November 23, 2007
As GamePolitics reported this week, four U.S. Senators sent a letter on Monday to the ESRB calling for a review of the video game industry's content rating system in the wake of the Manhunt 2 controversy.The bipartisan effort included Democrats Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh as well as Republican Sam Brownback.
ABC's Jake Tapper has published the letter on his blog and GP has pasted the full version below.
By the way, our request for comment from the ESRB received only this back from a spokesman:
We've received the letter and will be responding.
It's unclear whether the ESRB's response will be made public or in private meetings with the senators. Without further ado, here's the letter:
Patricia Vance
President Entertainment Software Rating Board
Entertainment Software Rating Board
317 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10017
Dear Ms. Vance,
We are writing to suggest that it may be desirable to revise or enhance the current ESRB rating system. We continue to believe that the ESRB takes seriously its responsibility with respect to the ratings and their enforcement. However, we believe that a number of issues have been raised regarding the release of Manhunt 2.
As you know, in June 2007 the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) refused to rate Rockstar's Manhunt 2 video game, effectively banning its sale in British stores, stating that it contains "unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone... which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing." The BBFC Director concluded that any other action "would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors." Consistent with your British counterpart, this version received an "Adults Only" (AO) rating from your Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB).
In October 2007 the BBFC again refused to rate a revised Manhunt 2 stating that "[t]he impact of the revisions on the bleakness and callousness of tone, or the essential nature of the gameplay, is clearly insufficient. There has been a reduction in the visual detail in some of the 'execution kills', but in others they retain their original visceral and casually sadistic nature." Other countries agreed and have also banned the game.
Unlike the British Board, the ESRB reduced the revised version's rating to "Mature" (M) effectively opening the door to its widespread distribution and its licensing approval by game system manufacturers Sony and Nintendo. And, while significant progress has been made, the FTC reports that 42 percent of unaccompanied children 13 to 16 years of age can still successfully purchase M-rated games meaning that the practical difference between an AO and M rating affects more than simply 17-yearolds.
Manhunt 2 was sanctioned by Nintendo for its Wii system. That system permits children to act out each of the many graphic torture scenes and murders in Manhunt 2 rather than simply manipulating a game pad. This led one clinical psychologist to state that the realistic motions used with the Wii mean that "you're basically teaching a child the behavioral sequencing of killing." While this was not cited as the reason for the BBFC decision, we do believe that the ESRB should take the Wii remote controller, and future advances in game controllers, which create more realistic gaming environments, into consideration.
Another disturbing aspect of this saga is that the AO version ended up being leaked on the Internet thereby circumventing the rating restrictions. News reports state that the leak came from a Sony employee, who was reportedly fired, rather than the game manufacturer. Nevertheless, the possible use of the internet to circumvent the ESRB and permit broad access to kids is another concern.
There are many questions that are raised because of the above cited issues regarding the process, robustness and repeatability of the ratings provided by the ESRB system. First, there appears to be a lack of information, to the public and developers, regarding why a particular rating is given or changed. What information is provided back to developers after receiving a rating? Why is information regarding rating changes or reasons for decisions unavailable, except for content descriptors, to the public? We understand to some extent the concerns regarding the confidentiality of pre-released materials however that argument is no longer compelling after the product is released.
Some speculate that the ESRB could be used to provide attention to increase sales of future games. Under this scenario, a game like Manhunt 2 would first be produced to ensure receipt of an AO rating and thereafter tweaked to get the reduced M rating. A more transparent process might protect the ESRB from being used in this manner.
Further, do the same reviewers view the original and the revised version of a game after an AO rating is received? How frequently do you use more than your minimum of three reviewers when evaluating a game? Are three reviewers adequate for the more violent games? How often do your reviewers disagree in their initial ratings and how frequently is the final rating a majority opinion rather than a consensus?
