@ Jabrwock

"A video demoing the more extreme and hard to get to content would still be required."

That is exactly what the video is. The most exteme of the extrem in the game. Sure there may only be one 1/2 a second moment where someone drops a cig or one castration, but that stuff needs to be shown to the rater.

I like what cppcrusader said about the honor system we have now. If content is not shared with the ESRB, the blame falls on the developer where it belongs.

"I agree that playing the whole game is impractical and in some cases impossible:

Hellgat london’s missions are proceedurally generated are they not? theres no way to tell what will come up eventually. online MMos can be endless etc."

- Procedurally generated missions will still use the same base content, so that can be checked without having to play the game in full. MMOs are similar in that you can just keep tabs on all initial content and subsequent additions made in updates (or simply enforce massive fines to companies who add content to their games in subsequent updates that breaches the initial rating given by the regulatory body).

In general I think there's a massive need for dedicated players/testers to work in collaboration with the less games-inclined regulatory body reviewers (who probably have their expertise based in law and not finding easter eggs).

In response to the continual focus on 'games being violent', the same rules should apply to games as they do to films, in the broad sense. I.e. if a game is sufficiently violent, slap a 15+ sticker on it and leave it down to the parents to make sure they protect their children. Currently no attention is paid to how irresponsible parents/families are being in allowing younger members to access these games, in the same way parents are somehow not responsible for bringing up their kids in such a way that they are permitted to access firearms unchecked and go on murderous rampages.

Nevertheless, one form of protecting games would be to have a password required to play the game, much like a CD key. The CD/manual contains a password which is required to boot up a new game from the start menu. This password can be changed to whetever you like once successfully inputted. This way the 10-year-old brother of an 18-year-old would only be able to play the game if he somehow found out the password. I strongly believe that the emphasis should be put back on the family and not the developer for the content of games. There's absolutely no reason why games as opposed to film, TV or books should not enjoy the same scope of topics they are permitted to breach in order to entertain on the author's terms.

@ Wacko Jacko

The BBFC (you know, the group that rates some games released in the UK) doesn't play through the game either.

Sooooo.....

@Andrew E.

"It’s just like a double-check once the game is rated, and only occurs sometimes rather than on all games rated."

well of course. i mean, do you think the ESRB needs to do a double-check on Dora the Explorer games? it is with 98% certainty that any children's game doesn't wind up somehow becoming offensive.

i'm sure they check the games that toed the line to begin with, which would include more and more R* games.

Also, an excuse often heard from watchdog groups, when asked why they denounce some games without playing them, is : "So what ? the ESRB hasn't played it either".

In theory, the idea of having a reviewer watch someone play wouldn't be too bad, but it would delay the process of the game coming out, and it would lead to the inevitable leaks of games early. These are voluntary groups, they get the job done effectively enough, leave them alone.
No government is perfect, but to tear down that which is standing leads to anarchy. Stop whining. If you really want to help, try to get a job in management within them and work with them to change it for the better.

Even if they did play the game through, theres always the potential for missing stuff. The ERSB coulda played GTA to the very end of days but without a debugger they were never going to find "Hot Coffee"

I can understand why movies are rated after seeing the whole thing. Movies range from between 1 and 5 hours. Not too hard to watch the whole thing.

No games go from anywhare from minutes to 100+ hours of game play. That starts to make it really not econimical to play through the whole game. Perhaps they could play through a level or two to get a better idea of the context, but then you need to figure out what levels to play. You couldn't just pick a couple of levels from the middle or end of the game as this would take those levels out of context. THis is especially apparent in story based games. You also cannot just play the first couple of levels as the whole context of some of the video footage would not be apparent from the first part of the game.

So how do you play enough of the game without taking the parts you play out of context and still play enough to get a contextual view of the game?

