You can follow your favorite blogs and receive updates here. Add some people Blogs you follow » | write a new blogmanage blogs view your pageblogging tips | commentsmessagesaccountlogout |
Talking to Women about Videogames: The ESRB has failed [Talking to Women about Videogames is a series where Jonathan Holmes talks to different people who are women about the biggest videogame news of the week for some reason.] Grand Theft Auto III was originally released in 2001, starting the reign as one of the most popular videogame series today. Fast forward to today, and we have millions of 20-25 year olds who have grown up playing the games, yet we are not in the midst of a social apocalypse. We have a generation of children brought up on a game where the name itself is a crime, a game where hiring then murdering prostitutes is made to be "fun," yet the world is still standing. Actually, these GTA fans seem like pretty well-adjusted people overall, as evidenced by the steady drop in the crime rate throughout the country since 1995. There are also millions of "underage" kids today that absolutely love the Call of Duty series, despite its M rating. In fact, going by the reaction to the last TtWaV teaser, there are quite a few people out there under the age of 18 who would be more interested in playing the next Zelda game if it was rated M. These are just a few of the reasons why I think it's clear that the ESRB has failed.
The ESRB has two jobs: to determine what games are appropriate for what age groups and to deter people from the "wrong" age groups from playing the "wrong" games. It hasn't succeeded at any of that. The E, T, M, AO system does not properly divide games into what groups should be playing them, it does not properly describe the content in the games it classifies, and it also encourages players of the "inappropriate" groups to be attracted to the games they aren't supposed to play (for obvious reasons). It's not all the ESRB's fault, though. Society as a whole has the wrong idea about what is bad for kids to experience. When it comes to children, people's fear of harming the child or potentially shaping them into a "bad" person often blinds them from common sense. Take people's fear of swearing, for instance. Hearing people swear won't hurt kids or make them more inclined to repeat the swears they hear. If that were the case, then every kid on the planet would be swearing constantly, as there is literally no escape from swear words in today's world. Kids can hear all the swears they want and oftentimes do. What's important is how the children are taught to understand the meaning of those words, and if and when it's OK to use them. Same goes for the nudity and violence that they see in movies and videogames. As long as the child is prevented from experiencing something that will disturb or traumatize them, all that's left is to help them to learn not to repeat the dangerous or harmful things that they've seen.
In general, I would say that it's the minor violent actions that are physically and morally easy for children to repeat that are the most dangerous for children to witness. The fantastic, ultra-violent stuff is almost always presented with serious consequences within the given context of the event. While that stuff may be overstimulating to a kid, or even disturbing, it's not likely to teach him or her to be "bad," not in the way that more minor, seemingly "harmless" violence can. Here's a story from experience to drive home that point. When I was a kid (probably between five and seven), I got really angry at my mother, but I can't remember why. It was probably something about Care Bears. Regardless, I was really upset, but not in a tantrum way. This time, I wanted to express my anger in a more "real" way, but I couldn't think of a way that would show her the depths of my anger while remaining relatively harmless. Enter Tom and Jerry.
There is one episode of this extremely violent cat and mouse kids' show where Tom (the cat) pretends to prepare a place at the table for his owner as part of his evil plan. He politely pulls the chair out for her, only to yank it from beneath her right as she's about to sit down. Since this is a "kids' show," Tom's owner wasn't seriously hurt. We wouldn't want to make the kids feel bad, now would we? Instead, his owner just hops right back to her feet and chases Tom around with a room with a broomstick, leading Tom to jump into a vase to hide, transform into a carpet under his master's feet, or something else whimsical and exciting. That was perfect. That was exactly what I was going for. From there, I set a plan in motion to repeat the "prank" that I learned from Tom. I made my mom some toast, set her a place at the table, politely pulled the chair out for her, and yanked it away at the last minute. Much to my horror, a fun and lighthearted chase scene between my mother and myself did not follow. Instead, my Mom and I were both in tears. She was crying in emotional and physical pain, while I was crying in guilt, shame, and empathetic sadness from my betrayed parent. If she had come down any harder, she could have ended up in the hospital. I think we both remember that as one of the all-time low points in our relationship.