In sum, we ask your consideration of whether it is time to review the robustness, reliability and repeatability of your ratings process, particularly for this genre of "ultraviolent" video games and the advances in game controllers. We have consistently urged parents to pay attention to the ESRB rating system. We must ensure that parents can rely on the consistency and accuracy of those ratings.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Joseph I. Lieberman
United States Senator
Sam Brownback
United States Senator
Evan Bayh
United States Senator
Hillary Rodham Clinton
United States Senator
Comments
answer: no
Then the paragraph:
Some speculate that the ESRB could be used to provide attention to increase sales of future games. Under this scenario, a game like Manhunt 2 would first be produced to ensure receipt of an AO rating and thereafter tweaked to get the reduced M rating. A more transparent process might protect the ESRB from being used in this manner.
Bah. Its was the people that were trying to bash the game that drew the extra attention and the added sales not the ESRB. As for a more transparent process.... sounds to me that they are saying "We want to read over your shoulder and have the right to overrule you"
On the topic if 3 reviewers are enough. I would almost be tempted to agree. Except the question begs. If they agree they need more people to give a "fair" review of certain games who is going to pay for it?
If a kid under 17 buys this game, it's not the ESRB or the company that made the game fault, it's either the parents(If there the ones that bought it for them) or the store(For not taking into consideration the kids age.
There is SO much wrong with that.
Also, When the frick did the US start to care about how OTHER countries rate their games ?
No...I'll just vote for Obama *which is what I'm gonna do anyhow*
cherry picker.
First off, when I said "a religion, by the way, that has nothing to do with Satan," I was referring to the segment of Satanism that really doesn't have anything to do with Satan. And when I said that was closed-minded, I was referring to the statement "I saw a documentary about it, so why should I bother?" Saying that, to me, is just the same as saying "I don't need to learn anything about that, I already know everything I need to" which is an incredibly closed-minded thing to say in my opinion.
They are doing the right thing for once. They may be extremely misguided. they may not know diddely shit about videogames. They may not have ever even played a videogame or see any footage of the game. Regardless, they are NOT legislating. They are acting on their concerns without doing anything but a nice peaceful protest. I like it when people protest. Unlike previous efforts, they are not attempting to kill our rights.
The ESRB cannot, I repeat, cannot do anything about games released on the internet. They cannot put an armed guard in every game office in the world to prevent leaks of games. It is impossible for the ESRB to do this.
What is it with these politicians and asking the ESRB to perform impossible tasks? They need to grow up and do something important.
I do not want to see Hilary as president. I will campaign against her at all times. She will not become President.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
"Unlike previous efforts, they are not attempting to kill our rights."
politicians always try to scare you into doing what they want before trying to use the law to trample over the rights of the people.
The thing is, X-rated movies aren't something done by the MPAA. Their highest rating is NC-17, and plenty of stores that refuse to stock AO rated games will cheerfully stock NC-17 movies, or unrated directors cuts of what were R rated movies in theaters.
Political Bastards..
"We don't want to bother with teaching the adults and parents about games, so we're leaving the babysitting to you, but you have to babysit them our way."
1. Manhunt 2 was re-rated Mature due to RockStar's edits.
2. It's M (17+) - This is not even supposed to be for kids!
Bah - the more they try to be moralist, the more these senators show their ignorance.
I'd like to see the system improved before the government gets it's way and manages to pass legislation restricting sales much in the same way the Brits do now. I don't need the government to tell me what's good for my child, I can do that myself, but I need to know I can trust the ESRB's ratings system.
Can you PLEASE dump the four politicians who signed this letter OUT?
They don't deserve their jobs!
I wish we could, as a matter of fact one of those *censored* is running for president. *Shakes head* She, as well as the others need to mind their own business, and frankly, if I was working in the ESRB and got that letter, into the trash/paper shredder it goes.
The first problem is that they assume that if it's a game, children will play it. If you're a parent and you buy this for a child, we've got far more serious concerns, and if a child buys it on his own, the person at the cash register SHOULD have told him no. If they didn't, then that was a serious lapse of judgment on their part. But even then, a parent should be able to see that little Timmy got a new game and it's got "M" and "Rated mature. Ages 17+" right on the cover.
