ESRB needs exposure, change
by Zack Stern 
{ Oct 4th 2006 at 10:45PM }
Next-Gen's Aaron Ruby editorializes that the ESRB needs major change, saying that the rating system has too many confusing options that are best suited to movies instead of games. (Is there a clear difference between "mild violence," "intense violence," and "violence?" Is it measured in volume?) The site follows up with Sony Online Entertainment president John Smedley's response, saying that Next-Gen got part of it right -- the game industry needs to be proactive and speak for itself.Ruby and Smedley agree that the ESRB doesn't do enough to educate parents and non-gamers about games. We've seen the Penny Arcade ESRB campaign in PC Gamer and other enthusiast magazines, but we want to find ESRB ads in mainstream publications and on prime-time TV. As Smedley notes, the game industry needs to speak for itself if it doesn't want the Jack Thompsons to speak for it.
Read - Opinion: Is the ESRB Broken?
Read - COUNTERPOINT: ESRB Not the Problem
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Wulkar @ Oct 4th 2006 10:57PM
As long as they are not as bad as those game college commercials i don't have a problem with it
Judd @ Oct 5th 2006 12:01AM
Agreed. There is no point in putting those ads in gaming magazines, because then they are just preaching to the choir. They shouldn't put them in trashy magazines like People or In Touch Weekly, but rather in news sources that appeal to people who follow politics. Put those Penny Arcade ads in Newsweek and Time, and the ESRB should get some air time on CNN and Fox News.
Jonn @ Oct 5th 2006 12:14AM
Unfortunately, they don't have the money for highbrow ads, and Newsweek and Time would be leery of running game ads. Which is odd, 'cause half the ads there are vector shilouettes that look like web comics anyway. Such as mine.
*cough*
And for the love of sanity, not Fox News. Please.
frodo @ Oct 5th 2006 1:30AM
I never understood why the PA esrb ads were in gaming magazines. Like we really need to be educated about the rating system. The penny arcade art is accessable enough for mainstream advertisement, so why not use them for educating the masses? They would work!
Just don't get it.
GhostBox @ Oct 5th 2006 1:49AM
Great article
I've been saying this again and again, but for some reason Joystiq's most decorated (with stars) participants seem to believe that this problem will just limp away on it's own.
Many believe that the game industry doesn't need a front man (or woman) to act as a mouthpiece for the interests of developers and the gaming community. Meanwhile Thompson, the Culture Police, Legal Sharks(prosecuters and defense) and Political Opportunists continue to demonize gaming.
And the game industry's response?
Nothing.
It's utterly mind boggling that the ESRB doesn't get out front with a spokesperson. Doesn't anyone remember the Kerry campaign of 2004? No matter what you thought of Kerry's politics, everyone agrees that when he refused to respond to the charges of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth it was the same as an admission of guilt.
In the absence of a response, people will believe anything. Even lies.
A spokesperson is needed to counter punch the Thompsons and Hillarys and news network talking heads that have done an excellent job of convincing parents that video games are nothing more than "murder simulators" training children for future criminal behavior.
We need ads that not only clarify the ratings system but also make at least these things clear-
#1- The gaming community is an adult community as the average gamer is 33 years old.
#2- 70% of all American households play computer or console video games.
#3- 80% of all gamer parents play video games with their children.
#4- There is no proven link between video games and teen violence.
and most importantly
#5- The artistic expression of game developers is constitutionally protected and any regulation is a violation of that expression.
Or the ESRB and the collective industry can continue to watch Thompson continue to give the only perspective on gaming that most parents know about
Wilson @ Oct 5th 2006 1:57AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the parents were actually concerned about what their offspring does, there wouldn't be any need for the ESRB.
Donutta @ Oct 5th 2006 5:20AM
I'll never get America's opposition to a government-run system, nor will I ever understand why so many people are in favour of self-regulation. England, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries all get by fine with government-run bodies that use a universal system for movies, games, etc. When you see 18 on a game, you know exactly what it means. The only problem is with Australia, who seem to think that there should be no 18 rating for games.