Now, keep in mind that by this age, I'd seen plenty of action, horror, and sexy movies. I'd watched Stripes, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Porky's, and endless reels of gangster movies and episodes of the Twilight Zone. I'd also played all of the most violent videogames on the market (except Chiller). None of them did the same damage to me that Tom and Jerry did, because in Tom and Jerry, there were no serious consequences for the characters' actions. In other media, I saw that sex and violence were possible but emotionally trying experiences that were definitely a bad idea for a kid like me to try to repeat. That wasn't the case with Tom and Jerry. There was absolutely nothing in the show there to teach me that I should not repeat the behaviors I witnessed. In my personal experience, I've heard of the same kinds of things happening with modern videogames. I've heard of children jumping on turtles and kicking them down the street, expecting them to innocuously retreat into their shells like they do in the Mario games, only to find them crushed into a bloody pulp under foot. I've heard of kids making disgusting food and getting extremely sick to their stomachs because of what they learned from Cooking Mama or even starting fires due to their young culinary ambitions. I have never heard of a kid stealing a car or beating up a prostitute because they saw it in Grand Theft Auto. I have never heard of a child becoming sexually active purely after experiencing the world of romantic failings and foibles through the lenses of Catherine and We Dare. In fact, when it comes to corrupting our children, I think that videogames are probably the least of our problems. It's stuff that's happening in real life that we should probably worry about.
The research that Drs. Cheryl K. Olson and Lawrence Kutner utilized for their book Grand Theft Childhood echoes those sentiments. Their research showed that behaviors that were difficult to replicate or were shown to have negative repercussions were less likely to be repeated by children. Kids played Grand Theft Auto to blow off some steam after feeling bullied at school and actually felt less aggressive afterwards. Games with a lot blood or were generally more disturbing to children, and as a result, children were less likely to want to reenact violent acts they witnessed in bloody games. If Mario had a blood code, we may have had a lot fewer dead turtles in our country. Of course, that's still just a generalization. The key thing to take away here is that there is no way to guess how all kids will react to the same content or how kids' parents will help them to process the content in question. There is no universal truth when it comes to this issue. It's all dependent on the individuals. All we can do is try to remind people to take responsibility for their actions as parents and as people.
This brings us back the ESRB, which doesn't seem to have much of a grasp on that concept. Instead, it works to determine what kinds of content is and is not harmful to children regardless of some sort of universal standard, the context, or how the content is implemented. Does it actually think that raising a child is that black and white? What's even weirder is that most in the industry just pretend that the ESRB matters, all while millions of parents buy Modern Warfare 3 for their 10 year olds, fully aware that the game will be relatively harmless to the hearts and minds of their particular offspring. Part of that is because things could be a lot worse. If Leland Yee had his way, the world of videogame content ratings would be a police state. It's better to just let the ESRB pretend that it's doing a good job than to get rid of it, potentially permitting a much worse power to come into control. Another part of the problem is that we expect too much from the ESRB. It can't be our co-parent, and we shouldn't want it to be. The fact that it is so powerful in the eyes of some people speaks more to the desperate hunger parents feel for "expert advice" on child rearing than anything else.
So if the ESRB can't do much to help us parent our kids, then what is it good for? Well, I guess it could serve the purpose of helping us know what kind of content a game contains, if it really wanted to. I guess the ratings could serve as sort of a mini-review system, but instead of addressing quality, they only address intensity. That might help people to weed out the games the games that might gross them out or give them nightmares, right? Even that is a little unnecessary, though. For the most part, kids will naturally be disturbed or otherwise repelled by any content that they aren't ready for. Kids feel pain, emotionally and physically. That's not something to be sad about. That pain helps them to instinctively avoid things that will hurt them. As I talked about in a past Constructoid, kids won't play games that are too much for them. If Resident Evil 4 is too intense for them, they'll go right back to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Water tends to find its own level, as does the mind of a child.
