Thank you site!!!
1pofasgdmao
2dofasgdmao
2wofasgdmao
4fofasgdmao
5hofasgdmao
6yofasgdmao
Bye!!!

I wish this guy could permanently take Jack Thompson's place. I may not completely agree with him, but at least he's not a reprehensible, mean spirited jerk with an obvious inferiority complex. At least Yee's a respectable person who acts like a professional.

"The ESRB refuses to use the AO rating for violence despite the descriptor calling for such a rating when there are “graphic depictions of violence.” "

Ummmm... Isn't that EXACTLY what they just did? I haven't heard anything about any massive sexual content in Manhunt 2, so I'm going to assume they ramped up the violence too much - hence, the AO rating. I respect Yee in a lot of ways - I disagree with his positions, but I think that he's somewhat more educated and intelligent about them instead of just virulently crazy-like. But in this case, that's just stupid of Yee to say that. The violence level was EXACTLY what got this put into the AO category.

Dear Politicians. Shut up about the ESRB. You, the ones who demanded the formation of the ESRB in the first place, cannot turn around and say it's evil. You cannot willingly create a monster, then join the angry mob when it smashes a few buildings.

This is the whole "if your innocent, then you have nothing to hide" issue. Same reasoning cops use to try and search your house, your car, and just do what they want because not agreeing "makes you guilty looking". It's a childish tactic and I'm sad (but not surprised) to see politicians once again dropping to this level. But while the movie industry pads their pockets (it is California after all), they would never dream to use this on the movie industry to see how the Hostel series got a R rating, as well as how they can sell Unrated movies with no question and sell them right next kids dvds (noticed this last night at the local Wal-Mart).

my vote goes for wacko jacko

Speaking of which, he's missed his cue..

How is the term 'Mature' ambiguous? Especially when "17+" is clearly visible right above that to anyone who would actually be taking the time to look at the box.

How does this show that the ESRB can not be trusted? Does he even know what Manhunt 2 is about? If he does, I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would love him to share. After all, if the statistics are true, then maybe 1% of sales are to minors by themselves. Does 1% really need that kind of protection?

He would rather us trust him and his government cronies? Sorry, but I don't think so. I'd rather not have the government control my entertainment. What's next? Restrictions on anime?

This statement is nothing but a sad little man trying to make himself look good and justified when he is nothing but a villain.

@ BearDogg-X

Do those figures count E, E10+, and T rated game sales? If only 1.26% of video game sales are accounted for by minors, its possible that the number picking up M rated games is even lower.

Doesn't the MPAA similarly not disclose this stuff?

“What are they trying to hide? Unsurprisingly, the culture of secrecy continues at the ESRB. “

A NDA might be the reason for the secrecy. I mean I’m pretty sure the ESRB signs those because the developer doesn’t want content leaking out.



“The ESRB refuses to use the AO rating for violence despite the descriptor calling for such a rating when there are “graphic depictions of violence.” If Manhunt doesn’t qualify, what would? “

Umm, how exactly do you know how much graphic violence is in Manhunt 2? You don’t? didn’t think so.



“Combined with the use of the ambiguous term “Mature,” many parents are left with a false sense of how violent an M-rated game may be; and obviously even many retailers as the Federal Trade Commission secret shopper study suggests”

yeah, that’s why several big game chains have changed their policy so that M games can’t be sold without a parent or 17 yr old there on penalty of termination. It’s rated MATURE for a reason. MATURE means you should be MATURE enough to play it.


the industry has said over and over, “trust us; our rating system will protect children.”

Yes, they said something that they actually never said. The rating system isn’t supposed to protect children, it’s there to inform customers on the content in the game, be it a 21 year old gamer or a 12 year old kid.

"What are they trying to hide" Oh I don't know, perhaps the content of an unreleased game?

What makes me sick is that Yee and this stupid soccer mom group don't care at all about the ratings system. They don't care about the system, they don't care about gamers, they don't care about their children really, and the only reason they're involved at all is because of the media buzz around a single game.

Where were all these people when the ratings system was being developed? Where were their demands for evidence when the AO rating was issued in the first place? This is a crock of ****. This goes to show how much contempt these people have for the game industry, because they're willing to make completely insane demands, such as having access to corprorate secrets that they are not entitled to. This would never happen to a movie.

I'm not just upset about this. Yee should resign. This shows me he is not competent to hold public office. Hopefully the folks of California agree.