I personally don't have a problem with the ESRB, I think they do a great job...however, I can see how people would have a problem with it and they would have a right to. The MPAA watches the entire movie because they can, it is much more difficult to play through an entire game in one sitting.

that request is insane
think about games like the up coming MassEffect
90 hours to play through just the main story
and on top of that they seem to want alot of opinons
then add on many other games
plus games with alot of hype will never be able to make it through that process with out major leaks

they need to be realalistic when they make demands.
thats the problem with politicans is that they don't try to fix problems with a realistic solution but with idealistic talk. (this is in general because games arent a problem)

It continually amazes me how people don't get the fact that the ESRB has the perfect system. Basically their process relies on the honor system, and the trust that they're being truthful in submission of the material. The reason its perfect comes from the fact that no one has anything to gain from deception in the process, accidental or otherwise. Hot Coffee illustrated that point rather well.

It also continually amazes how every couple of months somebody in the blogosphere is "reporting" about the ESRB's process and how they're surprised that's how its done. To anyone who's followed the industry for more than a few months this is almost common knowledge at this point.

Did he say designated gamers? Sign me up!

Nah but seriously this idea is kinda impractical. On the one hand we could have people spending huge amounts of time playing these games, just so they could be rated. But suppose It's something like Manhunt 2 where the company doesn't like the rating and tones it down then they have to send it back and have it replayed and rerated. How many months (or even years) is this that we're looking at? Or we could continue to do things as we have been and keep catching crap over it. There are other options but these seem to be the most likely choices.

And if I can play devil's advocate here for a moment I can pretty much summerize the option our very near and dear friend Mr. Thompson would like. "Simple stop makeing these damnable and masturbatory videogames and there is no longer a need for a rating system."

Ow... I can feel my brain cells commiting harakiri as I type this...

I think it is better to play SOME of the game rather than NONE of the game. Also, the ESRB should have people looking at the "guts" of games- at least look at the art assets like textures and other graphic files.

as someone has previously said in a different comment section, we should regulate politicians and make sure every single word they say is recorded so we don't expose children to liars. The lying coming from those who run this country sets a corrupted view of ethical behavior in our kids. WHO WILL PROTECT THE CHILDREN FROM THE POLITICIANS?

its agreeable cause at least this dude brings a good argument instead of mr.ESRB is taking bribes thompson.

alright ill bring out my sword on this one and say that reviewing ever single game that comes out is only 15% possible. the lack of people, lack of training, lack of know-how and the fact that there are RPGs, 100+ games and of course those endless wonders known as MMOs, make it nearly impossible to do the task and do it right.

@myrpok

Army? Oh well, it's not my problem.

This just came to me:

How different is one FPS from another? What about RTS games? RPGs? Adventure games? You don't have to play each game because you already know how the game plays - what you need to know is what the context of that play is. Because games are generally not burdened with complex plotlines the subtleties of context that you'll find in movies tend not to be present.

Ever notice that most of the people that have a problem with the ESRB don't actually play games? I'll never understand why people feel a need to enforce their own values on something that they have no interest in.

A couple years back, Disturbed had a song named "Prayer". One of the lyrics said "Heaven just isn't hot enough/Burn me alive inside" and some religious group had a problem with that, so the publisher recalled all the CDs and changed the lyric to "Heaven just isn't hard enough/Burn me alive inside". It's a minor change (still pisses me off, though) but I can't imagine that the people who complained actually listened to Disturbed. So, why do they care? Why do people care about things that they don't care about?

I know music is a little off topic, but the point remains the same. Why do people care about video games when they don't play them? You don't want your child to play games? Don't buy them! I doubt your child will have the $500+ dollars to purchase the games and systems. And if they steal the games, you have bigger problems than Grand Theft Auto. You know. Like court and lawyer fees.

I'm a little confused by the "taking these things out of context is bad" notion is coming from. Presumably, when a publisher submits something for ESRB rating, the clips included are the most "extreme", allegedly, because that's what will earn the game a higher rating.

Taking those things out of context is going to lead to a harsher rating, if anything, so why are the anti-gamers complaining about it. Can anyone think of an example where putting a particularly extreme aspect of a game "in context" would lead to a harsher rating than taking it by itself? Sampling one particularly violent level is going to jack a game's rating up without question; showing how the player got there and why he's partaking in the violence could only (-maybe-) serve to mitigate the objectionability to that content.

