ESRB Trashed at GCDC over 'McCarthyism'
ESRB Trashed at GCDC over 'McCarthyism'
August 20, 2007
Is the video game industry experiencing McCarthy-like censorship?That's the belief of Factor 5 president Julian Eggebrecht (left), who made his remarks at the Games Convention Developer's Conference (GCDC), currently underway in Leipzig, Germany.
As reported by Eurogamer, Eggebrecht was highly critical of America's game rating organization, the ESRB:
I would be happy if in games we could talk about homosexuality, but we're not even at the point where we can admit that humans have heterosexual relationships, and that is a real problem - and it tends to show that games are not being seen, even by our own ratings boards, as an artform.
Eggebrecht's keynote address took the ESRB to task over its rating process for Factor 5's upcoming PS3 title, Lair. Eggebrecht cited various examples, including a "Hot Coffee" Easter Egg which revealed a hidden coffee pot, an obvious send-up of of the 2005 GTA San Andreas scandal:
Everyone thought it was hilarious... but we couldn't call the cheat 'Hot Coffee', because that would imply we were mocking the authorities investigating Hot Coffee. If you cannot have satire about these things, that is approaching the realm of McCarthyism.
Eggebrecht also called for more sexual content in games:
I want to see a game with real sexual content in a store here in Germany - I don't think it will happen unless we really recognise games as an artform. How [GTA San Andreas] can be drawn off the shelves based on a cheat in which you can barely see something that might be interpreted as a sexual act - as an Easter Egg no less - is absolutely beyond me, when at the same time movies have been pushing the envelope for a long time.
Eggebrecht, citing problems getting Lair rated, also lobbied for a new U.S. rating which would fall between the current T (13+) and M (17+).
On the one hand [ESRB] objected to [spurting blood], but they let us through with a Teen even though you can use fire - you can set up to five, six thousand people on fire. They burn, they run around and they scream, but of course that wasn't a problem...
It's a flat out bizarre system... They don't really tell you what they will object to - they just say 'well, follow the standards that have been set before', which is a problem if you want to push the envelope...
I hope that we actually can prove that this is an artform. Show me something that proves on all levels that games are indeed an artform - push the violence, but also push the sex, and push it in an artistic way where it's not really gratuitous, but where it gets my thinking brain going.
UPDATE: PC World's Matt Peckham is attending GCDC and caught Eggebrecht's keynote. He has more, including this tidbit:
Interestingly, as the ESRB played successive builds [of Lair] and got better at manipulating the camera, they found more to critique, effectively turning Factor 5's development process into a hoops game about blood, giblets (flying chunks of flesh), and a kind of quantitative referendum on how many constitute "A Chunk Too Far"...
Comments
Though that's not a bad idea, having an E, T, or M go along with the list of what is in the game helps show how much of what is in the game is in there. I've seen a game Rated E for blood and violence, and a game rated T for violence. By your proposed system, informed parents would be more willing to buy their kid the game with just violence, but in fact, that game is more violent than the one with blood as well.
Don't believe me? Civ3 and BF2. The E game isn't even 3D...
Let's parents and consumers make the decision. Do not rate something M for Mature. Simply state what is in the game: violence, profane language, sexual content, etc.
G
PG
PG-13
R
NC 17
N/R
That way there is no confusion.
Or we can take the Microsoft and Sony Approch
Sex violence langage gore politics scary
00 00 00 00 00 00
So that way a game with a rating of 0501xx03xx01 would be a game with light ammont of sex, high end violence, no lanugage, fair ammont of gore, no politcs and is extreamly scary.
I mean, then that way everyone would know what is going on right?
Methinks you've mentally combined Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, the former probably being the one you meant.
Or the Daily Show, or whatever.
Are you a puritan by chance?
My problem with this is it is SONY who wants to secure a Teen rating for his game. It is commercial pressure - NOT censorship - that is limiting his artistic freedom.
His attack on the inconsistency of ratings is also erroneous. There's a hidden assumption here that the motion picture ratings are somehow immune to inconsistency, but that's flawed.
Try showing a penis in a film - automatic M rating or R-Rating if it's erect. Furthermore, showing a man's ass will get an M-rating, but there are movies where you see womens bare breasts that are rated only PG.
This of course ties into my next point - Sex in games. Yes, I agree it's moronic that the ESRB automatically gives a higher rating to games with sex in them.