@ D.C.O.W.

Um, I'm 22 and I never use the ESRB ratings, unless I'm just flat curious as to what it was rated (or buying as a gift for a younger person). Then again, I usually have an idea of what is in a game before I pick it up. I'm less interested in blood and gore and more interested in a good game with solid game-play. If it has blood and gore that's just a bonus (or something like that).

@gameboy

I'm in the same boat, but I mean like the ESRB has said that the ratings are to help parents make educated choices. I don't expect gamers to look at a game and think "I wonder what is in this game, I better look at the rating!" but a parent might have their child hand them a game, and they choose to look at the rating instead of just looking at the name or the back of the case. They might see "blood and gore" and then decide not to purchase it (well, that's the hope at least).

I mean it's not like the ESRB hasn't been trying to make parents more knowledgable about the ratings.

I still have to side with the ESRB on this one. Basically they don'y want to give details because that would create a dangerous precedent (ie Well you told us what Manhunt 2 had so you should tell us what GTA IV has). Plus, as stated by many people already, this is a minor change (AO to M) thus the whole "children" factor doesn't hold water.

Now I can understand Yee's (and many others) complaints. Basically they want proof that the ESRB is playing on the up and up. And because of the secrecy they think it is rigged. (My brother thought boxing was rigged because judge scores weren't announced until after the fight). Ultimately what they are going to have to do is wait and buy it themselves.

Sorry to bother you again beardogg, but I noticed something in your figures again

you say 86% of sales are made of over 18, I'm willing to bet the leftover portion is vastly made up of 17 yr olds, still legal purchasers of M rated games.

And unless you misquoted its game sales in total, so we're not even counting in E rated games are we? The sales to minors could make up a lot of those.


I suspect the figure may be even lower than what youve got if you add in these factors.

@Awol

It's a pattern I'm noticing. if the system doesn't do ALL of the work for the parent, removing all responsibility from the parent and making it so they don't have to think.

If the system doesn't do those things, it is inevitably broken.

@chris

Also, since he is only considering the effects of Yee's law, which only would affect California, you'd also have to consider the % of total video game sales that are made in California, from there, you could extrapolate the total number of people younger than 17 that would be affected by Yee's law.

Did Yee forget already that they did use the AO rating? Namely for Manhunt 2 itself prior to Rockstar wussing out and editing it?

ESRB is hiding its CP.

You know, at this point I honestly think Yee truly just does not understand the fact that the game was edited and resubmitted to get the M.

Or he's just choosing to remain willfully ignorant of this so he can keep attacking the ESRB, but then that would mean he's a two-faced ignorant jackass by choice.

I don't get why Yee cares. I mean, the AO version probably won't be released. What's the big deal? The ESRB hasn't given us any reason to not trust them in the past. I mean, they re-rated games after 'hidden content' popped up in San Andreas and Oblivion that required simple 3rd Party mods. Ideally if a person modifies the product the company shouldn't be held accountable, much like voiding a warranty. How's about we stop focusing on the game industry and worry more about the fires that plague the state every year? Maybe send in the FTC guys to fight those, make them do some real work for once...

"42 out of 100 kids who want to purchase Manhunt 2 will be able to do so."

This is because the parents (you know, the people with the money) will buy it for them. Even when retailers go out of their way to inform parents that a game may not be suitable for their children the parents often brush it off. It's not Rockstar's fault that parents don't want to do any actual parenting.

As far as the ESRB disclosing why they gave the rating they gave, does the MPAA give out specifics as to why they rate a movie the way they do? If they do not then there is certainly no reason to expect the ESRB to do so.

@Eric

"I am sure there are some NDA issues involved that would prevent the ESRB from releases details PRIOR to a games release, but there should be no reason why the ESRB could not release a more detailed report AFTER a games release. I do not imagine the ESRB review would be any more revealing than a game review."

An NDA can still cover material after it hits the market, because it has a market value, and is the property of the publisher. Game reviewers still have to purchase a copy of the game, or be given a free copy by the publisher. Even unauthorized strategy guides are still limited in how much game content they can "show" in pictures because of Fair Use (word descriptions are ok, but really, do you want to read the 1,000 page summary of all the different scenes in MH2?)

So just because it's released doesn't necessarily free the ESRB from it's NDA.

Remember too that the big stink is that they want MH2 to be rated AO BEFORE it hits store shelves.

Hooray for more completely uniformed wind-bags.