As for the system itself, I wouldn't mind seeing ESRB reps being sent to a dev studio or publisher's office for a period of time to observe the in-house QA playing through. No one is going to know how to show them all the stuff they might miss like the local QA team.

@ Gameboy

I like to think of this quote when I find stuff I don't agree with. "Be in the world, not of the world." There is also this one, "The world does not revolve around me."

I think that more people need to follow these pieces of advice. The reason people want to change stuff that they themselves would not use even after the change is because they think that the whole world needs to change to support their personnal views. It is flawed thinking. Just as you cannot change a man to be the man of your dreams (or change a woman), you cannot change everything.

I remember that when Harry Potter first came out, there were three different groups of people around it. The first are the book burners who made a big stink over the witch craft elements. The second the fans. the third are those who thought that Prof Quirl's death was too graphic and that Rowlings should change it.

OF the three, the last is the most dangerous. Book burners can be ignored. Fans are happy with the situation. The thrird are the ones who seek to mold the world views into their own.

I find many of the same people in the game industry. There are many fans, there are may game burners and there are many game changers. The onew who want games changed are the most dangerous.

@lumi

Taking those things out of context is going to lead to a harsher rating, if anything, so why are the anti-gamers complaining about it.

I believe the anti-game folks theory is that rating without actually playing the game allows developers to deceive the rating board. That if a game was played through in full, the board would find things the developer wouldn't send in on the current rating video thus earning a higher rating. The little thing we call context never enters their mind.

@BlackIce, Leftie

I know, but if he wasn't, this is really the wrong article to post that comment as it's completely off topic and a non sequitur. And if he was, then it needs to be pointed out to him that his complaint does not apply in this case.

@ Pixelantes Anonymous

Unfortunately, the one thing the video game industry shares with just about every other industry out there is that the vast majority of us are overworked (massively so, actually, compared to just about everyone else), underpaid, and underappreciated as individuals.

Sure, the work environment is great and the people are cool, but swimming in cash we are definitely not.

And QA, of course, is at the bottom of the food chain. According to the 2007 Game Industry Salary Survey:

Less than 3 Years experience:
QA Tester: $24,559 USD
QA Lead: $29,907 USD

3-6 Years experience:
QA Tester: $28,750 USD
QA Lead: $45,786 USD

6+ Years experience:
QA Tester: N/A (if you're a tester for this long, you either leave the industry or get a new job within)
QA Lead: $66,574 USD

If anyone is curious, the summary of the survey can be found here:
http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/416/the_game_industry_salary_sur...

So yeah. If the ESRB were forced to hire outside hands to do full playthroughs for their ratings, it would be the sweetest of the sweet jobs, but you'd undoubtedly get paid absolute peanuts for it.

@lumi

Jesus.. Now those are Shitty wages.

Im in ur thread, closin ur tags.

-P

@ BlackIce, Leftie

@Tom

1. When was the last time you saw a complex plot in a movie?

2. You ever hear of a series called Metal Gear Solid? The only game in which the story is anywhere near important (actually, the story is like one giant conspiracy theory). Unless you count certain RPG’s and games with an Alternate History.

1. Are you suggesting that the average game plot is as complex as the average movie plot? Much as it pains me to say it, that's just not true. On top of that the myriad subtleties that are expressed through effective film making are generally - GENERALLY - not present in games.

2. Metal Gear Solid? No. Is that a popular game?

Of course I've heard of Metal Gear Solid. The plot and story of Metal Gear Solid isn't "complex" so much as it's "convoluted" but I definitely agree that it matches and exceeds much of what Hollywood pumps out for summer consumption. In my first post, though, you'll notice that I said that "games are generally not burdened with complex plotlines..." Generally - I'm not suggesting that no games have complex plots but I am saying that most of them feature threadbare stories that give players only the slimmest of motivation.