But games can't even develop decent connections between characters. Games rarely work on developing a love interest between characters other than those used as a plot device for the player to go on a hero quest to save her (and it's ALWAYS a Her). Even friendships between characters are rarely properly fleshed out.
If game developers can't get normal relationships to work successfully in game milieus, how the hell are they expected to get sexual relationships to work?
The "sex" Eggebrect is talking about and wants to put in games is simply porn, and despite what people claim, porn isn't mature. It's made for teenagers and those in their mid twenties to titillate them. It is, on the whole, exclusive of women. Do we really want to exclude women from games further?
However, if these developers wanted Lair to be a gore filled sex fest aimed at teenagers and men in their early 20s, then they could simply release the game on PC. Console exclusivity be damned!
This is why independent theatre, book, magazine/comic and film publishers formed - the artists found mainstream commercial outlets were too restrictive, so people pushing at the boundaries of other media formed their own organisations and self published.
But developers won't do this. No games company is willing to sacrifice its profit to create "art". In every instance, their first priority is the all mighty dollar.
Part of this is the exorbitant price of making games, to be sure, but as long as game companies are going to allow themselves to be influenced by profit, then games will never be seen as art.
Remember - most of the greatest artists in history died poor. It's only in the last 100 years or so, since the creation of recording devices and implementation of intellectual property rights that Artists have made "decent" money, and the best artists in the world are still poor despite all of this.
*The censorship problem, not the mass of unwashed parents problem.
Not to get too personal but what's your problem with sex in games? Do you have the same views on sex in other mediums? If the appropriate content descriptor is on the back of the box I fail to see the problem.
Andrew Eisen
Huh?
There are no laws governing sex in games, books, movies, or music and the ESRB ratings are not backed by force of law.
What US laws are you referring to?
Andrew Eisen
Heres how I'd ahev the ESRB
EC for learning and childhood development
E for all
E 10 for mature kids
T13+ for teens
M15+ for mature teens
17+ for adults no restriction other than gratiutius sex
AO=sex and thats fine by me
US laws do not work that way thus sex based games need their own category,so they can be handle correctly to whatever regional law they find them selfs in.
and 13+ and 15+ work better if 17+ is freed to be anything but sex.
the very fact it has become X is the reason it has become invalid and needs to be replaced.
Peter Suciu
try again if a parent is letting a 12 year old play games that are 17+ without even checking what the games entail then tis pointless to even have a ratings system.
Zigs
Manhunt 2 is basically the same thing only looking better and since it dared to be on the WII the ESRB sided on caution and AO'd it and everyone started to run around like chickens with thier heads cut off forgetting that they supported the game until the AO sign.
AO has been highjacked much like X was,AO needs to be reworked for porn games only and a new rating based on violence be put in place for retailers to sneer at but not ban for fear of fou market loss.
I think a few good steps would be to start building up M17 as a solid R not the wishy washy thing it has become,to do that you need a T or M 15+ level for lite r content to go to this can be helpful to raise overly violent PG13 games to a reasonable level as well, with this in place M17 can be used for content under the level thats in "Manhunt 2" ,while manhunt 2 and NC17 level stuff can get a 18R level and all of this censorship nonsense can be put into the ground.
Here's how I'd change the ESRB ratings:
EC - My first thought is to get rid of this one but I suppose some parents appreciate a way to quickly find and identify games for their babies. Someone finds it useful? Go ahead and keep it.
E - Games that can be enjoyed by anyone and everyone!
E10+ - Games that can be enjoyed by anyone and everyone but might have some themes or such that some may find inappropriate for young children. Like Powerpuff Girls. Cutesy as it is, there's some stuff in there that Mom may not want little Timmy asking her about yet.
T(13+) - Games for the older set. Usually gunplay and stuff. Killing is fine. Blood is fine. Gore is a no-no. Think Goldeneye for the N64. Lots of killing humans and they did bleed but there was no gore or dismemberment.
M(17+) - Everything else. And I mean everything. Including games with sex in them. I see no need for a rating category beyond Mature. If you're mature, you're mature. Why have a separate category for sex games? Just slap an appropriate content descriptor on the back and call it a day.