Pretty much, he wants the support of all the angry soccer moms who know even less than he does. He should really be campaigning for parents to be more cautious with the money they give their kids.

They say that 42 out of 100 kids can buy this game? Well, I don't know or trust where they got those numbers, but as a GameStop employee we NEVER sell M rated games without an adult there and even then we inform the parents or guardian or whoever, this is is an M rated game for Violence, Gore, Sexual theme, Adult Language, and so on. Now, on several occasions, upon informing a parent they'll be completely surprised and not even realize that the M meant that.

Terribly uniformed parents who insist on buying games to shut their child up are quite disgusting to me. It's because of them that we have so many problems and attacks on the ESRB.
The important thing to ask, though, is why are there so many unattended children out there with at least $50-60 in their pockets? Who's letting these kids run free out to the nearest WalMart so they can purchase these "Ultra violent" games we keep hearing about?

"The important thing to ask, though, is why are there so many unattended children out there with at least $50-60 in their pockets? Who’s letting these kids run free out to the nearest WalMart so they can purchase these “Ultra violent” games we keep hearing about?"


I remember when I was a boy of 10 years old. On fridays I would jump in my camero and drive down to the strip club where I tended bar. After that I drove to the nearest K-mart to buy a new game, before picking up some Jack Daniels at the nearest State Store and heading home for a drunken gorefest.


The preceding has been complete sarcasm.

@Jabrwock;

We must be moderate in our opinions - assuming that movies and games are "the exact same thing" isn't genuine.

When you buy a game, what is it you buy? The physical media? The video and sound? The interactive risk/rewards that make up gameplay?

If you disclose (parts of) a movie before its release, you spoil it - you give away everything the movie contains for free.

If you disclose a screenshot, you just make people want to play the game more! Compared with movie trailers, we get much more advanced viewing of games already from the publisher's own channels.


I can imagine that game companies would love to turn the ESRB into a marketing outlet - whoring screenshots of the game suffixed with the content descriptors they earned.

That would, of course, make the ESRB even more dependent on industry funding, and bring into greater question their impartiality.

So the reason why the ESRB shouldn't disclose this information isn't because that would destroy movies and therefore must destroy games (but it won't) - it's because this disclosure channel would destroy the ESRB itself.

@ ChrowX

Yea, people should stop giving away these horrible game systems. I mean they cost what $5 for the system and $1.50 for the game. The kid could skip lunch for a few days and buy these things for Christ's sake.
/sarcasm

I swear some of these people think the above. The cheapest I've ever seen a game was $10 and that was a DS game. For that matter, the cheapest systems are over $100 (and those are last gen). The last generation of games was $50 a pop brand new and greatest hits for $20. This generation is $60.

If your kid is able to save up the $500+ to purchase the hardware, accessories, and games, then connect it to a TV, all without your knowledge, you have some problems. Or your kid is the most mature and devious child I've ever met! Or you kid has a job and hence more than likely mature enough to either handle the games, or know which ones not to buy.

@ lumi

">You gotta love how the word “Ultra-Violent” keeps coming up in these press releases. What soccer mom thought that word up?

Pretty sure it was actually Stanley Kubrick. Clockwork Orange ftw =D (now THERE’S a game that would warrant an M rating…) "

A Clockwork Orange was a book before Stanley Kubrick made it into a film. It was written by Anthony Burgess as Eric Lamy has already pointed out. But now we're getting off-topic.

>Remember these people wanted the ESRB to “fully play” the game, so how can you “fully disclose” the content if you don’t release the full game?

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/01

I think the Europeans have something with their labeling system.

1. It's spaced out fairly evenly. Keep the other ratings, but lower what is known as "M" to 15. (E, 10+, 13+, 15+, 18+)

2. Do not use ANY letter/word rating beyond the initial E rating and/or a Reccomended for before the +whatever rating

3. with the 18+, it leaves out the "ADULT PRON LOL XXX" connection, since the word adult is not used.

That way, the ratings appear to be more of a reccomendation AND an enforcement, depending on your understanding of the system.

@lumi

Penny-Arcade ftw! I loved that one!

I think what the ESRB are trying to hide is the Intellectual Property of companies that submit work to be rated, if the Industry itself loses faith in the ESRB and its ability to deal with their potential profits in a confidential manner, then it will fall far faster than the Government could bring it down.