It is the rare game where the context has a mitigating effect on content.

@rdeegvainl

Two words: Oil Companies.

I'm going to quote something here and I'm curious if anyone can guess where it's from, the first part is written by me. Politicians are always watching the ESRB and children, but here's my question. Who's watching the Watchmen?

@rdeegvainl

You dig around any website you'll find it.

Any American Website that is. For European Websites, they are known as the Esso Corp. Buisness Division.

@Zerodash

Nor does The Sims

In theory, let's say Video game ratings were turned over to the Government. The government requires the ratings board to play every game in it's entirety before assigning a rating. Would they not be - in effect - using tax dollars to pay people to play video games all day?

I would love that job... but I don't think the people who actually read the fine print would like it. But no one listens to them anyway.

@ Tom

"sounds like an Activision game from before they went under"

You're thinking of Acclaim, the company that released BMX XXX. Activision doesn't really do games like that, and are doing quite well right now financially =)

@ lumi

My bad, but at least I got the first two letters right :)

I love the PA comic about BMX XXX. I can't seem to find it but it was good stuff.

@Crispy

"Nevertheless, one form of protecting games would be to have a password required to play the game, much like a CD key."

All newer consoles, as well as Windows Vista, allow you to restrict access to certain ESRB and MPAA ratings through passwords. They are off by default so it doesn't inconvenience regular users, but parents can easily activate them to restrict content.

Wal-Mart did refuse to stock it, I don't know that Acclaim was forced to modify or not.

A former co-worker bought a copy as a joke (for ONE DOLLAR on eBay ^_^) and brought it into the office one day. We laughed so hard...it was so terrible. It wasn't a good game, it wasn't good erotica, it wasn't good at anything except making us laugh AT it.

I don't remember any actual nudity, but someone was talking about unlockable features and said that he thought that might be the way it worked. Dunno, never seen the game since that day.

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/02/21/pat-vance/

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/02/20/esrb-hiring-full-time-content-reviewe...

^ these links suggest a change is coming. Is MH2 an example of this the change in action?

"ESRB raters are trained to consider a wide range of pertinent content and other elements in assigning a rating. Pertinent content is any content that accurately reflects both the most extreme content of the final product - in terms of relevant rating criteria such as violence, language, sexuality, gambling, and alcohol, tobacco and drug reference or use; and the final product as a whole - demonstrating the game’s context (such as setting, storyline and objectives) and relative frequency of extreme content. Due to the unique interactive characteristics of games, the ESRB rating system goes beyond other entertainment systems by also taking into account elements such as the reward system and the degree of player control." -----v

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/07/30/gps-ae-gets-ao-form-letter-from-esrb/

@Eric

Ask the developer/publisher to start recording some of this testing and then randomly sample footage.

You mean like they do now? Developers submit gameplay footage, as well as footage of stuff like animations, artwork, cutscenes, along with paper descriptions of each.

@Jer

So it was a JOKE that the ESRB rated the original submission of Manhunt 2 AO?

No, R* really had to submit it twice. The first submission got an AO, the 2nd edited submission got an M.

@jabrwock
I was trying to point out Mr. Thompson's statement that the "ESRB is a joke," but when news first broke out that the original submission of MH2 was rated AO that Mr. Thompson applauded the ESRB.

Can anyone tell me why a mature adult uses the the word 'Duh' in a sentence?

Ask the developer/publisher to start recording some of this testing and then randomly sample footage. You could send this footage in parrallel to the Ratings Reel. Have these testers fill out some questionnaires related to content. Perhaps a little more extreme, ask developers to utilize testers from a more diverse population/background.

They don't sample random footage, they sample the worst. Questionnaires bring about bias, and these testers would hate filling these things out. Normal people already hate filling out questionnaires no need to bring that to the workplace; also it must be noted that many don't even go near the ESRB, they are handled by different people within the company. It makes these people have no point in the company after years of doing their job right, it isn't good to give it to a tester whose job is to test for quality assurance.
They do this to ensure independence between the rating and the work that goes into development. This is why many in the industry aren't even aware of how it works.