Andrew Eisen
I lost faith in the ESRB until Manhunt 2 received an AO. That restored some faith! Let's see more reasonable ratings. Scarface should be AO as well.
And before anyone says, "M is 17, AO is 18"... the point is that you might let your 12 year old play an M. An AO is truly meant for adults. Why oh why is this such a hard concept for people to get.
how do you know that manhunt 2 is basically the same thing as the original?
all we really know about manhunt 2 is that it was banned in the UK and other country's and that it recieved an AO rating, pretty much for gratuitous scenes of torture
did you ever once consider that perhaps Rockstar pushed the envelope too far in this mater and the AO rating is well deserved?
and before you say that AO should not be given for violence, let me point out that NC-17 can be given out by the MPAA for non-sexual content as well, the reason we never hear about it, is because unlike Rockstar, movie studio's don't leak what the film was originally rated when they have to rework it for another rating
well the problem is that the highest rating in the US is called AO for adults only.
Pull any random person off the street and ask them what the first thing they think of when you say "adults only" to them, most will immediately think 'porn'
It is indeed debatable whether there should be a porn category or not, but if there isn't, they shouldn't label the highest rating as something that sounds like a porn category. This is why the AO rating is an effective 'ban' category at the moment.
Note: The number of occurrances and durations of these situations will be factored into sublevels after focus groups have been used."
Lol headshot?
Then again, Factor 5 is kind of ridiculous themselves.
Far too many ratings their if you ask me, if parents apparently get confused with the current system, they'll have no chance at all with 11 categories
Here's how i'd change it:
E: Every one
PG: Parental Guidance (12+)
T: Teen (15+)
M: Mature (18+)
X: Explicit content (18+(only with really heavy sexual content))
A: Adult (18+) is a big nono, people will look at the word 'adult' and think "porn rating", which seems to be the main problem with AO at the moment
Right, even though Manhunt 2 is "basically the same thing" as the original, M-rated Manhunt. If you think the ESRB is in place for the parents, you've been asleep. Take Two is the big dog when it comes to 'pushing the envelope' in video games. You cut off the big dog's balls, suddenly all the other, smaller dogs will back off.
As for the nipples comment, it's true, American society is prude city. We should be trying to correct this, not supporting it. Still we aren't really talking about nipples are we? We are talking about polygons, with bump mapping (oy) that are suppose to kind of look like tits, but they have that goofy plastic doll look to them. We tout realism, but none of this shit looks realistic in practice. They don't really look like tits, who gives a shit, get your jesus off of my god damn video games.
Frankly, I'm fine with the ESRB, so long as the ESRB is industry controlled. Because the last thing video gamers need is an instution created by congress that rates video games. I do agree however, that the ESRB should be more open with their practices and should be taking steps to make it clear what constitutes certain ratings.
But censorship? As if, you can blame your publishers and developers for that.
you can to a point,are they equally to blame probably not,but the ESRB inaction in damning in itself....
My Issue with porn games is threw current laws and rules,I merely wish the ESRB to label it and the games are filtered to the correct retailer,nothing more nothing less,if the retailer has issues with it then somethign needs to be done about them..
No merely going by basic laws and rules sex games equal porn and that can not be sold to minors and thus must be sold in regulated shops or are you guys ignoring that aspect of it.
Last I check (and with porn laws being varied by state) you either can not sale or show "porn" to minors,havign a clear rating for it would help slot that content to the correct "shops" .
thos shops being porn or any "intimate novelty toy shop" that seems to be on every other street conner LOL
Do show me a "normal" retail chain that sales porn and they can sale it to,it merely needs to be labeled and kept out of the hands of kids and fundies.
GamersRyno
the main 3 on the front of the box in a small box and the other 3 (6 in all) on the back descriptors only it could well work but then retail would ban the offending descriptors LOL
I like it a bit more than what the ESRB currently is.
I disagree. They knew what they were doing well before they started, cause they know companies like Nintendo don't allow AO titles, and companies like Wal Mart don't sell AO titles, and if they rectal-fist Take-Two hard enough, they just might go away.*
*Really though, eventually it's going to backfire and the ESRB will probably eat it. They just have to pick a more defensible target than Manhunt 2 (something really artsy) and watch the monkeys start flinging shit at each other.
P.S.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire
"Personally I don’t even think that they should have a rating system."
Bingo!