Honestly, am I the only person who thinks what Jack Thompson is asking for is not unreasonable? The only thing that is unreasonable is the way that he's asking for it.
Undertaker @ Oct 5th 2006 6:45AM
I'll never get America's opposition to a government-run system, nor will I ever understand why so many people are in favour of self-regulation. England, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries all get by fine with government-run bodies that use a universal system for movies, games, etc. When you see 18 on a game, you know exactly what it means. The only problem is with Australia, who seem to think that there should be no 18 rating for games.
Honestly, am I the only person who thinks what Jack Thompson is asking for is not unreasonable? The only thing that is unreasonable is the way that he's asking for it.
Do nutta, if your all for totalitarim bullshit like NZ, AZ, and the UK are going for, thats fine, but we americans gots us something called the 1st amendment. Kinda this hard rule saying government can't tell us what to watch,play,read,or listen to.
Last time I checked, Jack Thompson also called gamers terrorists, demanded he be put in charge of a mediation between the industry and it's critics, demanded he be given an advanced copy of an unfinished game, and was filling frivoulous lawsuits left and right. He also lies, slanders, and defames the industry on a regular basis.
If your throwing your hat in with that retard, then I suggest you check into the nearest nut house, cause your FUCKING CRAZY. If you think he's great, fine, you assholes take him ,cause we don't fucking want him.
Martin @ Oct 5th 2006 7:43AM
Hell, I am still trying to figure out why Okami is rated Teen where Windwaker is rated E.
But I think the ESRB is necessary, to be a way to protect publishers and developers from any lawsuit (at least it should be). Honestly, a parent cannot really be held responsible if they do not have that information. Sure they could (and really should) watch the kid play the game, but it only takes a second for a kid to find something inappropriate which would give the parent a decent lawsuit. Sure parents should be the ones researching what is in the game, but it is best to have one unified organization to put that information together.
I think what should really be done, is
1. have a tax for parents buying these games for their children (or any adult buying for a minor!) Yeah I know it would be impossible to inforce, but I think it would be hilarious, and at the same time would throw it in the face to the adult that they are buying a mature/adult game for a minor.
2. For every M to AO game bought, the player or player's gaurdian has to sign an informed consent form
I think it should also be notarized( just because it would be funny to see someone behind the counter of EB/Gamestop who has no idea about games.... oh wait they don't know crap!, the notary would probably know more about games then the employees!!!)
32_Footsteps @ Oct 5th 2006 9:32AM
Martin, Okami is a game that features regular leering at women's breasts and buttocks, contains a few bloody murder scenes, and contains abilities which allow you to urinate and defecate on enemies as a taunt. Plus, there's the drinking - sake gets mentioned an awful lot in the game. Teen seems like a perfect rating for it to me.
Ah, to think people mocked me when I said the Penny Arcade ESRB ads would be pointless and ineffective when they first rolled out. Seems I was right on that one - I can take a moment to gloat, but it doesn't solve the problem.
The thing is, it's not like major magazines refuse to take ad money from video game companies. I mean, I've seen Nintendo run ads in Entertainment Weekly, Time, Newsweek, and the like. While these magazines won't necessarily run some of the splashy ads we'd see in EGM or GamePro, they'll take a video game company's ad if they pony up the money and they like the way it looks.
The ESRB could be putting ads in general interest magazines. If they aren't, it's either because they need better ads to get into those magazines, or they need to actually rub two brain cells together and realize they can get into those magazines.
steve @ Oct 5th 2006 10:08AM
Er, the ESRB doesn't pay for those ads. They're Public Service Advertisements, and the game magazines run them for free because they benefit the entire industry.
It's unlikely Time or Newsweek would see them in the same light, however. They may run some of the government ones, but not ones for private industry.
