March 6, 2008
An ex-employee has pulled the curtain back a bit on the enigma that is the Entertainment Software Rating Board.In a guest shot for the April issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly, Jerry Bonner, who spent six months with the ESRB as one of the organization's first crop of full-time content raters, offers his perspective on the video game rating process and what he feels are the problems therein. EGM also gave ESRB president Patricia Vance (left) a chance to respond. She did, taking issue with most of Bonner's points.
Bonner, who rated more than 700 games in his short ESRB stint, writes that the system needs to be fixed in order to keep government censors from stepping in. He offers a six-point solution which includes:
1.) Dropping the "Adults Only" rating and and adding a T-16 to go along with the current Teen rating, which is intended for those 13 and older.
2. Actually playing the games. This has already become a political issue given Sen. Sam Brownback's Truth in Video Game Ratings Act, now pending before the U.S. Senate. Bonner writes:
The ESRB’s current pool of fulltime raters... does not actually play the games that they rate. They just watch submitted videotapes or DVDs of someone else playing the game...
I would strongly suggest having the raters play the games to completion and carefully log their findings throughout the playtest. I’ve already heard the ESRB’s argument on this one: “That’ll take way too long and it will compromise our turnaround time.” My solution to that is simple: Hire more people.
3. Forget "parity" - If Bonner is correct, the ESRB bases sequel ratings on preceding games in the franchise, terming this "parity." Bonner writes:
Parity to the ESRB is like dots to Pac-Man or blood to Dracula - a lifesustaining fuel. The logic goes like this: If game X gets a Teen rating, then it stands to reason that the sequel will get the same and so on and so forth into infinity. In my time as a rater this concept just handcuffed us more than helped us... Forget the whole concept of parity, or minimize the dependence on it, and judge each individual game solely on its content and nothing else.
4. Be more open - In GP's experience, Bonner is correct that the ESRB is pretty secretive about its operations:
I used to tell a joke while working at the ESRB that their acronym should be changed to CIA... Realistically, there is nothing to hide at the ESRB. Everything was above board as far as I could tell... But by acting in a secretive, mysterious way, the ESRB creates an appearance of impropriety.
In addition, Bonner wants raters to have more say in final rating determinations as opposed to what appears to be somewhat of a committee approach. He also sees the development of competitive rating systems as a way to motivate the ESRB to improve.
Not surprisingly, ESRB president Patricia Vance took issue with Bonner's views, pulling no punches in a counterpoint which runs with Bonner's article in EGM:
Mr. Bonner’s article contains numerous misleading statements, factual inaccuracies, and misrepresentations... The author also fails to mention the unique and limited nature of his six-month tenure at the ESRB...
He implies that we arbitrarily change ratings after the raters have done their jobs. This is not the case... And, contrary to Mr. Bonner’s contention, the fact that a title being rated is part of a series has no bearing on the decision...
The author unfortunately also confuses our efforts to ensure the integrity and trustworthiness of the ratings system with unnecessary levels of secrecy. It is regrettable that the author does not appreciate the importance of protecting the confidentiality of the raters to avoid even the possibility of undue influence from external sources.
At the end of the day, ESRB stands behind each rating it assigns, and the process by which it assigns those ratings.
Comments
Re: Ex-Game Rater Dishes the Dirt... ESRB Boss Fires Back
I strongly believe that the ESRB needs to make some changes to not only give an image of responsibility to the general public but to simply have a better rating system. There are several problems with the ESRB and I think they need to address those problems in a productive manner. It really seems as if the ESRB has this illusion that their rating system is perfect and doesn't need changing. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but perfection does not exist. It doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it but it simply does not exist.
Why would they pass up an opportunity to show the general public and politicians that they are responsible by addressing problems that they have. Its clear that the problems are present so what are they doing to do about it? Nothing? This is dangerous because if they do nothing and claim everything is fine that just seems to play against the effort to keep the industry self-regulated.
THERE SHOULD NOT BE A LIMIT TO WHAT YOU CAN MAKE A GAME ABOUT OR PUT IN A GAME. EVER. At least not if you wish to belong to a free society. Think about how a free society works for a moment please. No one is going to force you to purchase a game that has content that "crosses the line" in your mind. If you don't like it, don't play it, don't rent it and don't buy it. Freedom DOES, in fact, work when people understand that the world doesn't revolve around them. Just because something pisses you off or offends you doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. It also doesn't mean you shouldn't speak out against it but it does mean you shouldn't seek to prohibit others from seeing or consuming it. And when you start talking about these so called "limits" being obstructed you are playing your cards against liberty.... good luck with that.