Or at least, a powerless rating system, like the MPAA.*
*Does anyone but Sam Walton's rapidly decomposing corpse or a mainstream theatre even acknowledge that the MPAA system exists? Why do we have this standard when it is moving pictures of real people fucking/sucking/killing/snorting etc it is widely available to anyone but when it's a heap of ugly polygons that's suppose to look like tits they throw down their bible and shit down our throats?
Zigs you racist pig. In this era, we should integrate cultures to increase tolerance between differnt people. World Peace start with understanding each other.
I agree with Archgabe. Your ratings are too complex.
And the ESRB should also consider other factors like the story, or the intensity of certain things to rate the games:
Like if Medal of Honor show blood, the rating shouldn't go up, because the blood are reasonable in a war, espically WWII, it base on actual event. Historic game should have a lower rating. But for Mortal Combat, their blood showing it not realistic, people can't kill that easily or that bloody.
If there are nudity and it not sexual nudity, just normal nudity, the rating shouldn't go up just of two innocent nipples. If the game have a fuck fest, even without nudity, then yes, the rating should go up.
Also, rating should be depending on 2D or 3D. If it bloody in 2D, the rating shouldn't go up.
@Archgabe
The proposed 'S' rating would work like an 'EC' rating, games for those whose cognitive abilities are not on par with that of a normal humans. The games would have things like a 'pill alarm' that reminds the player when to take their pills, and if the game is on and doesn't get a response within 15 minutes, it will trigger the player's medic alert bracelet.
Get to it ESRB!
Too complex. Most parents these days don't have the attention span to remember that.
And why did you put "S" on there? After 18, you can pretty much play any game you want. 50+ is not needed in my opinion. The ratings are not for the gamers but for the parents. We will play any game if it is good, it is the parents that need the help of the rating system.
EA: Early Childhood (but who is going to use it)
E: Every one
LC: Late Childhood (8+)
PT: Pre-Teen (10+)
T: Teen (12+)
YA: Young Adult (14+)
M: Mature (16+)
A: Adult (18+)
X: Explicit content (18+(only with really heavy sexual content))
CG: Casual Gamer (any one)
S: Senior (50+)
1) Leave almost all the ratings in their current name. The exception is the AO rating. I would rename it as A18+ because I think AO is a little too stigmatizing.
2) The descriptors will be used as a point system to determine the rating.
3) Descriptors will be divided into the following classes:
Blood & Gore
Violence
Sexual themes
Emotional distress
Language
Age related themes
4) Each class will be divided into levels, which will have point values assigned. The following examples will further explain:
Blood & Gore:
Level 1- An injurie with severity up to the point of requiring stitches, or having more than 10 such injuries
Level 2 - An injury requiring stiches or other such closure up to 50 stitches, or more than 10 such injuries
Level 3 - Injuries requiring greater medical care than previously specified, but not including dismemberment, etc.
Level 4 - Injuries involving dismemberment or disembowelment, but not necessarily deadly
Level 5 - Injuries which cause instantaneous death
Note: The number of occurrances and durations of these situations will be factored into sublevels after focus groups have been used.
Language:
Level 1 - Language acceptable for all individuals
Level 2 - Language acceptable for demographics watching evening broadcast television
Level 3 - Language acceptable for prime time broadcast television
Level 4 - Vulgar, but language generally accepted by consenting adults
Level 5 - The 7 words that can't be said on TV (sorry, I couldn't be more official sounding here)
Note: Focus groups would be used here as above, but include analysis of what words fall under what categories
I'll stop the examples there since this is already getting long.
5) Focus groups will be conducted every 5 years to keep the values updated with social standards.
6) The points assigned will determine the rating. Exceptions may be made in extreme cases.
7) All descriptors will be listed somewhere in game packaging materials. Packaged materials themselves count
So there it is. Is it a perfect system? Definitely not. But it's uniform. And it's just a simple draft for an idea. Any further suggestions?
there are a few flaws with your logic, without a rating system how are parents supposed to know which games are too violent, or sexual for their children, that is after all what the rating system is for
also your comment about 2 innocent nipples not causing a rating to raise shows a lack of understanding in American culture, the fact is no game with any more nudity then a bared behind will never be rated anything less then M, you may well have Janet Jackson to blame for that one
@Zigs
you can not fault the ESRB for rating the game AO, if they had felt it deserved an AO rating, and rated it M because of the fact that they know that an AO rating is effectively a ban, then they truly would be a broken system that parents could not trust
also i strongly doubt this is the ESRB taking it to R* over the whole hot coffee thing, if they were simply trying to get back at R* they would have given bully an M rating, not the T rating that it recieved
X was the red-headed step child of the movie industry. It was not treated as a real rating by the MPAA and therefore was not taken seriously by theatres.
