most children become more independent. Measurably, it is a bulkier, somewhat subjective, and more conservative ESRB. Its main assumptions are that a parent should and WILL be overseeing their child's game-play. Again, well intentioned. Hardly practical though. Most teens would probably not play or sit through a game with their parents pointing out the moral and ethical implications of every action chosen for the protagonist in the game. Why?...this is a big DUH... Loss of the suspension of disbeleaf, interrupting an adolescent to talk in the middle of an adrenaline/hormone rush will not likely produce a calm discourse, being lectured while trying to have fun, ISN'T, parents cant be home or available at every opportunity kids have to play, like most kids they'll just wait until mom and dad are occupied with other things(like work) or go somewhere adult supervision is minimal.
Now here's the bottom line... It might be comforting for some people to have an alternative rating system to choose from. One without contributions from a commercial interest in what rating is stuck on the game. However, Common Sense Media has made no real improvements over ESRB as visually they are only superficially different. The key reason being that only consumer-parents WELL EDUCATED about the game in question and their children's game playing behaviors can make wise choices. Common Sense Media only points this out in fine print(http://www.commonsensemedia.org/reviews/age-grid.php). Finally, it occurred to me to check Common Sense Media's mission statement, as I had no idea what they were about. The site is slick and professional looking(kind of corporate-ish), especially in the site's sometimes less than subtle efforts to get personal info(like when offering a pdf that assists parents with navigating internet dangers). Over-all the contributor's reviews and staff bios seem to include mostly lay persons and concerned parents. Though very relatable, in a 'these people are just like me' kind of way, the site smacks of spin: commercial marketing to a target audience, underlying politic motives, and parents desperate to protect their children from unknown dangers. All of which when combined strike me in a very discomforting way. Though the site attempted to be transparent it was difficult to determine who their financial contributers and corporate partners were.
Common Sense Media seems like it genuinely wants to make improvements to how all things are rated...but definitely need to streamline some things site-wise, and site the child development sources they use for the values they extend to their rating(currently unnamed experts).
Best Buy seems to be pandering to a demographic that wouldn't think to check a game with a name like, 'Gears of WAR' for mature content on their own, by advertising a rating system as if their were none in place.

I can really see why they went with off, I mean, look at the differences! M games come out as 17+, T games come out as 13+
...wait...

I can really see why they went with Common sense, I mean, look at the differences! It's so much better and more fitting! Games currently rated as M games by ESRB come out more appropriately as 17+, T games come out as 13+...
...wait...

[...] GamesPolitics.com today highlights a move by Best Buy to improve consumer access to rating systems so that consumers can make an informed choice about buying games. Best Buy have decided to put two ratings on their site, one from the ESRB and that has been shown to be effective lately in helping inform consumers about game ratings and another from Common Sense Media. which is intended to be a catch-all media rating system for all types of media. Stupidly enough, on the Best Buy page for Gears of War, there is the following rating information: [...]

I don't like this. This is the biggest electronics retailer saying they don't have confidence in the ESRB. This can't be good for the industry or the prospects of the ESRB. Maybe its just a temporary thing.

More on ratings here:
http://crunchgear.com/2007/05/15/game-content-under-the-microscope-an-in...

@Jbourrie

"However, most of us read them selectively and make our own decisions about whether or not we agree with each point the reviewer made."

I totally agree, but the problem is that the Common Sense rating is now being listed alongside the ESRB one, putting it on the same level (as far as a casual observer is concerned).

I'd rather that they had the official ESRB on the left, and a host of links to a diverse variety of review sites on the right (IGN, Common Sense, GamerDad - can't list them all, but a diverse list would be best).

Defiance? By providing more info about games? They still include ESRB ratings. They're the first rating you see (first two, actually).

Seriously, what are you talking about?

[...] Best Buy waffled on the ESRB yesterday by adding Common Sense Media ratings to their online listings. The new Best Buy page redesign also has larger ESRB ratings and reviews by GameSpot and GamePro. [...]

They seem to be unable to separate crappy game from mature game, well in their eyes a mature game is always a bad game.. at least since the last time I looked.

* ESRB, not CSRB. D'oh.