Movies do the EXACT same stuff. Hell they even advertise the "Un-Rated" version. They even made an Unrated version of the ABC Family version of The Dukes of Hazard (And they have the word FAMILY in the channel name!). So what the hell is wrong with a game doing this when everything else gets away with the exact same thing?

Please, for the love of god, somebody vote this fucking wanker out of power.

the ESRB are more like guidelines than rules, anyway (pirates arrrr). Parents should treat them thusly. Look at how Manhunt 2 was rated and for what reasons. Would you want your underage child playing it? Of course not. You have now used the cleverly marked package to come to the conclusion that this game is not appropriate for kids, how has the system failed?

Frankly, one glance at the cover would tell me all I need to know about whether the content is suitable for a younger player.

"Parents simply can not trust an entity that is unwilling to disclose or give any meaningful rationale at how they come to their decisions. "

So which is it ignorance or just saying whatever sounds good in a press release?

Because it isn't as if anyone has ever accused the MPAA of being "unwilling to disclose or give any meaningful rationale at how they come to their decisions." It isn't as if someone didn't make an entire film about how the MPAA ratings are so secret that they had to get a private investigator to find out who the actual specific people that rate the movies are or anything. It isn't as if the MPAA gave that film an NC-17 when they rated the movie or anything which in effect prevented the film from getting a wide distribution or anything...

But yes, let's focus on those damn videogame ratings people because they are the only ones that are bad...

I suppose Mr. Yee would be happy to turn over his financial records to one of his constituents of asked? After all he is an elected representative and thus an employee of the people. What does he have to hide?

Perhaps it is simply a matter of it not being his business. Has he purchased a game which was mis-rated? Has there been a spate of games with inappropriate ratings, people complaining?

Or is this more likely a power struggle from a busybody who can't be bothered to address real problems in his state? An appeal to emotion rather than logic.

You know.. I think that, just maybe, the video game industry should try to pioneer, rather than use the excuse that "they don't do it, so why should we?"

Make the ESRB transparent in the methods. Let anyone who actually wants to see the material the games are reviewed through, see it. Don't hide it. If a game, like manhunt 2, gets re-rated, then let people know -why- and just what changed.

And, damnit, use the AO rating properly. I agree, games that are meant for adult audiences, should be rated for adult audiences. And console makers shouldn't limit that. In fact, if they really wanted to do something about it, limit the systems to T-rated games by default, then have a one-time call-in to unlock the parental controls to M and AO. That way, young kids can't just get their hands on bad games and play away. It makes the parents conscious about what kind of material their kids might be playing, and it just makes adults take 3 minutes, once, to call a toll-free number and unlock.

Don't use the AO as a censor, don't use it as a bludgeon and don't use it as a way to punish companies. Let companies make games that are meant for their audiences. Damnit, let them make an even more explicit version of Leisure Suit Larry, if they want to. The Wiimote would be a -perfect- way to play something like that, and it would get around a lot of those subtle innuendo bits that kids might not get.

If, for whatever reason, a developer wants to make a game about flying cocks and pussy raiding, that should be within their creative rights, and it shouldn't be censored or banned from the market, because a few companies are afraid of letting their hardware be "corrupted". Especially since you can already watch porntube on the Wii browser. That's worse than what you'd see in most games, anyway. :P

Re: 42%

Interesing figure. I downloaded the report to make sure I read it correctly not to just take Yee or Thompson's word and indeed, undercover mystery shoppers were able to purchase games 42% of the time.

This number does not indicate real life.

They GAVE kid money and told him/her to go in and buy a particular game. I've yet to see any research that has statistics regarding sales as to an age demographic.

Suffice to say any sales with a credit card were probably not a kid under the age of 17, so then break down cash or gift card sales of M rated games: what does to correlate to? anyone? Then break that down in to age, what do you suppose that number would be? I seriously doubt it would be 42% of cash/gift card sales of M rated games.

food for thought

Revealing specific content after release isn't really a viable option, as it's not something that game developers are likely to agree with.

As one example, consider a game developer that cuts sections of material present in an early build and applies it to an expansion patch. Anyone who's hacked around with game files from Doom on out knows how many inactive bits of assets are even present in released files that speak to cut or unincluded material.

Those developers aren't going to disclose how many features got cut or reused for another release or even product. Honestly, given their position and in many cases duty to their stockholders it makes very little sense for them to do so.

At the same time, many games need early builds released for rating to allow for readjustment if they should receive a rating that would kill their viability for the intended market. So the developers will hold onto NDAs for reasons that do, in fact, make business sense.