The AO rating was designed to be a valid rating. It was meant to be the NC-17 not the X. It was the console manufacturers and retailers that turned it to X. They should not change it, but enforce it as a valid rating.
The ESRB simply rates the games. They will provide feedback regarding games that get an AO rating so the publisher can make a decision regarding the future of their title. The ESRB does not:
1) Determine which games can and can not be sold at retail (the retailers do that).
2) Dictate what can and can not be included in a game. All content is viable, but the creators need to accept that they may not get a rating they want.
3) Work as a branch of the government.
The ESRB does make it so parents can make informed decisions about the games. Which is exactly what you're asking for. If there were no ratings on the game boxes, how exactly would you expect parents to make the proper decisions?
The current system may not be perfect, but I don't think a system of "no ratings" that you seem to be advocating is a proper solution.
Why can't they foresee the issues at hand and go ahead and evolve "X to NC17" why must they wait 4 more years to do it thats my question,there is a lot of history to look at and say we should go ahead and do this now.
"How about a change from the ESRB to No ESRB."
How old are you? Do you remember the original NES the front loading cartridge machine? Well to get to the point, this system came out when there were no ratings at all. Nintendo, in an effort to avoid parent and governemnt scrutiny, set strict guidelines for content that resembled the CCA. Example, the game Maniac Mansion was originally developed for the Commodore 64. It was then ported to the NES, but not without many changes. They had to remove an topless statue, a statue for crying outload. They had to change a lot of the dialogue to remove enuendos. They changed the game dramataclly.
Do you want this to happen again?
The esrb is at fault for making it so games with violence and no hardcore sexuality gets an AO rating by which consoles would not allow Manhunt 2.
The esrb should only give games that have hardcore sexuality AO ratings, not games like Manhunt 2. Because of the esrb taking away our right to witness certain violence, we cannot really expect to see alot of scenes that would make a horror game for instance disturbing. I do not want to worry about not being able to be disturbed when I get a horror type game because I know that the esrb is violating my ammendment right by threatening video game companies that if they do not take out certain scenes that the game would get an AO by which the esrb knows that the consoles do not allow AO rated games.
If gamers keep on saying that the esrb is not at fault then we could expect to see more censoring that is against our rights. If the consoles do not allow AO rated games, then the esrb should not be giving a rating of AO to games like Manhunt 2 just because of the violence.
If politicians that are for gamers rights seen this comment then I would suggest they take the ones that are in charge of the esrb to court to get rid of the AO rating for games like Manhunt 2.
The presence of restriction requires the absence of liberty.
Good point! Retailers have notoriously banned games, movies, books, & music long before ratings systems were in place soley based on attention grabbing headlines and hype and they continue to do it to this day.
It seems those who would seek to censor something do not learn from history that censoring leads to proliferation of that which is censored.
Anyway, that gives us ratings for ages 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 18 (why do we need one for 17 and 18? what happens in that year?). Adding yet another one, will only result in more clutter, further complicating the rating process, and further confusing parents and gamers alike. What would be the criteria for a 15 rating? What makes it worse than Teen, yet not worthy of Mature?
Besides, the ages listed are merely guidelines. Who didn't play Teen rated games at eleven or twelve? I'm sure you can name a ten year old that could handle a Teen rated game and probably a fourteen year old that couldn't. Parents should know what their child can and can not handle, and any rating system is only intended to supply them with a reliable resource to assist with that.
The best thing is to inform parents about the ratings. In my home state of Georgia, its a law that retailers have displays summarizing the rating system. I've even seen FREE pamphlets in GameStop explaining the ratings and Content Descriptors. You can't prevent the parent from ignoring the warnings, nor should you, but you can warn them and let them accept responsibility for their own actions (that's a novel idea, eh?).
I aggree with what you said about the content to affecting the quality. The Sims is another game that allowed you to marry someone of the same gender.