Just to be clear about something too: There is no such thing as an objective rating or review. The ESRB is subjective. The CSM is subjective. The MPAA is subjective. Your review is subjective. My rating is subjective.

What is objective is a factual content description. "You see a topless woman" is objective. "PG-13" or "I have no problem with that" is the subjective response to that objective data. By the same token, the green/yellow/red content bubbles on the CSM site are subjective, but the description of the content is objective. By contrast, the ESRB rating on a game box is, to the end consumer, entirely subjective. We don't get any objective data at all from the ESRB, which is one of my complaints about the system. The CSM site gives me objective data on which I could base my own decision.

By the by, it's also interesting to note that they don't appear to have any particular neo-conservative agenda or bias. The MGS3 review, for example, actually fails to mention the Volgin grabbing Snake's crotch and his implied homosexual relationship with Raikov, in favour of the much less subtle Snake/EVA flirting. Apparently CSM doesn't fear "teh ghey", as it were. They do mention the possibility of a homosexual kiss in Bully, but it still only gets an "iffy" rating for sexuality (which I think fair, considering the other innuendos and the apparent target/accepted audience).

@Nekojin

That's true, it's not an objective system. But it does address the issues that alot of parent have with the games in a way that is understandable to them. Do you think people would have an issue with it if it was another subjective system in place, such as links to IGN reviews?

We may not agree with all of the reviews, but we don't usually agree with the ones on IGN either. However, most of us read them selectively and make our own decisions about whether or not we agree with each point the reviewer made. That's what the Common Sense ratings do as well: they give parents a guide, written targeting the moral majority, that they can use as advice on whether the game is suitable for their household.

First off, most (but not all) of the "adults" and "kids" reviews on that site suck. They tend to be heavily biased, and from signing up earlier today, I can tell that some of the "adults" reviews are probably from kids smart enough to tell the site that they're over 18.

And yes, it is more complex than the ESRB system. I wouldn't want this rating on a game box. Their little age/colour/stars blurb is not informative enough. Best Buy putting it on their site is, without a link to the extended info, stupid.

That said, I like the site. The "professional" reviews are decent and I find the extended content descriptions to be both fair and informative. They, to me, are the real value of the site. In the past, I have been critical of the ESRB for what I perceive to be some lack of consistency and a lack of specificity. To me, this site rectifies those issues. The ESRB tells me Metal Gear Solid 3 has "Sexual Themes". That site tells me that there are "Some suggestive interactions with underwear-clad female agents." The ESRB tells me that there is "Intense Violence". CSM says, "The game features torture. Otherwise, not too graphic. Blood is shed during battles, but players have the option of avoiding combat by using camouflage and stealth." I've highlighted that last point intentionally. The ESRB has no facility to point that out, at all.

The professional reviews also seem to be more in the tone of "you might find this offensive", but aren't necessarily inherently judgmental. I should point out that this is true of the more recent content. Some of the older stuff is, sadly, hand-waving tripe. Compare the (professional) review of Vice City and the review of Vice City Stories. The former is useless, biased, uninformed crap. The latter is a good review, and also provides info as to the game's content. It is, perhaps, biased in its judgment of what kids should enjoy, but it is honest in what it says.

Frankly, I'd encourage people to join the site and provide their own unbiased input. It might help counteract some of the crap in the adult and kid sections.

That ON / OFF bit took a while to figure out. Parents in general can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to giving adult games to kids, you think a confusing logo pun is going to help?

Jeff Says:
The CommonSense rating only shows up if you have JavaScript enabled.

Yet another parental hurtle in the way: internet literacy.

JBourrie Says:
Are you people serious? What possible downside is there in Best Buy giving parents more information?

Like Nekojin said, it's rather bias. The way it's presented isn't going to help parents either, it's more for making themselves out to be morally superior than informing customers.

@Daniel Schrager: "How can more options be a bad thing? Yes, we’re looking at a somewhat biased system with slightly confusing ratings, but we’re not talking about the abandonment of the ESRB system nor are we discussing actual legislation concerning a sweeping advance of reform."

Go back and look at it again. It's a heavily biased system with an absurdly confusing rating scheme. They're using the games' "ratings" as a preaching pulpit, not an information source.

