May 30, 2007
The National Institute on Media and the Family issued a statement yesterday praising Microsoft in regard to the recent delay of Halo 2 Vista over a content issue.From the NIMF statement:
The National Institute on Media and the Family commends Microsoft for their leadership and transparency in alerting the public and the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) of the hidden game content.
Thankfully, Microsoft took the leadership role in ordering the ESRB to issue stickers with the correct rating information on the packaging. Microsoft has taken great strides in ensuring that parents have the tools available to make healthier media decisions. From parental controls to game ratings, Microsoft has become a reliable friend for families.
An initial version of the NIMF statement also spanked the ESRB, saying:
The ESRB should take a lesson from Microsoft and do a more thorough review of video game content.
However, the ESRB comment was retracted about an hour later. A new release explained:
We apologize for earlier comments regarding the ESRB. Due to inaccurate news stories we received, we issued a statement that was incorrect. It is clear that ESRB and Microsoft worked together to fix this mistake.
It's not the first time in recent memory that NIMF has issued, then retracted and re-issued a statement. Last November the organization made reference to the "devastating" effects of games on children but subsequently removed that characterization.
UPDATE: NIMF has issued a formal apology for its gaffe, which reads in part:
[NIMF] apologizes for its erroneous statement... We now understand that, prior to the initial shipment of the game, Microsoft and the ESRB worked proactively to ensure that the rating on all packaging was updated to include content that Microsoft discovered in a map editor tool... which was disclosed to the ESRB after a rating had already been assigned to the game. We commend the ESRB and Microsoft for making these efforts to protect consumers...
We further acknowledge that the ESRB has participated in discussions with the research community, facilitating a deeper understanding of what they do and the significant efforts being made to inform consumers about the games they purchase. We applaud those efforts and look forward to continuing the dialogue while putting this mistake behind us.
Comments
well those types of people need to lighten up. there are more important issues going on in the world today that need attention. god forbid someones child sees a part of the body they probably see everyday on themselves. im not saying they should but dont people have better things to complain about?
Yes, the MPAA's rating system does include content descriptors.
Shrek the Third is rated PG for: "some crude humor, suggestive content and swashbuckling actions"
Don't believe me? Check out the film's website and look at the ratings logo on the bottom.
Andrew Eisen
In contrast, the ESRB's rating system is in my opinion far superior. It specifies an age rating which is more delineated than the MPAA's rating system and also includes information about how that rating was determined via content descriptors.
A good rating system is only a hint for parents. If a parent picks up a game and looking at the rating and content descriptors determines that a game may go either way or be questionable for their child, then it seems to me that they should try out the game and determine for themselves before letting their kid use it. Another great thing they could do is play the game with their child, so that anything that might be questionable can be explained and put in context. This is far better than blanket censoring because some day that kid will run into this kind of content and there wont be anyone to censor it. Unfortunately most parents aren't active enough nor game literate enough to do this.
True, but those selfsame PG movies and TV shows all carried content descriptors for partial nudity.
Some people are offended by bare backsides.
Some aren't.
"Partial Nudity" is for the folks that are.
Again, there was no rating change. It's still M. There is partial nudity in the game and it has been labeled as such.
Andrew Eisen
Why are we trying to make the ESRB out to be the bad guys?
"Microsoft has therefore applied stickers with correct ESRB rating information to the packaging of virtually all copies that will ship to retail in the U.S. and Canada. We have been advised by Microsoft that future runs of the game will be produced without the content in question, thus negating the need for the descriptor to be displayed on those versions." -ESRB
Other important bits of info:
-The game was not rerated. Only a new content descriptor was added.
-Even playing the game it is highly unlikely that the ESRB (or anyone else) would ever have come across this error.
Andrew Eisen
http://www.d3dgames.com/bbb.html
Unlike hot coffee it is not a commented out code, it was left in the bundled mapping tools on purpose. Many a mapper would see it during the process of making a map.
"Thankfully, Microsoft took the leadership role in ordering the ESRB to issue stickers with the correct rating information on the packaging."
...
...
..?
Lets try this again:
"Thankfully, Microsoft discovered their mistake early enough to alert the ESRB to the offending error screen. The ESRB responded by re-rating the game and issuing stickers with the correct rating information on the packaging."
Truth is so much more... truthy!
Let's be honest. The only reason Microsoft went through all that trouble was they didn't want to be the new "Hot Coffee".
It was a MOONING, and not even the goatse type where you can see everything. With the MPAA, it would get off with no more than a PG. Is it any wonder no one takes NIMF seriously?
with Walsh, there is option for civil discourse and compromise.
Ensuring that PARENTS have the tools. That's the key right there.
Can it be called "hidden content"? As far as I understood it, it was some freekish glitch or something.
seriously though, it's big of NIMF to retract and correct a statement such as that, in a world where apparently one mistake makes your entire organization invalid permanently in some eyes.