I think that he is just complaining for complaining's sake.
Frankly just saying games need more sex is a little silly. It sure as hell hasn't helped the quality of movies and if you're using the argument in the context of "games as art" then you better choose your words wisely and be careful of what you wish for.
Back to the current discussion: I agree and have always said the ESRB needs more transparency, we've all barked up that tree ad neauseum, but all this talk means nothing if the hardware platform manufactures won't allow certain content to be played on their systems. It won't matter what you call it or rate it if Nintendo, Msoft or Sony won't allow it.
-mw
http://www.gamepoliticsforums.com/showthread.php?p=48658#post48658
It can only be a double standard when the organization is rating both medias. The ESRB and the MPAA have nothing to do with each other (even thought the ESRB tried to work with them in the beginning.) There is no double standard here. We have to different mediums being rated differently.
@ Terrible Tom, DarrelBT and Zippy
I am not saying that it is the lesser of two evils. I am saying that it is good and will evolve and adapt to become better. We cannot expect them to be perfect right off the bat.
There's a double standard in media ratings and it's time the ESRB acknowledges that.
Why?
He sells his games in the US. ESRB policies directly affect the sales of his games. If he sees something wrong with the ESRB, then why can't he comment on it?
I'm sure he'll be voicing his opinions on the EU rating system as well, if he finds something wrong with it.
Just because something is the lesser evil doesn't mean we should support it in fear of having something worse. Going for the lesser evil is absolutely absurd. We should be fighting for what is right not for what is better than terribly wrong. Maybe you guys don't desire Freedom as much as me but personally I'll bitch, moan, complain, protest, preach and fight over not having enough freedom until that freedom is mine to be taken. I can't get myself in the mindset of conforming to popular belief that one culture is more important than any other and should be preserved at the cost of liberty.
E 10 and the learning levels were brought in not 2 years ago,why can't they bring in a 15+ level split the overly violent and sexual M games down the line the more sexuality/gore they go to 17+ with this you will have more sales for 15+ and it gives the industry a better slot to sale games into as well as take pressure off 17+ to be a bit more than it currently is.
I apologize for that mix up about The Warriors game.
I would be willing to challenge you any time on a video game situation. I have been through a harsh situation with my family when I was both a preteen and a teenager to the point that I started my life over without them and at that time period games like Mortal Kombat and Doom came out and I spent alot of time playing them to escape reality. Me being 25 I have to say that entertainment like those games kept me out of trouble rather than me going out and doing illegal things.
Now about the esrb, I believe that it is not right that a game can get the AO rating for a certain amount of violence by which those consoles do not allow games with that rating. I believe that it is against our ammendment rights.
I actually like Jack to come on for a challenge and also since sometimes he presents us with news going around about video games.
All of us gamers should go out of our way to make sure that games cannot be rated AO for a certain amount of violence. We should do whatever we can to cause the esrb to get rid of the AO rating for violent games so we would not have to worry about another game in the future getting messed over like Manhunt 2.
I have faith that Rockstar games would go out of their way to have the full version of Manhunt 2 available for the consoles without putting up with that AO nonsense. Rockstar, keep putting up a fight for our ammendment rights. If gamers went out of their way to not have anything censored than I see a bright future for video games.
"Just because something is the lesser evil doesn’t mean we should support it in fear of having something worse. Going for the lesser evil is absolutely absurd. We should be fighting for what is right not for what is better than terribly wrong. Maybe you guys don’t desire Freedom as much as me but personally I’ll bitch, moan, complain, protest, preach and fight over not having enough freedom until that freedom is mine to be taken. I can’t get myself in the mindset of conforming to popular belief that one culture is more important than any other and should be preserved at the cost of liberty."
I am the same way when it comes to net activated retail games,why am I paying 50$ for a game that can not function without the net thats not a MMO? 0-o
The only reason you see a need for an on between rating, is because the ESRB has let it's ratings slide. AO is a veritable ban. M is the new AO because it has been so villanized. T is too ambiguous, you have Jak and Dexter alongside games about Desert Storm. E wasn't strong enough, so E10 was added to account for games like Kingdom Hearts. The ESRB is allowing the inevitable ratings slide to effect their game plan too much. But, this doesn't mean they should create new ratings, or have some other overhaul.