Another problem comes from their complaints about the leak. First off, what the hell does that have to do with the ESRB? They can't control how company employees act. Even ignoring the fact that if a child was smart enough to figure out how to get the Ao version to work, they're probably smart enough to seperate reality from fantasy, this is clearly the wrong place to state such a complaint.
Still, though, I think this controversy is really the industry's fault. If Sony and Nintendo had allowed Ao game to be played on their systems, and if retailers made it POSSIBLE to get the game (Is it so hard to have a bunch of Manhunt 2 stock in the back under a big sign that says "Sell this without carding and it's on your job," or something? They could probably even display it with the regular stock. Just high up. And with a warning that not carding for the product is going to result in serious problems.), Rockstar could have sold Manhunt 2 in its Ao form and wouldn't have tried to appeal the rating (I seriously doubt that the real reason they wanted M-rated Manhunt 2 was because it was the wrong rating. In fact, the only thing that makes sense is that they couldn't sell it at an M rating.). As far as I can tell, the only thing that's got the critics so ticked is that they brought it from Ao to M, so there wouldn't be a problem.
(On a side note, if you consider the volume of games released, playing through EACH and EVERY one to completion is virtually impossible.)
Would love to comply, but none are in my jurisdiction. I'm doing my part to campaign against Hillary in her presidential bid, though.
Economy's falling, education's at a lull, the country's stooped in a war, but it's okay as long as we combat the EVIL OF VIDEO GAMES.
Seriously, what the hell? I thought the 2004 polls were bad...
This reoccurring statement is starting to piss me off... Why don't they say light guns can train kids on how to use REAL guns while they're at it. Because, we all know that anyone can become an expert marksman with a real weapon after playing Time Crisis for a while.
The bastards... I highly doubt my wimpy little wave to the left and right is really helping me with my murdering technique. Motions hardly require any fucking movement to register. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if these guys think you're actually murdering innocent people in this game for no reason...
And the fact that children can purchase games they are NOT ALLOWED to play in the first place isn't ESRB's fault or the game industry itself... Bloody hell, why is it only the game industry that has to put up with this bullshit. Movies exist too you know, most of which looks more realistic than these damn pixels I play with every day.
Here are several pointers
1. The BBFC and the ESRB are independent from each other. Neither cares what the other does.
2. 42% failure of enforcement is a big drop from the last FTC report.
3. The Wii has parental controls. A caring, vigilant, and responsible parent would use them.
4. The ESRB has NO responsibility for what is leaked onto the Inernet.
5. Downloading the leaked version is a violation of federal law.
6. Under agreement with Rockstar and Take Two, they cannot tell what was cut from the game. A violation would more than likely result in a lawsuit. If any of you had a classified agreement with another group, you will understand.
7. What happened with this game happens a hell of a lot in the movie industry and with the MPAA.
8. Rockstar edited the game down to the Mature rating because they knew the AO version would not be sold by retailers and that the console owners (Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft) would not allow it on their systems.
9. The U.S.A. is an independent nation. We should not even care what other nations do with entertainment mediums.
What?
Telling people about the games will cause less people to pay attention to games? Or have I missed the point?
/b
Of course, when a kid still gets it because their inept parents buy it for them thinking AO stand for A-Okay (it was the best I could do quickly, give me a break) people will complain that the ESRB isn't doing its job. This is why I hate people.
It also irks me that these politicians don't want it to be rated M, they would rather have it stay at AO where nobody, not even a 45 year old adult could get it. How about instead of "protecting the children" you protect gamers rights.
The response should read:
"In sum, no."
:D
E: Extremly Boring
E10+: Extremly Boring times 10
T: Terrible
M: Mild
AO: A-Okay
The letter weasels through some of the more common Jackisms but the summation is a question worth asking. Should the ESRB be more open, and should we consider why they reach the ratings they do?