So you don't like the way Rockstar refuses to limit itself? Fine, don't purchase their products. That is YOUR choice. Just like it is their choice to determine what they should or should not put into a game. Censorship is absolutely absurd and that is exactly what the AO rating currently plays towards. It is not all due to the ESRB, but they do have something to do with it. This pseudo-censorship is created by three parties. First party is the creator of the AO rating itself, Second party is the console manufacturers and the third party are the game retailers. The ESRB has the easiest path to fixing the issue, just eliminate the AO rating. The other two are more responsible for the problem but since the solution is reliant on the two entities that consist of many different parties; the solution obviously becomes a more complicated one to rectify efficiently.
So even though the ESRB is less responsible for the pseudo-censorship that is currently implemented through the AO rating they should still be the target in terms of fixing the issue at hand. They need to listen to what the parents are saying but they also need to listen to gamers, game developers and non-parents. I feel as if they are completely ignoring us. It seems I have to have a child before my opinion even matters to them.
Or how about video game magazines and websites how apparently can review games by playing them.
The idea that playing games like Oblivion or Grand Theft Auto isn't possible is completely wrong. And SHOULD be done. Watching a 'trailer' of Grand Theft Auto is the equivilant of being given a picture book and then told to rate a movie.
Also the "I've played 300 hours on Oblivion so that's not feasible" is silly too. Here's an example: In the movie the Disney movie Rescuers there is nudity. In 1 frame. A child or parent won't see this! So it would be rediculous for the MPAA to now go through every movie frame by frame. And using the hot coffee thing as an excuse isn't true either. What kid that shouldn't be allowed to see this would actually download a mod or code for it? None.
I think the best way to ensure the "privacy" and "secrecy", would in fact be for the ESRB to sit down with the FTC or some government group, and agree on a 3rd neutral party to come in and examine the system and make recommendations. Someone who could be put under an NDA, ensuring the privacy of the companies and individuals, but who could be trusted to make a careful examination and meaningful analysis of what needs to improve. That way there's no accusations of a coverup, because the FTC helped to pick the examining party. But then it protects the ESRB from nitpicking, because the examiners would be privately paid-for and under non-disclosure. The FTC would only be involved in the vouching for the examiner part.
Actually, dropping the AO Rating would work wonders.
I know E-10 didn't exist when the first R&C was released. The point is that the ESRB doesn't base their sequel rating on a preceding game like Bonner states. :)
"I would strongly suggest having the raters play the games to completion and carefully log their findings throughout the playtest. I’ve already heard the ESRB’s argument on this one: “They'll take way too long and it will compromise our turnaround time.” My solution to that is simple: Hire more people."
Given this silliness will take up way more time and resources the ESRB has let me counter by saying the FDA do the same thing. They have to eat food and take drugs (No pun intended) from shipments and test batches to ensure they are accurate. that way when it hits the public after they give it the A-O-K maybe it won't cause so many health problems or in some cases lead to deaths. Its a shame he doesn't focus his energy on needed legislation like this but that should be a prime example of what he is asking to occur.
Developers would have to start shortening games to a couple of hours just to get them approved and then just forget about an MMOG since they don't exactly end. Once more the political inept show their cluelessness.
@Eville
She did address the point of secrecy and the parity point. Although a comment for the other two points would've been interesting.
All in all, Vance's position are more, in my opinion reasonable than Bonner's
Throwing more people at a problem is never a solution. It usually causes more problems and lag than it fixes.
The parity thing is an odd acusation. Take Knidom Hearts as an example. The first wsa ratedd E and the Second was rated E-10. It is not uncommon for a game's sequel to go up or down a rating.
I am glad to see that EGM gave Vance a chance to put in her two cents before publication. That is a lot better than many main strema news outlets.
She did answer the points he made that an answer could have been made to.
1.Dropping the “Adults Only” rating and and adding a T-16 to go along with the current Teen rating.
This isn't a point, it's a suggestion, and a silly one at that. It just muddies the waters that a lot of dumb parents find hard enough to navigate at the best of times.
2. About playing the games to completion? Another suggestion, and one that has already been covered several times in many different threads on this site. Depending on the game, this could either be a short job or a colossal task. I'm sure they could hire more testers, if they had the money to do so, but even then the same problems arise with procedurally generated content, etc.
3.Forget “parity”.
Ms. Vance explained that just because a game is part of a series, does not mean it automatically gets the same rating as the previous installments.
4.Be more open
Think about it, a company wants a lower rating for it's game so it will sell more. The content will earn it a higher rating than it wants, so it finds out who the testers in the ESRB are. It has a chat with them, some money/concert tickets/etc change hands and suddenly the game doesn't look that bad! This is the reason for secrecy.