That's what ratings are supposed to be - a nonjudgemental, factual analysis of the game's contents. That's how the movie rating systems work. That's how the ESRB system works. That's how the - oh, wait, music doesn't have a full-fledged ratings system.

Leave the moralizing for private web sites, not retailers' doorstep.

GoodRobotUS hit on the exact same point that I was going to address. This new "ratings" system is little more than a fringe group moralizing and writing critical reviews about the games, instead of informing about the content and letting the customer make up his own mind.

There are review sites online, and reviews in magazines. I don't need the retailer's online point of purchase page to be giving me a moralistic analysis of the game. Tell me the features - that's all I want to hear from a retailer or official ratings agency. I'll look for reviews on my own, on sites that have similar views on games as I do.

I go to that site for a laugh. Read teh reviews for Manhunt.

How can more options be a bad thing? Yes, we're looking at a somewhat biased system with slightly confusing ratings, but we're not talking about the abandonment of the ESRB system nor are we discussing actual legislation concerning a sweeping advance of reform.

Giving parents/players MORE information is not going to hurt our first amendment rights. I'm not sure why people are always up in arms when discussing systems which would, perhaps, keep people under the age of 18 from getting violent and explicit games.

We'll never be able to stop mothers from buying GTA for their 9 year old children (saw it this past weekend where an EB employee tried in vain to un-condescendingly explain that to the mother that it wasn't such a great idea), and we'll never be able to stop bias from either side of the tracks in reviews, ratings, or even word-of-mouth. It seems our duty is to provide numerous and different points of view for the consumer, for which I applaud BestBuy.

That being said, let me re-iterate: Some parents make bad choices concerning their children. Regardless of medium (film, game, music, television, or even recreation) we're always going to have those who mess up. Lets give parents a bit more in the way of options and we may be surprised at the results.

WoW its like reading one of those parenting books. I looked at what they said about my favorite game Resistance Fall of Man. And this paragraph immediately jumped out and caught my interest

Families can talk about what it might be like if Earth were ever invaded by aliens. Does the motion-sensing controller add to your sense of being immersed in this game? Why are you attracted to this kind of shooter? Is it because you play to be a hero? What if the enemy were human instead of scary-looking aliens, would you want to play this game?

Well, I doubt if people can take the time to actually look at this website when its easier and lazier really to just look at the ESRB rating.

I found this little tidbit for social behavior interesting
Social Behavior

"You're the good guy, but you use very violent means to fight the aliens."

And people complain about the ESRB ratings being confusing. That is the worst system I have ever seen. Off means it's "off" to most kids that would want to play it, see it, hear it? What the the hell is that? Obviously this is from a group that considers video games to be the hobby of 12 year olds, as their entire system seems to be based around that fact.

There's nothing wrong with the ESRB. They provide accurate and simple ratings with content descriptors. There isn't anything confusing about that, but these ratings from Common Sense Media are a headache.

"Parents need to know this action game is not for kids or tweens -- it's an "M"-rated military shooter that, while against aliens, is realistically violent and gory. Need an example? You can use a chainsaw to rip apart enemies or use machine guns to spray them down."

Its like they are trying to influence my opinion of this game. They are NOT supposed to do that. They are supposed to tell me whats in the game, without twisting it into a moral message.

also, chainsaw kills FTW^^

"what parents are saying" is literally what parents who visit CommonSense Media are saying. They might suppress some commentary though, I have no proof either way except to say I've had NO CONTROVERSY over recommending Halo 2 to 14 year olds.

It should be Teen. Apparently CSM disagrees.

Since I run a rival site to CSM (we focus only on games and we lack, ahem, funding and support) that takes a more "pro-gaming" slant (and since I've negotiated/worked with both CSM and Best Buy, I won't comment further except to say.

Hope this helps some of the parents out there.

CSM ratings make no sense at all, because you don't know what the "off/on" is in relation to. They'll rate a game 17+, and then rate it "off".

That age represents the minimum age for which the content is appropriate or the age that the producer of the medium has targeted as its audience.

So it could be the age CSM has set, or it could be the age the ESRB has set... But there's no way to tell...

OFF means we don't recommend it for the age of kids most likely to want to play it, see it, or hear it.

And what age would that be? The age you list? Or the age you think is buying the game? Or the age the industry has set?