"That system permits children[..]" HELLO. Sorry, you were doing so well until now. The only thing that permits children to do anything in games are the child's guardians. Also, as many have pointed out, saying that the BBFC banned something that the ESRB passed is, well, if anything a statement of *support* of the ESRB. It demonstrates that the ESRB re-rated the game under their own steam without influence of the BBFC or other bodies.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D- NY) 202-224-4451
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (ID- CT) 202-224-4041
Senator Evan Bayh (D- IN) 202-224-5623
Senator Sam Brownback (R- KS) 202-224-6521
TK Says: "I’m so tempted to write a point-by-point response to these 4 senators, but I fear it’ll just get passed off as some stupid video-game obsessed kid. Maybe if I mention that I’ll be able to vote in the election…"
Same notion here...I was in military service, in the full hopes that when I made it back, I could enjoy the notions of freedom that I served so rigorously for...unfortunately, those freedoms halt at the gate of a game screen (for the sake of the children? WTF mate), or so certain politicians seem to believe.
And it should be pointed out that the raters at the ESRB do play the games. This does not mean they play them in depth, however. An in depth rating for a game would just be a giant review slapped on the back. The ESRB doesn't exist to give opinions about the game, just to create non-biased, age-related rankings. What the senators are proposing is that the ESRB become the equivalent of Gamespot or IGN and give them a full review of the game.
It's really a problem of checks and balances. Giving anyone in the government control over an organization like the ESRB effectively destroys the first amendment and gives the government control over what can and cannot be said. If that sounds appealing to them, they can go to China. But this kind of control of free speech has failed with TV, movies, music, and comic books. Someone has always thought that a form of entertainment will rot our kids' minds, and they have always been proven wrong.
It's not their fault, thinking it is for one second is asinine, it's the parents, stores, and gifter's fault, think about it. You walk into a store, underage, buy cigarettes, it's not Marlboro's fault, right? It's the person who sold them to you. Same premise for games. Another thing, the parents should be watching what they are playing, they go to a friends house? Tell the parent you don't want your kid playing M rated games. It's THAT simple. Also, for the holidays, ask those who are giving gifts not to give over a certain rating, they should abide. Thank you.
Congratulations, you've noticed that a videogame rating system can be used for marketing purposes, just like the movie rating system currently does.
Now don't you have better things to do than grandstand over a non-issue?
Vote against facists like this who are going to take away your freedoms of choice whether you like it or not.
Register and vote!
Please don't.
That being said, the ESRB is a non-governmental rating agency and any further interference by US Senators would be troublesome. By the order of the signings at the bottom this appears unsurprisingly instigated by the Lieberman people, who have been fighting imagined demons since the era of fake outrage began.
And the Wiimote making gruesome murder and dismemberment more real? Are they trying to put out a press release talking about how wondrous IR controllers are at mimicking real life actions? Someone please get these US Senators a copy of Wii Sports and remind them that they just have to flick their wrist a little to hit the ball.
Of course, they again fail to realize that games are no longer a child-only medium. That they would try to prevent the release of a game for the chance a kid MIGHT get their hands on it is irritating, but we've4 already seen that no law preventing game sales is ever going to work, so I'm not worried.
Perhaps the ESRB does need a little tweaking. The fact that we can't buy AO games under our own reasoning is irritating beyond imagination.
The letter in which Mrs. Clinton and three other individuals sent to the ESRB has me seriously reconsidering referring to myself as a Democrat.
First of all invoking the BBFC in response to a decision made by an American entity is absurd. The US stopped relying on the UK for such decisions some 231 years ago. And even so, why assume that the BBFC's decision is the correct one? At least the ESRB was willing to do their job and rate Manhunt 2. The BBFC on the other hand refused any sort of rating. This in my opinion is an insult to adult fans of interactive digital media. They are telling those tax-paying adults that they are not mature enough to handle such material. While at the same time the BBFC has rated movies which are equivalent to Manhunt 2, namely the Saw and Hostel line of movies. This unequal treatment on similar content between movies and interactive digital media is truly insulting.
