September 10, 2007
Over at the Law of the Game, attorney Mark Methenitis dishes on the ESRB process.Specifically, Methinitis expresses surprise that games aren't played through before a rating is assigned:
Game publishers send in a DVD of selected scenes and a lot of paperwork to get the game rated... The point being that the ratings board never plays the games. Yes, you read that right. The people who rate video games do not play the game they are rating. It would be the equivalent of basing movie ratings on a form and a trailer. Context would be wholly absent.
This debate surfaces periodically. It's even made its way to floor of the U.S. Senate, where presidential hopeful Sam Brownback (R-KS) has introduced the Truth in Video Game Ratings Act. More from Methinitis:
I can see the logic the ESRB is using. First, playing the games would require a release candidate, which could delay the process. Second, it would take their "trained reviewers" much longer to play through the games in full... Third, and finally, it's entirely possible that some... of the reviewers may not be able to complete the games at all...
On the other hand, I get the impression that ratings for media content are more accurate when the reviewer takes the content in context and on the whole, rather than seeing mere snippets. Perhaps the better approach is to have the ESRB hire "designated gamers," and have the reviewers watch the game being played for some period of time...
Comments
Most people we've seen complain about it do so from the standpoint that supposedly developers could/would hide stuff from the rating board resulting in a lower rating than warranted.
"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.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
.hack Part 1: Infection got a descriptor for Mature Sexual Themes, and it only had one text article about online pornography. In fact, I think all 4 parts got the same Mature Sexual Themes for that ONE article.
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.
That's the one! I always knew there had to be some explanation for that game...
Wasn't it also the case that WalMart was unwilling to sell BMX XXX so Sony required Acclaim modify the game to remove the nudity?
The BBFC (you know, the group that rates some games released in the UK) doesn't play through the game either.
Sooooo.....
"Additionally, ESRB staff, including raters (time-permitting), play the final version of both hand-picked and randomly selected games to verify that all the materials provided by the game's publisher during the rating process were accurate and complete." -ESRB website
Of course, as Methenitis pointed out, it "isn't for the purpose of actually rating the game, or putting elements in context. It's just like a double-check once the game is rated, and only occurs sometimes rather than on all games rated.
Andrew Eisen
"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.
Good spotting mate.
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.
However it would be better if the ratings took more into accound and played larger portions of the game that were available.
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.
1) How long can they play the game? While you can play through some games in a few hours, some may never end. Imagine if they had to play all of World of Warcraft. They'd have to commit around 20 reviewers who would take months to accomplish anything. The original game would still be getting rated.
2) While playing the game, the reviewer might miss something. I've played plenty of games where I never say any smoking, but the content descriptors mention it. I assume it was there, but I just glazed over it while I engaged in the story.
3) The process would be incredibly expensive. The cost would differ vastly between one game (a Sonic game) and another (a Final Fantasy game). The ESRB would either have to charge a flat and heavy fee or charge a fee depending on how long it takes them to review the game. The frightening third option is ask for government assistance. And that wouldn't come cheap.
I'm sure there are more that other posters would be happy to point out, but long story short: The system maybe flawed, but its better than the alternative.
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?
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
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 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.
The problem though, is that only the game developers would know where all the content is, and so there'd still be the claim by some that they were just avoiding the naughty bits.
Being demo'd some of the game, with cheat codes to skip through the difficult parts, would be useful, but they'd only get the more "common" content. A video demoing the more extreme and hard to get to content would still be required.
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...
1. Is the problem one with the ratings themselves or simply with the perception of how the ratings were obtained?
2. Isn't context typically used as an excuse to ameliorate extremes of violence or sexuality? Without context the ratings should be worse.
It doesn't matter what process they use to get their ratings as long as the ratings are accurate!
They could throw a bunch of papers scraps with ratings written on them into a hat and pull them out at random for each game and if that system consistently produced accurate and complete game ratings then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Time would be better spent showing how accurate the system is by pointing out that the ratings and content descriptors correctly reflect what is found in the game rather then suggesting that they change a system that CLEARLY WORKS in order to appease the unreasonable few. Most of the people who take offense at games and the ratings process aren't looking for changes, they're looking to stop certain games from existing at all. Why are these the people that we're trying to appease? They're doing nothing by way of compromise with us.
Of course, I'd ask for a six digit salary, but, hey, the gaming industry has the money, so why not.
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.
*OR* the ESRB could crate a super game playing AI on a CRAY supercomputer, and the reviewers could watch that!
But that isn't going to happen because it would be just as expensive and time consuming as having "Designated Players" play the game. And really, if there weren't any ratings that were effectively an industry sponsored ban, there would be no reason for developers or publishers to create a misleading idea about what their game contains (or "tone down" their work to crate a blood soaked T rated game where instead of stabbing someone in the face, you shoot them in the chest).
Army? Oh well, it's not my problem.
Two things:
1. Is the problem one with the ratings themselves or simply with the perception of how the ratings were obtained?
With how the ratings are obtained.
2. Isn’t context typically used as an excuse to ameliorate extremes of violence or sexuality? Without context the ratings should be worse.
That's his point. That reviews games in this manner may result in games having a higher than warranted rating due to lack of context. An example the blog uses is Smash Bros. Melee receiving a T rating when E or E10+ may be more accurate.
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.
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.
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.
Was that a lie?
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.
I take it you didn't notice that this guy does play games, and that his criticism is that lack of context may being making things harsher?
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.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
He didn't actually refer to the guy though..
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.
I'm sorry. I should of clarified. I do realize that he does play games. I meant that others like Yee, Brownback, and Thompson criticize games and the ESRB and none of them play games (at least not to my knowledge). So what interest do they have? Do they actually believe their own lies? Do they want fame? Recognition? Votes?
I can see they point that he's trying to make, but I'm not sure its that big of a problem. If the game gets a rating that's too harsh, then the publisher can appeal the rating. For more on my feelings on playing the full game to rate it, check my first post (its the sixth on down).
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.
Fuck... actually that really makes sense. I'm honestly... speechless.
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.
Jesus.. Now those are Shitty wages.
"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."
Well, a few people have mentioned context, so I was mostly talking to them =)
And I think cppcrusader hit the nail on the head with this:
"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."
People act like the ESRB could somehow get away with giving a violent game a mild rating. It WON'T HAPPEN - Hot Coffee is indeed the perfect example of why. This is precisely why all the clamoring over transparency is so ill-founded. Wait for the game to be released and then see for yourself. The process DOES work, because it IS based on the ESRB's honor and integrity. Those two things are on the line with every rating they provide, so it's very much in their interest to rate games honestly.