Still, for the completely oblivious, I guess it wouldn't hurt to have a heads-up about the kind of content a game contains before they spend $60 on it. That doesn't mean that it's good for those labels to contain the completely arbitrary labels of "Everyone," "Teen," "Mature," and "Adults Only." I know plenty of kids who only play M-rated games, and plenty of adults who would never bother with anything rated T or above. Age doesn't really have that much to do with it, especially when it comes to something like videogames where both the graphics and interactivity send a constant message to the player that the events on screen are not a reflection of real-life events. People (usually) always have control over the events of a videogame. They can change the script to the story with the punch of a button at any time or just put the controller down and end the story right then and there. That helps to remind players that none of it is real and to keep things from getting more intense than they can handle. The exit door is always close by. It seems like society as a whole is still figuring that out. In the meantime, if the ESRB still insists of rating how disturbing or offensive various videogames are, then I think it should come right out and say it. Don't tempt kids to play M-rated games by dangling the ever-attractive "mature" label in from of their noses, and don't imply that certain games have more mass market appeal by saying they are for "everyone." If you think a game is potentially disturbing to kids or adults, don't put an age label on it. Just call a spade a spade. Change ratings the ratings from E, T, M, and AO to B (Benign), PO (Potentially Offensive), PD (Potentially Disturbing), and PT (Potentially Traumatizing), in that order. Not only is this less likely to attract kids to the "wrong" kinds of games (assuming that the "wrong" kind of games even exist on some objective level of measure), it's also just more honest.
If a father isn't able to determine on his own (after doing some research of course, like every good parent does before buying a game for their child) that a thoroughly silly and joyfully taboo-bending game like Shadows of the Damned may not be a good fit for his easily startled, Hugga Bunch-loving little boy, I don't see how the the M rating is going to help him to understand it any better. I wonder if "potentially disturbing" might do the job though. Maybe that label will help drive home the fact that a game where you run around on top a giant replica of your naked girlfriend's body, only to have her disembodied head call you all sorts of swear words later on, might be a little to freaky for his son. Hey, if thats what it takes to help him be a decent parent, who am I to complain? As someone who's been playing videogames far longer than the ESRB has existed, it's easy for me to see how much better it could be, assuming that we need the ESRB to exist at all. That's just me, though. How about you guys? Has the ESRB ever helped you to avoid a game that was too mature for you to handle, or otherwise aided you and yours in avoiding being emotionally or psychologically damaged by videogames? Past Episodes: Talking to Women about Videogames: 3DS 2nd nub panic Talking to Women about Videogames: Gears 3 isn't perfect? Talking to Women about Videogames: Sexy vs. sexist? Talking to Women about Videogames: What makes you want? TtWaV teaser: Sony's online sucks now? Talking to Women about Videogames: I'm not a real gamer? Talking to Women about Videogames: Fear for the future Talking to Women about Videogames: Going mainstream TtWaV teaser: Battlefield 3 Vs. Modern Warfare 3 Legacy Comments (will be imported soon)Thank you for this intelligent, mature article. After all the whining back and forth today about Call of Duty, a little Johnathan Holmes restores faith in gaming culture. I really like the idea of rating by "Offensive Level" rather than age. Great concept actually, surprised it's not the concept used. :/ The problem with terminology like, "Potentially Traumatizing," is that potentially traumatizing is in the eye of the beholder. What traumatizes you might not traumatize most other people, and so on.
Then again, it's not like "Mature" is much better, especially since swearing is more likely to merit an M rating (or an R, if you're talking movies) than is, say, violent behavior. I think it's clear that the ESRB isn't the source of the problem, and it's doing its job relatively well of displaying the information on the box. Our society clearly gives not a single care about what kind of maturity (or lack thereof) level of content is shown to children.