Moving on in the letter we get to the part that mentions that the Nintendo Wii's control input permits CHILDREN to act out the torture scenes. Wrong. The only thing that permits children to do anything is their parents/guardians. You may not be aware, but all of the new systems come with parental controls so that even if somehow a child does get their hands on this game they will be unable to buy it.
I do hope that Mrs. Clinton is aware that the average video game player is over 18 years of age. To even mention children in the letter sent to the ESRB just further shows the discrimination against adult video game players. Why is Mrs. Clinton not putting such pressure on the MPAA? Can't children also watch the Saw and Hostel line of movies? The very same FTC article that Mrs. Clinton mentions that states that children are successful 42% of the time in buying a M rated video game also states that children are successful in buying an R rated movie 72% of the time! Now it seems to me that if Mrs. Clinton really cared about protecting the children from media they would start with the biggest problem first, which is apparently the MPAA.
I want someone to try and explain why the ESRB is in hot water without the MPAA being in similar or greater trouble. As far as I can tell is that Mrs. Clinton is biased in the matter that "of course no games should be M rated, because only children play games and aren't mature." While a movie with similar content is okay, as its generally accepted by society that some movies are for adults.
Finally as for the motion sensing of the Wii goes, I'm curious if Mrs. Clinton has actually played Manhunt 2 herself? Because if she did she would realize that the weak little flicks of the wrist needed to perform the necessary actions in the game can in no way represent the actual physicality needed to perform these actions in real life.
I hope to receive some sort of response to this that will prove that Mrs. Clinton isn't just furthering bigotry against adult video game players. Either that or I vote Libertarian in the next election.
Thank you.
Um... wait, wait, wait, so basically what they're saying is that any game over "T" should not exist because children might play them.
............. Oh give me a break!
That said, they're not making any threats, they're not being belligerant (ala Jack), they're just asking questions. Personally, I think the most likely outcome is that Pat Vance will answer them. I'm inclined to think she's shown considerable diplomatic skill, I see no reason this would be any different. Essentially, everyone calling for their heads on a platter, take a deep breath, and don't worry about it; They're not even mandating an investigation, they're just asking questions.
(Granted, some of those questions are just plain bad.)
1) OK - we get it, the english banned the game. They're not unreasonable people, but there's certainly no guarantee that everything they do is right.
2) (The Wii Controller) -slaps forehead with palm-
Look, someone needs to explain to these people that yes, the wiimote is motion sensing. Does that mean you're "teaching the behavioral sequence of killing"? Frankly, no, and I consider them somewhat misguided for asking. I've only ever seen the Wiimote in action once on Manhunt2. The section was supposed to simulate chopping, and the guy playing was doing it by rocking his hand back and forth at the wrist. Love to see anybody chop like that, I couldn't even chop a tomato like that. Frankly, it was closer to masturbation then chopping.
3) (The internet leak) Look, even if you think you can prevent internet leaks, never mind that they've been happening for as long as the internet's around and will likely continue to happen for as long as we have an internet; the fact remains that you couldn't possibly think that's the ESRB's fault for crying out loud. You want to blame anybody for that, blame Rockstar and Sony.
4) The notion that the ESRB could be used to generate press buzz about a game is a semi-legitimate one. I actually can't fault that.
In short 3/4's of it seems misguided, but it doesn't give me the residual anger that most of the uptight anti-gamers do. Don't stress about it folks, all they're doing is asking questions and that's something they have a right to do. Look at the bright side, I'd rather have them asking questions then taking old Jacko's approach and flinging subpeonas at anything he clearly doesn't approve of.
This is very bad news for the ESRB. Wait until the Senators realize that the ESRB also participated in leaving in the adult material. Maybe Patty will be modeling dresses for Target in her next job.
GP: I believe we were the first game site to cover the story itself. I've been holding the letter for a couple of days as an extra item. The other 999 staffers here have the Thanksgiving holiday off...