Full FeedOpinion: ESRB effectiveness a matter of consistency and attention
Two things are important with video game ratings: who rates games and who pays attention to them. The “who rates games” is the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and similar boards across the world. Quite simply, they are there to think of the children so you don’t have to.
These ratings begin with the Early Childhood (EC) designation up through the rare - and rarely coveted - Adults Only (AO). They are based off of how offensive, violent and/or lewd the content is.
There is an innate problem rating anything based on how offensive it is: offensiveness is subjective.
We all have this meter in our minds that gauges how offended we are with unique, personal filters and resistances. A completely offensive, ultra-violent game to one person could actually be quite tame to someone else. It’s true, even in the face of drug abuse. Some people won’t care if their character is a drug addict or alcoholic.
There is also the problem with user-generated content.
If the ESRB and similar rating companies think that user-generated content would be enough to change a game’s rating, those organizations negate their own credibility by flip-flopping a rating for content not even made by the game company. That could hinder both some gamers and all developers in fulfilling their purpose in the industry.
In other countries, videogame bans have popped up because the ratings boards decided to just not rate games. Britain, Australia and New Zealand did this with Manhunt 2 and Germany banned Army of Two by refusing to issue a rating for it.
In the US, while we haven’t explicitly banned games, politicians and the ESRB have tried to kill any progress a game might have. Restrictive legislation and AO ratings limits the places consumers can get games. It apparently limits the amounts of consoles that can support the game. Thanks to the Internet, there is a way around that.
The other problem with the ratings is that no one pays attention to them. If someone is too young to get a popular game, they end up running to the parents. The parents quite often don’t check things out before buying them, then start complaining when violence or sexuality pops up in a game. Even with full bans, thanks to the Internet, there are different ways to get material from offensive games.
Educating parents - not the kids - is the real fix to these problems. The rating system also needs to be refined so that an uneducated parent would know exactly what to expect. Show us why the game warrants its rating. Also inform the parents of the electronic ways that their kids can still get inappropriate games, since most browsers have a parental lock feature on them and parents can just block the sites.
Keep up with the latest gaming goodness! - 
Subscribe to our feed
Black Friday 2009
Black Friday is almost here! Gadgetell's got you covered with all the latest news on who's offering the best deals. Dangerous crowds? You're on your own.
Important Importables
Jenni Lada brings us information about all of the groovy new gaming imports from around the world.
You are entirely wrong about why the ESRB is there; “to think of the children so you don’t have to?” Please, that is far from the truth. Responsibility for children does not rest on the ESRB’s shoulder.
You do not need to be shown why exactly a game is given a certain rating. Words describe it quite well; if a game has blood and gore, the game has blood and gore. It’s that simple. And if you need more information, http://www.esrb.org has a guide and explains the ratings process.
Lastly, the ESRB is not responsible for games found on the Internet, much less informing parents of the things that can be found on the Internet. The ESRB is responsible for one thing: enforcing its rating system.
on May 12, 2008 at 10:10 AM - LINKFor the user-generated content portion the ESRB, as reported by X Play about 6 months ago, did actually consider upping the rating for the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for a user generated mod that allows the player to have a fully nude character.
The “there to think of the children so you don’t have to” was more in reference to why they were brought into existence. They were brought into existence for the precise same reason that the PMRC got warning labels on CDs. The parents didn’t check things out and thought it was too risque or violent for their kids and started to complain. Since parents quite often don’t care until after they see something they can complain about, the ratings boards are in place to inform the parents therefore thinking of the children so the parents don’t have to worry.
As for games found on the internet I’m thinking about roms/isos/torrents where someone can get what they want, including games that might be deemed inappropriate for them. If there are ways around the enforcement of their rating system it is the duty of the rating board to inform parents of the ways around that rating system.
Also some of the different descriptions for the ratings are vague. Disturbing content, extreme violence, suggestive themes? They’re vague because they are covering topics that have different subjective levels. It’s better to just show why a game is rated what it is rated.
on May 12, 2008 at 11:58 AM - LINKThe whole ratings system is crap. Who’s to say a fourteen year old isn’t more mature than a thirty year old? The last time I checked, a good old fashioned hack n’ slash game with lots of gore still makes adult hemophobiacs wet their pants. Now, listing what themes are in the games is important, but the limiting on ages is just wrong. And I am not just saying that because I am a minor. There IS a simple solution for the whole issue of “What if a six year old got their hands on a game with sexual content, gore, etc.?” and that is parental involvement. People say parents don’t have the time. Tough break for them. The last time I checked, psychologists, therapists, and all the other clinical “ists” out there say that a parent needs to MAKE the time and get involved with their kid’s life, be it going to their basketball game, paying video games, helping, with homework, playing chess, or whatever each child pursues from their interests. If that means working fewer hours, tough. If it means making less money, too bad. If that means moving to a smaller apartment, oh well. At least the parent’s child won’t go on a sociopathic killing spree on the excuse that “My daddy never hugged me.”
on May 19, 2008 at 08:43 AM - LINK