WTF???

There is a standard rating system for every industry. Most issues with rating systems have been parents are too lazy or stupid to read what the descriptors mean. So Best Buy sees to remedy this by adding another, even more cryptic, moral based rating system to the mix?

This is lunacy at its highest. What happens when the two have contradictory views(IE game is rated teen, CSM rates it "Off 17+")? Whomever dreamed up this idea is so far out of touch with the industries involved I am amazed they can even manage such a large company.

I have been to the CSM website before and have looked at their ratings. Those ratings are more confusing than even the PAL on music. ON, PAUSE, And OFF are what you have. Then there is an age next too it. From the way they have the gears of war rating it makes it look like it is off to people ages 17 and older.

They do have some interesting discussion questions to ask with your kid. There are plenty of biased ones too. Overall the CSM are a decent organization with some nice objectives, but the wrong way to achieve them.

We should all write to Best Buy and tell them how disappointing that move is.

The ESRB isn't the first video game rating system, nor will it be the last. You need to remember that the ESRB is the developer\publisher system. While these CSM ratings reminds me of an older thermometer system that didn't catch on, it stops to be so with it's on/off/pause mentality and critique

Again, the power in the ESRB ratings (and reason for its adpotion) is in their vague nature. Ask a developer trying to keep a T rating, but pushing it close to an M as possible... there's alot you can do under the ESRB that you wouldn't get by with the CSM.

The problem I have with the CSM is at the top (17+) If we're talking about people who are 17+ we're taking about adults. To say something is not age appropriate for an adult smacks of slanted un-neutral viewpoint on the material. This is confused by the fact there may be user ratings from children (God of War II is a good example) makes no sense or reason.

Again, like the article says, Best Buy is doing this to cover it's own behind cause the ESRB taken several political and cultural hits.

I think this is an indemnification move by Best Buy. If anyone points a finger at them, they can say "Well, we use two ratings! Go bug the filth-pedders at Walmart!" Or something to that effect.

As long as the neutral "content rated" ESRB ratings are included, then I don't see a problem with the "judgement rated" Common Sense ratings being offered. The pages seem to offer other review pages as well so there seem to be well rounded offerings for research.

Nightwng2000
NW2K software

This is Best Buy trying to cover their back sides and make them selfs look like they are taking a step forward in preventing underage sales. I don't see many parents clicking on the link, when the ESRB has a description right on the same page.

@ finaleve

Yes me too, i just checked some of the other ratings for and as far as I could see they all have these "guides" at the end of the descriptions which remind me of highschool "now discuss" assignments.

It could be that they just want to help parents talk with their kids on videogames, but I think the language is highly suggestive.

No way you can go into a conversation with an open mind with texts like this from Shadow of the Colossus (13+ on their rating):

"Families who play this game may want to discuss the role of violence in games. How is this game different than other action games you play? Do you prefer this game -- or mowing down hundreds of enemies? Which has more impact on you? Do you feel bad when killing these giants?"

Especially the "mowing down hundreds of enemies" line struck me as formulated in a way to polarise parents against games.

"Do you prefer this type of game or games with a lot more enemies?"

Would also have worked.

The company is obsessed with ratings compulsion. A lot of the current advertising centers around ESRB enforcement. Employees are required to abide by the ESRB M ratings, but not movie ratings or explict CD's. They also will randomly test compliance with the rating system, sometimes with 'secret shoppers'.

They are basically placating toward the anti-videogame agenda that is so popular amongst conservatives nowadays. Again they DO NOT care about movies or music, but video game enforcement is compulsory. I don't understand the partnership with this watchdog group, whom I've never heard of, but they are definately on my radar now.

OFF what the hell does OFF mean, why is it OFF?

I really don't get this at all. The ESRB while in need of improvement at least provides descriptors of each rating. Looking at the rating for Gears of War, I had to read an entire column to get the same info as the ESRB gives me in one little box.

It could be an extreme example of due diligence but I fear all they are doing is clouding an issue that far too many parents already don't understand. Especially when sometimes the two systems disagree. As an example I also looked up God of War 2 on the common sense site and they say that even though the ESRB cautions strong language they (common sense) couldn't find any.