How much this is already done I am unsure but, I would think it a waste for the ESRB to not find a way to leverage the value of allt he testing already done by the publishers/developers. The enormouse cost is already being absorbed by the game houses, why not utlize it to help silence the ESRB’s critics.

It wouldn't silence critics, critics will always complain regardless of proof that's shoved in their face. Want proof? look at the behavior of our typical malpraticing lawyer and Yee. That is proof enough that the usual critic wouldn't be silenced, they make noise to garner attention to be a nuisance to the informed.

As to MMOs there is a content descriptor at the WoW sign in screen saying, quite plainly, that the content may change dependant on the user's experience. That statement essentially clears Blizzard if other players behave or use add ons that alter the gameplay experience.

As to other games, well I can honestly see both sides of this argument. Its not really feasible for an ESRB reviewer to play the entirety of the content, however if a demo could be made, using a system similair to how they send dvds of the most explicit content. That way the potentially problematic areas are played through, by actual gamers, and a balanced rating can be achieved.

It just seems like that would be the most common sense solution to the problem.

Heres the thing about game reviewing,if you are given the details on the gore/violence/sex (pictures/video/text) then you don't need to "play" the game to see what the content is,its like skimming though Star wars only watching the action bits and harder story elements.

"We don’t need to play the game; it’s irrelevant to the subject."

Look familiar, Jack? S'right, I'm quoting YOU.

Just when we thought you couldn't be a bigger hypocrite, you hit us with this.

Jack Thompson is a fucking retard and should be ignored. He is hypocracy in action. A true waste of human life. And to think someone could use a good liver. It must be sad to lead a life which has the sole purpose of trying to stop entertainment from reaching its intended audience. Fuck You John.

Hey look! Jackos already dropped the "Attorney" bit from his posts in preperation for his life after disbarrment . Good on you Jack!

@ Jack Thompson

"This is one reason why we have been saying for three years now that the ESRB is a joke."

Provide examples of ESRB ratings misrepresenting content or inaccurately rating games and your point might be considered. Otherwise everything you say is completely irrelevent.

Jack Thompson Says:

September 10th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
This is news to anyone, that games are not played by the ESRB? Duh.

This is one reason why we have been saying for three years now that the ESRB is a joke.

Jack Thompson




No, you are obviously the joke here, since you haven't heard about those games with infinite replayability and the fact that most games take anywhere between 10-200+ hours!

The fact is, besides forcing the developers to surrender a copy of their game (thereby delaying the release process) the simple fact that games that are 100+ hours would be too expensive even at minimum wage.

The plausability factor here is zero. so instead, the ESRB is doing exactly what the next best idea is. Get the game companies to send in a DVD with the worst of the game on it. and if it's not the worst, well that would easily be found out upon release of the game, causing a mis-rating, and then a scandal which no developer or publisher really wants.

The ESRB is not a joke at all, only Jack Thompson is.

Jack Thompson; the biggest joke in the world.

Honestly, is there a man whose opinion is less important than his? The only people who listen to what you have to say are the ignorant. And if the only group who cares about you are the idiots, then quite frankly, you're doomed to fail before you even begin.

My prediction: JT will be disbarred within the next 5 years for his stupidity, audacity, and ill mannered comments.

@Jack Thompson
I'd like to see you play Pong in it's entirety. Can you reach the ending?

[...] via Law of the Game ; GamePolitics [...]

The BBFC also classifies by Video iirc, at least, it certainly appears so from the site. Looking at the 'Digital Media' section of the rating it appears they simply get a video of the playthrough, probably the same one as the ESRB got.

I would assume that a good number of games are 're-reviewed'

Think about it for just a moment.

What happens when a game is released? Or rather what happens when the people who work at the ESRB go home. They dont just poof. Chances are a few of them at the very least go home and play a game, quite possibly the very games they reviewed.

So the developers can't just 'hide' stuff that easy.