OtakuCODE @ Oct 5th 2006 11:08AM
He's right. The games industry needs to speak for itself. And the ESRB needs to be disbanded. It was a bad idea to begin with, and it continues to be a bad idea to the current day. It should be no ones perogative but the parents whether kids should be sheltered from content factor X until age Y. Having a group of stuffed suits sit around and decide these things leads to confusion and parents having to either A> take over anyways, B> redefine the limits to what they think is appropriate to their kid, or C> just give up and follow the ESRB recommendations blindly.
All the while, the ESRB ratings system cripples the games we end up seeing. It has a chilling effect on free speech in the videogames market. You'll never see a videogame with the emotional power of classic literature or film if a nipple earns you an AO rating and no store in the country will carry it.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Books don't need ratings, and videogames don't need ratings either. For the exact same reasons. Any argument you make to censor and rate games, would you make it for books as well? If not, why not? Ask yourself these things. Any kid can walk into a bookstore and buy "Naked Lunch" by William S Burroughs or "Tropic of Cancer" by Henry Miller. No ratings or limitations stop them. And books are viewed as a sacrosanct source of learning. Why will we not allow film and games entry into that same class?
MrTroy @ Oct 5th 2006 1:03PM
The system is flawed but that's no reason to get rid of it. I'm a sloppy writer but here's a few things I'd like to point out.
1) Parents won't be arrested for buying a M rated game for their kid. Period.
2) Parents who don't even know what the ESRB or the rating system is shouldn't be insulted and called bad parents. Some times ignorance is an excuse.
3) Putting a M rated game at eye level for a minor isn't helping the cause at all. Best Buy, Walmart, Target, etc... they ARE part of the blame whether you want to admit it or not... and speaking of which.
4) The game companies are also part of the problem. Yeah blah blah blah freedom of speech expression blah blah blah. I'll tell you what. Stop making games that cost 4 million dollars to produce(I hope that I'm just exageratting) and you won't have to make your money back by hoping parents let it fly under the radar. I also don't wanna pay $60 for a game :)
We need to stop looking at this with closed eyes. I mean honestly enough we should figure out a decent solution. Yeah granted only the gaming industry cares about the gaming industry. But just like everyone is saying, putting it in a gameing magazine is kinda pointless. I said kinda cause some parents who do actually monitor what their kids watch and read should pick up on that.
Sorry I'm rambling... It's just I feel strongly about this.
Austin @ Oct 5th 2006 12:53PM
Its fine how it is. The rating system is for the parents. Gamers know what they are getting b/c they read the mag in the first place. If you buy your kid a game and don't bother to look into it, its your own fault. Kids with parents who are not interested in what they do are probably going to have issues more important than the exposure to a game more mature than they are.
Wild Homes @ Oct 5th 2006 1:18PM
I took the time to read both the point and the counterpoint articles, and I'm shocked by the counterpoint. it's embarrassing.
the first article had a number of valid points. the largest one was that the ESRB need to have people play the entire game and see the scope of the violence, sexual content, and such for themselves. the rebuttal in the second article was to say 'boo hoo this is too hard' and that is ridiculous. even allowing that a man in charge of Sony's MMO wing might be considering the difficulties in 'finishing' an MMO experience, he's not considering that all developers, even open-ended online game developers, employ tens or hundreds of QA game testers tasked with playing the game extensively to discover flaws and bugs in the game code. if each individual studio can afford to pay people to play through the game to ascertain if the code works, why is it untenable to ask the ESRB to have people play through the game to ascertain what rating the content needs? I understand they may not in all instances uncover every moment of gameplay, but I think it's obvious that a game rating based on a mostly complete understanding of a game's play experience would be more valuable than a rating based on what the developer says the game is all about.
I was also disappointed by the second article's tone. the author seemed to completely dismiss the fact that there IS a problem here. whatever action you want to take about fixing what's wrong with the ESRB, it's irresponsible to simply decide 'we need to lobby better because we as an industry are right but we just cannot make other people accept that.' wrong! the reason this mess happened is because the rating system is busted, and needs to be fixed. too many young people are getting ahold of games they shouldn't be playing, and no amount of lobbying will suddenly make GTA appropriate for youngsters. the only thing lobbying will do is make the industry less accountable.
it's hard to expect the industry to make the changes the ESRB needs to be effective when the end result is that violent and adult games will be played by fewer children, and those games will make less money, but they need do it. I'd even support a bill aimed to force them to do it. I don't want to, but if the industry won't police itself I'm ok with someone else making a change for them.