As for game raters playing games to completion - I definitely agree that raters should play the games, because that way they actually get the context of what they are rating rather than being shown arbitrary clips of the game with no context (this actually can affect how a certain bit of content is rated). However, expecting them to play each game from start to end is impractical. It would take weeks, or even months, to rate some of the longer games. For example, I personally clocked over 300 hours on Oblivion and still did not cover ALL of the content in the game. And hiring more people doesn't really help that, because in that example it would still take 300 hours to slog through the game.
@Cheater87
The ESRB is an independent agency. As soon as you shackle the ESRB to some governmentally appointed "third-party" committee the ESRB is no longer independent and the government now has a say in how games get rated. Calling for a "Neutral Third Party" assumes that the government, and not the parents, is the 'second' party, and I think that is flat out wrong. Why don't we just ignore First Amendment protections altogether, if the aim is governmentally imposed regulation.
Cheater87
Before you get rid of the "AO" rating, take a look at Australia where they still have no adults rating for video games and therefore many games are banned outright. How does the AO rating "hold developers back?" That makes no sense whatsoever. How has the NC-17 rating held filmmakers back? I think you are only considering mainstream sales of games by major publishers, and I find that view far too narrow for a discussion about a content ratings system that is supposed to be more about freedom of expression than it is about lining the pockets of EA or Take 2.
I think that devs/pubs should be made more responsible and basically rate their own games based on a set of rules.
Then all the ESRB need to do is check that the devs/pubs have told the truth. This can be done after the game is released, so there is time to do it :)
This is a complete non-problem. They're just actively trying to find faults in the ESRB rating system.
This is a 300+ hour game depending on how you go about it. There is no official 100% measurement stick, but to do all the missions, find all the caves, talk to every NPC through every conceivable script would take months just to accomplish.
See, the thing that needs fixed isn't ESRB, it's stupid parents. If parents didn't have the ESRB, they could tell if a game was too violent in about 15 seconds on Google. The fact that they don't want to use these 15 seconds indicates that they aren't that concerned about it.
I hear a number of sheep that bleat "I want the government to tell me what is OK to give to my children!"
How about this question for parents:
How well is the government rating movies?
A. They are rating them too high, most R's should be PG-13. cake
B. They are rating them too low, most PG-13's should be R's. lie
C. i liek mudkip, and the government is rating them fine.
D. The government doesn't rate movies.
You're right. No amount of play testing could have found Hot Coffee. As far as I know, GTA SA was the only game to ever have its rating retroactively changed. Sure some games may have had a new content descriptor assigned, but none have ever had their rating changed.
So where is all this damning proof of corruption that only play testing the game can fix? I can't find it. Of all the games I have played, I have never found anything that I felt would change a game's rating.
Playtesting a game is pointless. Fo one, not everyone has the capability to play every type of game. I could never beat most FPS games. I just suck at them. So how am I supposed to play them through all the way?
I wish people would give up on the play testing thing. If they think it is possible, maybe they should give it a try and play through all the way every game released in a year within a years time.
See if it is possible and finacially feasible. I would be currious how much the cost of a rating will go up if playtesting was implemented.
San Andreas. 'Nuff said.
@E Zacharay Knight: "Of all the games I have played, I have never found anything that I felt would change a game’s rating."
I've found some. God of War had a large amount of toplessness and had sex minigames. Why was that not deserving of an AO where Hot Coffee (which already had "Strong Sexual Content" modifier) was? What about the offensive nationalism in Sly Cooper 2, why weren't the ESRB and moronic PC groups all over that?
I wasn't suggesting "shackling" them, sorry if it came across that way. I meant that the next time the ESRB is looking for "suggestion for improvement", and they need some analysis done of how their system currently works, they could ask the FTC for a recommendation of an audit-type group to do the job.
It doesn't shut down the calls of "it needs to be more open", but it does throw a wrench into things, since the retort could be "well we asked the FTC who they trusted to look into things, and went with that company for recommendations".
It also doesn't shackle the ESRB to a government institution, because it would still be up to them to hire this group, and the group would be bound by Non-Disclosure Agreements. The FTC would take part only up to the point of recommending the firm to use, nothing more.
E-10 didn't exist when the first Ratchets came out
Actually ESIV: Oblivion was re-rated "from Teen (13 and over) to Mature (17 and over). In their press release on the decision, the ESRB called attention to the presence, in the published edition of Oblivion, of game content not considered in the ESRB review. The content included more detailed depictions of blood and gore than had been previously considered, and "the presence in the PC version of the game of a locked-out art file that, if accessed by using an apparently unauthorized third party too."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Obl...