In this regard, there is in fact a greater reason for nondisclosure in a game rating system than in the MPAA.

@Central

Even without creditcard/gift card sales, BearDoggX worked out the numbers to

One thing I keep noticing about Yee, Thompson, and all like them.

If the ESRB does not do all of the work, that it eliminates parents having to think and removes all responsibility from the parents, does not ban games THEY find objectionable, if the ESRB does not prevent 100% of mature game sales to minors 100% of the time, then the system is completely and utterly broken.

I wonder if we could apply that to the voting records on Capitol Hill? ;)

who is BearDoggX, excuse my ignorance?

How did they come to that number?

you know the other thing is, just because a game is rated M does not mean my 14yo can't play it in my house. I take a look at ALL the games we buy and many we don't [funny how I make purchase decisions by research than gut reaction]

I let him play Halo, I let him play KOTOR, I let him play almost anything he actually wants to play which for him, is usually music related games or games where you play with others, he has not gone on line BTW to play games.

so, how many "M" rated games get sold to minors who are NOT allowed to play that particular game in their own house with parental knowledge.

Thompson & Yee would have us believe that parents everywhere are just clueless. I don't know any parents who are completely clueless and I sure as hell don't know any that let their kids have control of the TV, computer and videogame console in their house.

@The Central Scrutinizer

When the MPAA has full transparency and disclosure on its methods for rating movies, and there is full disclosure and transparency on how TV programs are rated, then I will see a potential argument for the ESRB to do so with video games, and not before.

Right now, the biggest noisemakers who are demanding full disclosure (like Yee) are simply demanding something of one entertainment medium which does not exist in others. That is a double standard, and is simply an effort to censor said medium.

I should have included the game developer in there. The rating should be between the game developer and the ESRB and unless both parties wish to release the information behind it I don't see a legitimate reason why it should be disclosed.

"When the MPAA has full transparency and disclosure on its methods for rating movies, and there is full disclosure and transparency on how TV programs are rated, then I will see a potential argument for the ESRB to do so with video games, and not before."

Actually, first I'd ask that Yee fully document and disclose every single work spoken during any meeting he's ever had with lobbyists, phone calls he's made from the office, and all material he's ever edited out of press releases and speeches. Otherwise he's clearly hiding something.

Afterall, if he's not guilty, he's got nothing to hide, so what's the worry?

Jabrwock - Do you think Yee considers it marketing toward children because he doesn't consider a 17 year old an adult? I mean its pretty hard to argue with that .53% figure.

If he disclosed all that information we'd have a whole lot of ammunition against him I bet.

@Jabrwock

ohhhh, yeah, I DID see BearDogX's post, he was quoting ESA numbers, gotta go find those and see how they did it but the number sounds right for real life numbers and not some set up

In my opinion the MPAA DOES have ful transparency by default since we have the luxury of comparing theatrical releases with unrated or director cut releases in the comfort of our own homes. I DO wish we could do the same for games but we're far from there yet.

My feeling is, if small concessions can be made by game devs and the industry as a whole, they should just go ahead and make them and lets stop all this bickering so I can enjoy my games and my family without worrying if someone will say what I'm doing is illegal, immoral or otherwise.

@Terrible Tom

"Do you think Yee considers it marketing toward children because he doesn’t consider a 17 year old an adult?"

In California you can't drink or look at nekked ladies until you're 21, so yeah, probably...

"In California you can’t drink or look at nekked ladies until you’re 21, so yeah, probably…" -Jabrwock

I can't?! Oops...

Certainly doesn't lend much credence to Yee's cries of "but we legislate drugs and porn to kids!" when you'd be hard pressed to find a minor who hasn't smoked or drank or looked at a girly mag or something.


Andrew Eisen

@Andrew

Crazy eh? At 18 you can't look at Playboy or enjoy a beer (or possibly even enjoy a cigar, I'm not sure what the Calif smoking laws are right now), but you CAN be sentenced as an adult even for minor crimes, vote for President, and be shipped off to die for your country...

Where in blue blazes did this immense distrust of the ESRB originate from anyway?


Andrew Eisen

@Andrew

"Where in blue blazes did this immense distrust of the ESRB originate from anyway?"

Where else? When it started not banning games that people wanted banned...