Some say that the warnings aren't obvious enough, but I think that's not the issue. They could replace an entire box art and logos with eloquent warnings and descriptions of the material within, and parents would still purchase it. There could be a further differentiation between mindless games with violence, such as Call of Duty, and a very dirty-minded, humorous romp such as Shadows of the Damned. In the end, though, eloquent warnings aren't going to prevent children from playing either. Nice video Holmes. I think that you are right about the rating system. Hell, I played tons of "M" titles as a kid, (like Resident Evil 1 & 2) and I'm not some messed up freak shooting people and robbing banks. It all depends on how the parents raise their kids. If kids play Grand Theft Auto all the time without the parents even acknowledging there existence, then of course they are going to learn from it, because its all they know. But who's fault is that? The parents... The ESRB hasn't failed. It doesn't exist to regulate video games. It was created in order to prevent the government from instituting its own regulation system. I like it. The ESRB was never really a factor for me though. I knew what games I would enjoy, which landed me playing Final Fantasy and its ilk more often than not.
Worked GREAT for me, due to my preferences I've landed in the crowd of people least likely to get shafted by devs and their online shenanigans. "it does not properly describe the content in the games it classifies"
It doesn't? How is this not properly describing the content <blockquote> Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Activision-Blizzard Mature Blood and Gore, Drug Reference, Intense Violence, Strong Language Rating summary: This is a first-person shooter in which players assume the role of military operatives tasked with thwarting the plans of a terrorist leader. Players complete mission objectives and engage in battles that take place in modern-day locations across the globe (e.g., United States, Great Britain, Germany). Players use pistols, rifles, machine guns, and explosives to injure/kill enemies; the frenetic conflicts are highlighted by realistic gunfire, screams of pain, and large splashes of blood from injured characters. Blood-splatter effects appear often in the surrounding environment, in addition to dead bodies lying in pools of blood. Some sequences depict more intense acts of violence, such as a defenseless prisoner getting lit on fire; a man losing his arm from a sniper shot (with blood spurting from the wound); and a family dying (off-screen) in an explosion. In some instances, scattered packages of drugs appear in the environment (e.g., packets of narcotics that explode in white puffs when shot); in multiplayer mode, players can also unlock an emblem that resembles a cannabis leaf. The words “f**k,” “sh*t,” and “a*shole” can be heard in the dialogue. </blockquote> Nice one. The ratings are a good thing, i think, but the current age-based ones are definitely a strange choice. I like your idea of "traumatizing" and such labels.
My very first game was Goody - spanish-developed game about a burgler with a ladder, who throws bricks and needs to drink beer to live. I was five or six, when i started playing it. And it was just it - a cartoonish funny adventure-platformer game. I never became, or even thought of, becoming a burgler, i didn't like beer until about 17 (and i still drink alcohol preety rarely, usually in a company of friends) and i definitely don't throw bricks at people or carry a ladder. I played Mortal Kombat at 9 or 10 and also never thought of it as taumatizing or took it seriously - it was ridiculous and over-the-top. But if anyone would ever show me something like Manhunt back then... i played it while 18, and still found it really disturbing and disgusting at times. despite being a great game, which used it's content to enhance the atmosphere of the game. and i still never got to replaying it, despite it being so great, because it's just hard to play it. not gameplay-wise hard. so, yeah, age-based ratings don't really work. at all. I really like the ideas for new ratings labels. I understand in general you are against labels (for games and people), but I think this would be a step in the right direction. I will always be bothered that a genuinely "Mature" game like Silent Hill 2, that deals with issues such as rape, child abuse, euthanasia, manic depression, suicide, drug use, and terminal illness, is rated "Mature" right along a game like Duke Nukem Forever, which is as immature as possible, letting you play with poop and laugh at rape. You're still talking entirely subjective stuff. Clowns are "potentially traumatizing" for some people, and I'm not talking about the evil kind. On the other hand, "Mature" as a classification has kind of settled into our collective vernacular. People roughly know what it means in regards to media.