What the ESRB should do is change it from a letter rating too a number describing the age, that way parents wont see an M and bypass it, where is they see a 17+ on it they may think twice.
This having been said, the ESRB exists to help protect the industry from politicians. It is a concession that we make to allow us the freedom to make games as we want them... as long as the rules of ratings are followed, anything we make should theoretically be allowed (barring criminal content). The problem is that, like it or not, the USAmerica was founded by puritans. Those values have built our society...I mean, we actually tried to ban alcohol for God's sake. It would be awesome to see a game with a homosexual relationship... the fact you could kiss a guy in Bully thrilled me to no end. But he is right...first we have to get over the idea that sex of any kind is wrong and dirty. But this is a cultural thing and the ESRB is only responding to culture.
Games Industry: "The ESRB is going too far!"
Must be a fun place to work these days.
He makes an interesting point about the difficulties of portraying games as art and yet treating some subjects as Taboo. I may not play games on those subjects (just like I may not watch movies on those subjects), but having the option would be nice.
@ Jack Thompson
Um... What the hell? What does that have to do with anything? At all?
"Hey, guys, I just saved a ton on money on my car insurance by switching to Gieco!"
Its time the ESRB dose something about it changing how games are rated would be a start, putting in a 15+ level might just well be enough to do thus taking pressure off 17+ and letting AO die a natural death in the years to come.
Unlike putting in a 18+ level to replace AO a 15+ level could well shift "pressure" off 17+ letting it advance to a true R level not the wishy washy lite R it seems to be and letting the lighter content and less gory stuff fall to 15+ which would also put us in better step with other nations and their ratings boards..
If we can make games with alil bit more edge and gore and not be labeled AO its a start to building a true and real R and NC17 level and with that (NC17) will be another fight in the years to come.
I'll think more over it and post my thoughts in the forum,wif links and waffles to come! LOL
Annnd... what?
As has been mentioned before, many things are "addictive" or can be "obsessed" over.
Even religion. We know for a FACT that individuals get so involved and brainwashed by religion that it may be dangerous, even harmful to children? Perhaps we should "protect our children" from the harmful, addictive, influences of religion. Both the mental, verbal, physical, and/or sexual abuse caused in the name of religion either against those brainwashed and addicted to religion or victims of those who are brainwashed and addicted to religion need to be "protected" from such "harmful" stimuli.
Think it's unreasonable? Think it's extreme? I'm just showing you the extent one could take your arguments to. Or, as always, are those things that you approve of above your arguments against things you don't personally, religiously, and/or politically support?
Hey, you started it. The Topic was the value and motivation of the ESRB. Perhaps you should create your own blog. I'm sure SOMEONE will link to it or send you... readers.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Then again, their "M15" in Australia is more often than not the EQUIVALENT of the ESRB's "M17." Anything that's M rated in the USA is rated either "M" or "M15+" in Australia depending the level of violence or the contect of the game.
(Example. Supreme Commander is rated E for everyone by the ESRB while the Australian ratings board gave it an M rating.)
The irony is that HE HIMSELF is addicted.
He stalks people he hates. He flames any discussion that goes against his thinking. He spams press releases on the internet for all to see and brags about it. EVERYDAY.
Face it. He himself is addicted and denial is the first step.
.... wait what?
I was talking about Julian Eggebrecht.
But I can understand why he would say so. He's from Germany, so he's comparing an American institution dictating cultural standards on his art creation to what McCarthyism did to movies. It is sort of similar from his point of view.
Damn. Well, I guess I should of known better. It wasn't some "breaking news" about his impending disbarment and he didn't even insult anyone or imply you are a terrible person who invites children into the back of your van with candy or whatever lies he could come up with. It was utterly non-Jack behavior.
@ GregoriusH
I'd rather not have a 15+ rating than not have a 17+ rating.
It makes very little sense what is good and what is bad. Make a game where you mow down soldiers with a minigun, but you can't have red blood if you want that teen rating.
While calling it McCarthyism is inaccurate at best, it does sound reminiscent of the old Comics Code Authority.
Yep, it is EXACTLY like the old Comics Code Authority - and he absolutely does have a valid point here. The ESRB needs more transparency and it needs more GAMERS. Way too many people at the ESRB clearly don't play games at all and are far more interested in cozying up to misinformed politicians than they are to Gamers and game developers.