@The Central Scrutinizer

A large majority of movies that do that unrated DVD thing is ONLY to market/hype how controversial their movie is, and largely it's really negligible stuff that doesn't matter. Plus, not every movie does it, so that analogy really does not work out at all.

He's got a point about the ESRB, but I still don't think games should be legislated.

I may disagree with the ESRB on their continued use of the AO-rating but I trust that the original submission of Manhunt 2 fell within its guidelines for that rating. I also have no reason to doubt that the recent submission was altered sufficiently to earn an M-rating.

I want to know what was changed but not for the same reason that Yee does. I want to know how the creator’s vision was compromised in order to earn a lower rating so that I may decide whether I’m interested in buying a censored product or not. Yee wants to know if the current version of Manhunt 2 really deserves an M-rating.

Why he doesn’t just buy the game when it’s released and see for himself is beyond me.


Andrew Eisen

@HCF

"But this continued line of reasoning, that the ESRB need not work a certain way because that is not the way the MPAA works, is flawed. There are different, better, reasons why the ESRB should not pursue a path that makes it the first and best source of ’spoilerrific’ information about upcoming games before their release, which may…or may not!…overlap with the MPAA’s reasons."

Well, within reason. The fact that the MPAA is not mandated, required, or actually *does* provide transparency in how it sets its ratings (or the television rating system either for that matter) does lend strong credibility that the ESRB has just as much leeway in that regard. Any demands to make the ESRB be more transparent, without requiring the same of other media industry ratings boards is disingenuous, and targeted persecution of that specific media (namely, video games).

@Andrew Eisen:

I agree with you up to the point where you're considering buying Manhunt 2. You talk about the creator's vision being compromised as if it was a Fellini film... which it most certainly is not.

Additionally, based on that logic, you may as well never again go see a movie in its theatrical releases since just about every movie is "edited" to conform to its desired target demographic based on the MPAA rating it receives. And, didn't you or someone else at GP argue that many other games are routinely edited to get an M rating but just never get the controversy? Seems to me this rating re-do is normal for the game industry right? Why feed in to R*/TT's hype ?

@HCF

"We’re talking about ESRB disclosure, not game industry disclosure. They can yell till they’re blue in the face at the game industry to fully disclose games before their release - and good luck with that - but the ESRB could disclose no more than what they’re offered."

Remember, these criticisms are coming from the same people who demand the ESRB play 100% of the game. So really if you give them the info currently submitted, they'll just bitch until they get 100% of the game anyway, because they want the whole game studied.

So really, you're not decreasing the amount of bitching by giving them the info, so why bother at all then? It's not going to make the ESRB any more credible in their eyes...

@Andrew

See my suggestion about the $100 report vs. the $70 game. ;)

@Xlorep DarkHelm

yet another argument against ESRB transparency based on precedent.

I really fail to see how the ESRB/Game Devs in tandem stepping up to the plate in an UNPRECEDENTED way as a sign of good faith. The "spoiler" and "sales" issue are easily dealt with by determining a time table, say 6 months? a year?

Saying you won't do something because someone else doesn't have to is not an argument that sounds reasonable to me.

I TOTALLY agree that it is unfair the way the industry as a whole is persecuted but I see no reason why extra steps can't be taken to pre-empt this current nonsense since ultimately it would not hurt anyone and then no one can say the industry is not bending over backwards to "help".

-mw

@Xlorep:

I agree. But a statement to that effect is more an attack on the person making the argument (even if they are, transparently, singling out an industry who are not his campaign contributors) than an attack on the argument itself.

@Andrew:

There is at least one thing you can count on. "No matter how far an ass walks, it will not return to you a horse."

Oh, remember, the Comics industry capitulated to the demands of Dr. Fredric Wertham and his movement, resulting in the formation of the Comics Code Authority, which served to stagnate the Comics industry for years until the honchos at the main comic corporations finally got fed up with it. Video Games right now are more or less going through the exact same attacks that Comic books did in the '50s.

"Parents simply can not trust an entity that is unwilling to disclose or give any meaningful rationale at how they come to their decisions. "

The MPAA seats a review board that is kept secret from the public. They're repeatedly refused to identify the people rating games, even to movie studios and producers. They only release a final rating, not listing any of the specific reasons, or how many times a movie was submitted for rating. The Bourne Ultimatum gets "Rated PG-13 for violence and intense sequences of action." but no indications beyond that (rating taken directly from the MPAA's website). If State Senator Yee and similar critics were serious about their rhetoric, they would be going after the MPAA and RIAA as well. The fact that they're not should be a red flag that they've got an ax to grind.