Not that it makes any difference. I used to run a video/game rental store, and the only thing most parents really care about is nudity. Violence is usually not given a second thought. I've seen more selections rejected by parents because of adult language than I have for violent content. Right behind nudity as a no-no is anything with even a HINT of a POSSIBILITY of being unchristian. I've seen Pokemon and Harry Potter rejected for that reason many, many times, and even Disney films, because it seems that letting your kids watch Mulan is supporting homosexuality. Violence, though? Violence is American. That is, until someone shoots up a school, then it's the fault of videogames. Don't get me wrong, many parents don't even look at what their kids pick out, and are annoyed when someone points out that a title might have mature content. It's simpler for them to turn a blind eye, as not knowing apparently absolves them of guilt, and puts the blame on the industry. If a parent really wants to know what their kid is playing, then they can find out. They can read the back, or ask a clerk, or look it up online, or hell, even pay attention while the kid is playing. Changing the code won't make a difference. @Naturality
Please tell you aren't serious. @Article Interesting. I think the ESRB is doing a decent enough job and rate things pretty well. Also, aren't the ratings only suggestions, not legally enforced restrictions? Well, I do agree with Holmes that the box cover warnings aren't that great since, as he said, they don't provide any sort of context. And the "cartoon violence" warning has always rubbed me the wrong way, since that's so incredibly vague. Although sqlrob is right in saying they do provide much more detail on the website, although still not much context, and frankly, by the time you're there, you may as well just look up pictures or video of the game instead anyway.
However, I agree much more that the ESRB should be left alone as it is. As long as we recognize that it's pointless, and acknowledge that it cannot be a substitute for paying attention to what your kids play, I don't see what the problem is. It acts as insurance against cases like state senator Yee's, which is more than enough to warrant it's existence in my opinion. And I don't really think that the warning labels should be changed to things on a sliding scale of "Benign" to "Traumatizing". I agree it would be a much more descriptive warning, but I think that's going a little overboard. A consumer sees a box labeled "Mature", and thinks "Well, that conveniently sums up what the suggested age group for this title is." Again, he's not necessarily correct, especially given Holmes' argument, but that is the most likely thought process for a person who has no idea what's in the game. Now, let's say that same person sees "Potentially Disturbing" on the cover of, say, Modern Warfare 2. If they saw "Mature", they have an idea of who the game was made for, and can make a calm decision based on that. On the other hand, if they see "Potentially Disturbing", that's an immediate turn off. They both mean the same thing, in the end, but the "PD" warning words it much more severely, and in a way that works actively against the sale of the game. It's a lot like the push to put those graphic anti-smoking pictures on packages of cigarettes, like the picture of the body on the autopsy table, or the smoke coming out of a trachea incision while a dude smokes. Yes, they have same message as the regular warning labels, (Smoking is bad for you) but the way they present the message in the pictures is meant to provoke an emotional repulsion to the idea of smoking, as opposed to the text-only warning's appeal to calm-minded thinking of the consequences of smoking. I'm not saying that's intentionally your idea, but I feel that's more or less how it would play out. Although I would pay anything to see Mario Party 9 labeled "Potentially Offensive". Regarding Tom and Jerry,
I hit my brother butt with a fork, he was not pleased and also didnt fly to the ceiling :( I don't think there's much that can be done to improve the system. You said that, "ratings could serve as sort of a mini-review system, but instead of addressing quality, they only address intensity." I think they already do that. Jim regularly makes fun of ESRB descriptions here on Dtoid. Yeah, it's not on the box, the info exists for anyone interested. The problem with the system and your proposed one are that they both make generalizations. Does Mario deserve a PT because it's an animal murder simulator or does it deserve a B for it's cartoonish nature? Couldn't the same arbitrary labels be applied with the current system? Also, those new labels could apply to anyone, not just children. I think that would only further confuse parents. There's too many factors to consider here and I think labeling things by age is the easiest way to do it. Besides, kids are still enjoying M rated games because parents allow it. Would a new system even matter? I've always thought it was hilarious that Apple completely ignores the ESRB.
The ESRB basically is asking for handouts, saying "you need us to rate your games! Give us money!" Apple tells them to fuck off and counts their cash. Er...