I stand corrected. We have two games that have been rerated. Yet neither one would have been different if they playtested the game. Both reratings came from content not accessable through normal gameplay.
Doesn't that go against what Ms. Vance said above? "He implies that we arbitrarily change ratings after the raters have done their jobs. This is not the case". Unaccessible content sounds pretty arbitrary to me.
I agree, that a government-commissioned review board would probably be more an infraction in spirit than in practice of the ESRB's private sector independence. But I still don't like it. I still see it as a first step onto a slippery slope of government involvement with the ESRB process. And I don't think it would help anything anyway.
I think that the ESRB's primary responsibility should be directly to consumers, not to (or through) the FTC, and I believe the ESRB already does go to parents' organizations and other consumer groups for feedback, and for ideas on how to improve the system for its purported users.
The only advantage I see to relying on FTC-ordained feedback would be the very fact that the FTC it has the authority of the government behind it, and any such governmental influence is exactly what I think the ESRB should always try to avoid -- in spirit AND in practice.
Let's not forget about games like World of Warcraft, Everquest, and Sim City.
The one major precedent that Hot Coffee set is that the publisher is responsible for disclosing all content on the game disc, not just the playable content. Not on a case-by-case basis, but always. You may disagree with this policy, but it's not arbitrary.
That may apply *after*, but it certainly didn't before. Hot Coffee itself was completely arbitrary, especially given the modifiers that were already on the rating.
Dictionary.com defines arbitrary as:
Neither of those definitions really describe what the ESRB did during for those situations. GTA SA had a sex game that was not reviewed. They looked at that and considered the decision to change the rating to AO. So it really an impulse decision without reason. Neither was it up to anyone indivdual judgement. It was a business decision.
I agree.
Every system in existence can be improved and no system is fool proof. His comments came off as a disgruntled employee to me as well.
SA Did *NOT* have a sex game that didn't get reviewed.
Pick up a controller, and a Hot Coffee version of SA, and a stock PS2. Kindly get to the game for me.
Making the process entirely transparent allows for the establishment of clearer rules that cannot be changed. Clearer rules make for less flexibility in the ratings process, and less flexibility makes change and progress in the media (and its content) very difficult.
Artistic and Creative progress is made by those who bend/break the rules and make headway for others to follow suit. Making the ratings process transparent would handcuff the ESRB to making certain decisions no matter the artistic merit of the content. Ultimately it would stiffle the medium of games.
I do not think we should remove rated AO because companies like Rockstar do not know there is a limit. But I do agree there should be T-16.
Secondly playing some of each game would be beneficial. Would you catch everything by playing them some? No, but you would catch some stuff that may get passed up on the video submittal. Everyone likes to mention Oblivion as impossible to play all the way through for a rating. This is correct, technically Oblivion is a never ending game. However, if the Raters had actually played some of the content, say the Assassin Quest line they would have seen most of the worst gore in the game. The Assassin Quest line was playable in 2 hours or so, and even quicker with cheat codes.
Speaking of transparency, I have also suggested that the ESRB make public a portion of the Video Submittal for each game via their website. Taking the worst of the worst from the Video Submittal and creating a 5 min video to view online would go a long way in helping the public understand why a video game received the rating it did.
It's fine for you to argue that only the game elements you can access through traditional play should be considered part of the game, but that's not how the ESRB sees it. Playable or not, narrative elements of Hot Coffee mini-game, which did indeed involve sex, were part of the GTA:SA game, according to the way the ESRB has decided to define "game."
You could also argue that the ESRB's decision to consider unplayable content as part of the "game" was unduly influenced by outside forces, such as loudmouth lawyers, culturally fascist assemblymen, and 2008 presidential hopefuls. Even if this is the case, however, the decision is still not arbitrary, just a little corrupt.
Furthermore, if you were going to make the argument that only playable content should be considered for ESRB rating, you need to come up with a different ratings system that strictly defines "playable." I'm not sure that would be so easy to do. You'd also have to account for the possibility that, technically, publishers could fill up extra space on an E-rated game disc with "unplayable" pr0n .JPGs that are only accessible through a third-party image viewer. I'm not sure why any publisher would do something like that, but I'm not quite sure why Rockstar left the Hot Coffee code on those game discs, either (or lied about once it was discovered).
I don't know if you've considered these possibilities or not, but I am convinced that the ESRB did. The board's decision was not arbitrary. Personally, although I acknowledge the controversy, I've even come to believe the decision was correct.