I have to say guys, I went into a game store yesterday and when buying my new copy of STALKER Shadows of Chernobyl, I was carded. I'm amazed honestly, as I look far older than 17.

This is, to me, a sign that the market is doing its job and that COMPANIES are more than capable of keeping those games out of kids' hands without parent consent.

In other words, leave the fucking ESRB alone.

Even if the ESRB wanted to release why it gave a game a specific rating it couldn't. The publishers are never going to agree to having the process by which their games were rated released to the public.

Imagine for a second that the public decided that books needed to be rated and a board was developed to do this. Imagine that authors had to go through a process of writing and re-writing their product to receive a rating that matched their target audience. Then imagine that the public demanded that the ratings board release information about what was cut to receive a particular rating and what stayed the same. For a writer this could be devastating. In a very real sense they would have lost partial control over their own intellectual property.

Creating video games, like writing, is a continual process. At no point should one stage of the creation process demand that the owner release his or her IPs to satisfy public curiosity or quell public outrage.

@Andrew Eisen

Well cited. :)

Sure, the ESRB and the game industry might be able to work together in some way and allow for greater transparency of the ratings process. But for what purpose?

As many have said, due to issues of non-disclosure and the like, revealing the specific scenes that determined why a game got a particular rating would cause issues. It would violate the NDA's the ESRB has certianly signed. Now, some might wonder, why can't they just word the future NDA's so that only content directly related to the rating is allowed to be revealed? Well, first of all, I imagine that would be a legal nightmare to work out, and second of all, it still wouldn't stop major things from being spoiled in some cases.

Imagine if you will that some anticipated RPG gets a M rating, surprising some people because the game didn't seem that violent or anything from the previews. Turns out the reason why this game got it's rating was largely because there was a certain scene where a main character gets tortured, and has her arm cut off and her eyes removed. It's not an especially gory scene with the way the game presents it, but it's very effective in conveying the pain the character was going through, and it's somewhat disturbing. (Intentionally so.) It happens to a very likable character (the main character's love interest, actually), and is designed to fuel the fury of the player.

Incidently, this scene occurs near the very end of the game, after a very clever fake ending. Not some stupid fake ending done halfway through the game when it's obvious it's not over, but one done very near the real ending that is very well-designed and actually has a high chance of tricking the player into thinking the game is over.

If the fact that a main character is tortured and losses her arm and eyes is revealed, that fact alone will spoil many things for the players. As soon as that scene of torture starts, they are going to know what happens. Because of the circumstances of the scene, they'll instantly know that she's going to lose her arm and eyes, and the whole shocking nature of that scene will be greatly reduced. Perhaps even worse, they have no chance of falling for the fake ending anymore because they know that someone losses her arm and eyes in the game.

I chose a rather extreme hypothetical example here, but the fact is, there are many many minor things that could be spoiled by having the exact scenes of violence/sex/language revealed.

So, maybe the ESRB should disclose their rating process after the fact, after the game's already released and spoilers are already out there? That's what some say. Sounds good?

Except, I think that would be pointless. It wouldn't satisfy critics. They want to know things NOW. They want to blast the ESRB for games that aren't released and that they have never played, you think a "We'll tell you why we gave it a M in 6 months" would satisfy them? It wouldn't, it would just give them something to nitpick about later. It would be a waste of time and money on the ESRB's part. There are far far better things for them to spend their time on.

"# Joe_Snow Says:
August 29th, 2007 at 7:39 am

You gotta love how the word “Ultra-Violent” keeps coming up in these press releases. What soccer mom thought that word up?"

Ya know what we need? Ratings based on the difficulty levels of doom.

"I'm too young to die!"
"Hey, not too rough"
"Hurt me plenty"
"Ultra-violence [:)]"
"NIGHTMARE!"

At least part of it's already ingrained permanently into their brains.

I'm gonna call it as I see it: Rockstar, once again playing the media for free advertising and to inflate a game's sales artifically.

In this fasion, Yee is perhaps their most sucessful advertiser... And he does it for free.

I'm just always stuck wondering why the ESRB is coming under such fire from secrecy complaints while the MPAA has functioned for over 30 years without trouble. I believe in transpanrency, but why single out the game industry when most every other medium's ratings function in a similar fashion. Can't wait until they start rating novels.