Donutta @ Oct 5th 2006 1:24PM
Oh please, having a government-run ratings system doesn't mean you can't read, listen, play or watch whatever you feel like. It just means that there's actually law to serve as an incentive for following the ratings system. After all, the biggest objection I hear to such a scheme is that retailers and/or parents (or whoever bought it for the underagers) shouldn't be punished. Then what fucking good is the system? If it's just a bunch of "guidelines" then it IS fucking useless. I bet half the people in here don't have teenagers and don't realise how easy it is for teenagers to go behind your back.
And don't cling to your precious First Admendment. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean that you can do things like criticise things without being thrown in some jail in the backwaters only to be beaten and have your organs harvested like practicioners of Fulan Gong. Of course, I've always found it odd that Americans cling to the First Admendment, yet they never bring up the Patriot Act. I might live in a "totalitarim (sic) bullshit" country, but I don't really need to worry about the FBI turning up on my doorstep because I wrote an e-mail about how I don't like my President and I think the Iraq war is a bad idea. [End hyperbole]
Of course, if you believe that freedom or speech gives you complete freedom, such as running down the street screaming the n-word, I encourage you to run down the streets of Harlem doing so. See how far the First Admendment gets you then.
Again, I'm not really opposed to what Thompson's asking. I'm just opposed to why he's got to be such a wanker when he asks for it.
Pyrocy @ Oct 5th 2006 2:29PM
The ESRB works in the same way as the MPAA essentially. Why go after one but not the other one?
For the people who believe there should be a government-mandated system, I hold the belief that something like that in North America would be easily abused considering our current political climate and how we, as a country, like to make non-issues into an epidemic.
The OFLC in Australia is a piss-poor excuse for a ratings system on the principle that they can cherry pick which games are not suitable for people of legal age and essentially ban said games. A system like that would totally contradict the 1st Ammendment in the US.
It isn't the system that needs change, but the people within the system. So, the game industry needs to grow some gnarly looking teeth and balls and fight against the litigation bandwagon that's hurting them in the 1st place.
OtakuCODE @ Oct 5th 2006 4:38PM
Those of you unashamedly embracing tyranny and the end of freedom of expression by referring to the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech with derision... you skipped the part of my post when I beseeched you to apply your arguments to books.
Wild Homes: Would you support an organization that would use the force of the government to remove 'Fahrenheit 451', 'Huckleberry Finn', 'Harry Potter', 'Tropic of Cancer', 'Ulysses', and all the other books that people have argued and rallied to have banned? Books have been free of a ratings system for as long as they have existed, and whatever claim you will make that dropping rating for videogames will have on society, had better be one you already see coming from books. Books contain more graphic violent and sexual content than any game ever created.
Donutta: Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can run through harlem shouting racial epithets without consqueance. Freedom of Speech restricts the government, not citizens. Freedom of Speech is what would put the people that attack you in jail and let you go free if you were attacked simply for speaking a word they disagree with. Making a game that certain segments of the populous will view as offensive and obscene is also not in any way equivalent to broadcasting racial epithets in the public street.
MrTroy: You want an organization backed by the guns of the government to be in charge of deciding what kids should and shouldn't see. Do you support the idea of the Senate and Congress getting together and giving control of all published materials, newspapers, books, magazines, films, and videogames to the FCC?
Breakfastmachine @ Oct 5th 2006 6:08PM
Unless you believe parents should face fines or jail time for purchasing M rated games for their kids, nothing will change. I don't know of any store that will sell an M rated game to someone under the age of 17. Law or policy, it really doesn't matter. The game store I work at follows this policy religiously, and yet every day kids walk out of the store with M rated games. As long as an adult can walk up to the counter and buy Grand Theft Auto, kids will play it. And believe me , we more than educate parents about the content of these games. We try to convince them NOT to buy it if it's for their kid. Number one excuse? "Oh, he's played it before". Played it before? If he saw a snuff film once it would be ok for him to watch it again and again?