@daniel3

speedruns are the result of intimate knowledge and practice, none of which can be done prior to the release of a game. in fact speed may even miss out some elements and avoid focus on others.

The current situation is fine. They show the worst parts, and the game is rated based on those. There is no point in playing the entire game, other than to understand the context in which the content is displayed.

Seeing the most violent/mature content is the best way to give a rating. The ESRB do not care about someone getting a paper cut in the opening movie when later on that person is mangled beyond repair with a samurai sword.

John Boy is insane if he thinks the ESRB is going to play through every game it reviews. Not to mention, if the game was altered in the case of Manhunt 2, then the ESRB would need to go back throught and play the entire game again. Also, if a developer wanted to hide something it would be just as easy.

This is ridiculous; the ESRB is obviously not perfect, but it's by far the best rating system there is. The rare game that gets an innapropriate rating is almost always rated HIGHER than what it ought to be, notably Halo and Super Smash Bros. Melee. One could argue that perhaps Starcraft should have been M, but given that was almost ten years ago, I think we can give the ESRB some leeway.

The system, by and large, works well. The huge logistical problems of having the reviewers actually play the games are pretty obvious, so there's really no point in suggesting it. Nobody wants to play a 100+ hour game just to slap a little letter on it.

In redards to the title, of course the ESRB is flawed; Nobody's perfect. The ESRB just happens to be the best choice out there.

The wages that the testers earn should be taken in context (ironically!): the wages are low for the cost of living in the area where testing would actually take place (usually California and Seattle). If I could make that much in my state (Pennsylvania), it would sound much better than it would if I lived in California because everything costs much less here (including Labor, Pennsylvania goes by the minimum national minimum wage whereas in California I believe minimum wage is something like eight dollars?)

So when you say it is more than you make in the military, you have to put into context that fact that most people in the military get free housing, free medical, shop from a commissary with lower prices, etc. I'm not saying you're swimming in cash, I'm saying you may be more equal than you think.

Anyway, back to the article. How long is the tape we're talking about here? It might be longer than just two hours (though to be truthful I think for Manhunt 2 two hours would probably be more than enough; most of the violence takes place inside of a mini-in-game cutscene, what is called "an execution", and I believe there is a youtube video demonstrating that every single execution back to back takes up something like seven minutes. Throw in a few shots of strippers and people getting their heads blown off, some feces--I think you got the most extreme stuff. Context doesn't really help Manhunt 2, anyway.

The system is somewhat flawed though. I purchased a PC game called Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor and it was rated M for blood, but I mean, it was like fairly small sprites walking around in a dungeon fighting RPG battles. The blood was like little flecks and maybe some pools. It seriously wasn't a very advanced game. And another thing is that if a game is mainly FPS it automatically gets a T. The same for if it is a fighting game--just look at Super Smash Bros. Melee. Is there ANYTHING in that game that warrants a T rating? Only the assumption that having four cartoon characters beat up on each other constitutes enough "violence" that the very idea of it warrants a T rating.

Gameboy Says:
A couple years back, Disturbed had a song named “Prayer”. One of the lyrics said “Heaven just isn’t hot enough/Burn me alive inside” and some religious group had a problem with that, so the publisher recalled all the CDs and changed the lyric to “Heaven just isn’t hard enough/Burn me alive inside”. It’s a minor change (still pisses me off, though) but I can’t imagine that the people who complained actually listened to Disturbed. So, why do they care? Why do people care about things that they don’t care about?


@ Gameboy

It's called control. That's all this is really about. Control.

Late reply, but whatever...

Zerodash:

Shadow the Hedgehog. Even though they rated it in 'E' Shadow says "damn" every other sentence. I blame it on the translation. Even though Megaman X4 got away with 1 'Damn' thing.

I like the penny-arcade comic about having to play the whole game before rating it.

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

Lawlz.

"I’m sick of hearing “too much time to play a game” being a factor for defending the ESRB for not playing through the content.

Other groups around the world do it, so why can’t the ESRB?"


I've owned Oblivion for months and still have not "played through it".