Former ESRB rater dishes on organization

Wasn't the original Super Smash Bros. rated E, while Melee received a T rating?

So much for franchise blanket ratings.

"...the ESRB rates sequels based on "parity," meaning whatever the game's predecessor received is what the sequel will receive."

That can't be entirely true, and we all know it from the whole Manhunt ordeal.

Oh and also, haha Boner...

Alex is hott.

Alex Vance is indeed, but her sister pat...

A 16 rating would be a good idea.

Seems he has some good ideas, but it would help if we know what actually was true.

I don't understand the secrecy part of it really. I mean , after all it is just a rating.

The ESRB reminds me of the MPAA movie ratings. The outcome is the formation an industry cartel that controls the media that people see. The ESRB is ripe for abuse - and I agree with this guy - the AO rating *has* to go. The only purpose it serves is to, for all practical purposes, censor a game from the market.

(That reminds me - for any of you that have not seen "This Film is Not Yet Rated", it is well worth your time!)

I know that sometimes sequels get a higher rating than their predecessors, but has there ever been a sequel that got downgraded? Like from M to T?

Adding to the list of games that were rated differently than their prequels, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time was a Teen rated game while Warrior Within was rated M. I don't trust this guy.

Wait, they don't play the games, they just watch a movie made by the publisher? What a worthless organization.

"One of Bonner's great reveals is that the ESRB rates sequels based on "parity," meaning whatever the game's predecessor received is what the sequel will receive."

Well I guess they did not get that memo when Manhunt 2 arrived for review. *rolls eyes*

Oh come on, That "Parity" thing is such BS. I'll add another series that goes against this to the list.

Shadow Hearts 1- M
Shadow Hearts 2- T

The ESRB actually does a good job and performs a valuable service. Parents don't want their 8-year-old kid playing Grand Theft Auto, and those parents are right to not want that. The ratings service provides good information.

Some people do stupid things with the informational ratings that the ESRB provides. That's because some people are just stupid. They would do even stupider things without it.

The parity thing is true, just not in the sense you're all taking it in.

Link: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/faq.jsp#15

Under "How does the rating process work":
"raters will then further discuss the game until they reach consensus on a final recommendation. ESRB staff will review the final rating recommendation and rater feedback, conduct a parity examination where appropriate to maintain consistency in rating assignments, and issue a certificate with the official rating assignment to the game's publisher."

Unnecessary quote of the day:

Stewie: "Bonner? What the hell's a bonner?"

I kinda agree with some of what he says. I think there should be an E10, T(13+), then a T(15 or 16), then M would be changed to 18. No adults only, assuming M can still be sold in stores.

I have a few things to say here, but please understand that I am extremely hampered by a non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement that I had to sign to work at the ESRB in the first place. That is a big reason why there aren't any real specifics or examples in the article and some points aren't as fleshed out as I would have liked them to be. Before submitting the article to EGM, both the agreements I signed and the article itself were reviewed by a corporate, contract law attorney with 30+ years experience, so I wasn’t flying blind here.

Ultimately, you can liken this to being in a bare knuckle, steel cage match with both hands tied behind your back and then, and only then, will you begin to understand the difficulties in writing this piece in the first place.

Now, onto my points:

1. I was not fired by the ESRB. I left of my own accord and on good terms. The ESRB will verify this. My leaving was more in relation to the 4 hour daily commute (2 hours up and 2 hours back) that I had to deal with to work there in the first place.

2. Do I have more to say about the ESRB? Yes. A lot. And they know that.

3. Can I or will I say/write anything else about the ESRB? No. Recent events in my life have shown me that all of this matters little in the grand scheme of things. Don't get me wrong, I love video games and the "gaming lifestyle" with a sincere passion and hope to write about other video game related topics everywhere and anywhere I'm asked to (if I’m ever asked to…) again.

4. If that response was written by Pat Vance then I am the King of Siam. The ESRB employs PR/Marketing people and lawyers and the like, whose sole purpose on this planet is to "spin" things. Remember, I'm just one guy with an informed opinion. I do not consider myself “disgruntled” or “angry” in any way. Things just didn’t work out at the ESRB. So it goes. I would suggest that you read the entire article (not just the synopsis that is posted in GP), which is exceptionally fair and balanced, before throwing words like that around.

5. I have one, other thing to say in regard to the ESRB's response (in which, they basically call me a liar) to what I wrote: if my comments are so "misleading," "inaccurate" and "misrepresentative" then why aren't they suing me (for libel or breach of contract or whatever…) into oblivion right now?? Food for thought, eh?

I truly appreciate all of the thoughtful comments and the intelligent debate this article has sparked. I was never a big fan of the “X-Files” but I’m going to borrow that show’s mantra here: the truth is out there. This article is just the first step on a much larger journey to obtaining that truth. For various reasons, I can only take this first step…but I do wish a hearty “Godspeed” to those who decide to take up where I leave off…

The only M rated game I own is RE4 so yeah doesn't affect me too much. I mean I like the concepts of a lot of M rated games but I haven't bought them.