I'm not saying parents shouldn't be able to buy these games. I'm not saying they should face fines or jail time for giving them to their kids. What I'm saying is it's their choice. And when they make a bad decision they should take responsibility. Instead, it's the game developers that suffer.
Donutta @ Oct 5th 2006 8:21PM
But I DO think that classification systems should apply to books. I've never understood why someone can go to a bookstore and buy filth unrestricted? Is it because they figure it's not visual? Because a good writer will always be able to make a clear image with his words. Then again, I'm sure the good writers don't write filth.
But yes, I do think that classifications should apply to literature. You can't buy porn when your 12, so you can't read those articles. So why magazines and not books?
Again, I'm all for a national classification system that covers all publications. I know how easy it is for teenagers to go behind their parents' backs. And those saying that people should monitor their teenagers 24/7 clearly has never raised a child. Simply make a system that is universal and consistent, and make sure that anyone breaking the system is punished accordingly (large fines usually work). It's not going to stop developers from creating "mature" games; it just means those games won't end up in the hands of children. Unless of course you want something like Manhunt to end up in the hands of a 14-year-old. If so, we're done talking here.
otakucode @ Oct 5th 2006 10:35PM
Donutta: The reason that I propose people consider applying the same standards they want to apply to videogames to books is because most people are aware of the dangers of censorship. Most people have learned about the manipulations of the press done by groups like the Nazis, and most people know about the kind of cultural death that comes about when groups like the Taliban start censoring what is able to be read.
Freedom is important. It is obvious that you don't believe this, and that you believe that the more control a government can have over your life, the better. I highly suggest you start reading some about history. Any history, at any time, in any place in the world. It should scream to you that the danger of the government getting involved in censoring media one of those things that we must Never Let Happen.
Books won this right after farmers and other workers argued books made the youth weak and not grounded in reality... but then book-educated youth went on to change the world with things like the Renaissance and Industrial Revolution.
No good change has EVER happened in the world because citizens had freedom taken away from them. All good comes only from freedom granted to citizens. What do you believe will happen if a 14 year old does get ahold of a copy of Manhunt and plays it? If they have been raised by their parents, and their parents haven't sheltered them and kept them playing only T-and-under games, it shouldn't affect him at all. It's a game. Buttons and pixels, and that's it. He knows it is a diversion and simply that. The only people in danger of having a dangerous reaction, I think, are parents and people such as yourself.
Anyone who sees a kid playing a game with content they consider mature and then goes on to support game rating and game censorship by the government does more damage and brings about more violence in the world than even Jack Thompson images games bring about themselves. Always remember that government is a single thing: a gun. That's it. If they didn't have guns, no one would listen to them, and every single law is enforced at the end of a gun. Think about that the next time you think it'd be perfectly safe to give over everything your children see and hear to the hands of government censors.
Jestor Rodo @ Oct 6th 2006 8:27AM
The Author of the counterpoint, Mr Smedley has blogged recently on many topics but still his company once the leader in MMO's has fallen to 3rd place.
I would recommend taking care of business before blogging to increase your public image. Get back to work John.
Donutta @ Oct 7th 2006 1:26AM
There's a difference between censorship and rating something. Censoring is to remove part of it or to ban it outright. Rating something is to say that the material contained within is not suitable for someone under the age of 18. Personally, I'd have another system that was based on how impressionable the person was and how much of a grip they had on society, but age will do for now.
Trust me, I'm very clued up on my history and literature. One of my favourite novels is 1984 because of the Nanny State gone mad theme. But censorship is totally different to ratings, and it only seems that Americans start bleating in the name of "freedom" every time this issue comes up. If you really believe in freedom, why don't you start campaigning so 6-year olds can start drinking and fucking?