I don't see ANY problem with the rating systems we have now. It's the same as the film industry, the ratings show we are policing ourselves and keeps the government and others off the games industries back. It has no actual feasible power, but does its job. Terms like 'potentially traumatizing' mean NOTHING in reality, the basic terms like 'Mature' are pretty self explanatory (that the presentation will be more grown up) and the ESRB puts additional info on the back of the box and their site. I personally have a pretty strong stomach, and apparently some people are afraid of clowns. In a store you should NOT be able to buy an M rated game unless you can prove you're old enough, and it works. This is a good thing. Kids NATURALLY want to see adult things, they WANT to feel grown up and that means trying to get their hands on violent stuff. And ultimately... If parents want to buy M rated games for their kids and crap like Call of Duty, that's their call and they have to deal with any potential consequences. The most obvious consequence to me is that their child will grow up with no imagination... The ESRB is a necessary piece of bureaucracy that protects the video game industry from getting sued. I think they do their job well enough in stating what type of content is in a game and it's been a while since a company was taken to court over game content. Thank you for this fantasy video. Reallity is much less funny. I have met loads of people who ware plaing gta and then they ware going out on the streets just to pick up a fight as well as kids who ware coming to game store i used to work in behaving like compleate twats. They ware abusive and violent. And loads of those kind of people and kids ware coming in to the store often. Since we can't use force to throw them out and the police was always comming late, we had to patiantly wait till they leave. And they always wanted to buy gta, saints raw and this sort of games. I don't want to sound like troll, and i know there is loads of people who will not do any stupid thing after playing the games but having my experience i can tell you that those games can be only played by mature people. And besides woudl you like kids to have a nostalgia thorwards beeting up a prostitute after she sucked cock to your virtual self? I wouldn't. "there's crabs down here" THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!!!
Sorry couldn't help it. And I liked that someone spoke positively about GTA in this video. I recently gave a presentation for school where I argued that GTA (among other games) are artistic because they tend satirize and parody the things that they talk about, kind of like south park. This is especially true for GTA4 in my opinion. And true some people play for the killing just like some just watch south park for the swearing but they're still taking something out of it, most likely venting their frustration. I remember some old PC game ratings where the box listed 4 categories and gave them ratings of 1-5, 5 being the highest. I often had games where the violence was rated a 4, but most of the other suggestive themes were 1 or 2. I think something like that should make a return.
As for what actually constitutes a Mature rating, the ESRB definitely fails. I remember the plot line to "Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness" and it was immensely disturbing. That game was rated T. The ESRB as John Holmes interprets it, has failed. But it lacks the historical context whereas video games, as a medium, was under fire before congress. Like films, D&D;, and Comics, the woes of society, were being pinned on the new medium, headed by such wonderful well intentioned fascists as Jospeh Lieberman and Tipper Gore. However, like the MPAA, the ESRB was established not as a regulatory body but rather as a defense mechanism. You see, the simple fact of every child being different is still somehow one of those things people either believe or disbelieve according to circumstances.
For example, Little Billy Harper is so creative and much smarter than all the other kids in his class. However, Redbook tells me Billy, despite being bright and creative, simply cannot handle complex themes of death and depression found in harry Potter, thus he cannot see this. And of course, when Little Billy Harper launches the class pet hamster, freckles, out of the window, stapled to a paper airplane, this means Bill harper got the idea from watching Transformers 3, since he's a big fan of Starscream. Not because the little fuckers twisted as a dead deers antler. Thus all children should be protected from the evil ways of Starscream, not that Billy, and only Billy, needs help. Of course the biggest betrayal out of the entire establishment of the ESRB and the congressional hearings, and something people forget about TO THIS DAY, is how NOA's Howard Lincoln, on tax payer money, stated in front of congress that there is no place in society for a game like Night Trap. Betraying gamers, betraying tax payers, and adding fuel to Lieberman's fires, to bash a Sega game. Fuck that guy... @ sqlrob- The descriptions on the ESRB website are just fine. The rating system it self and the way its implemented is not working.
@ Mikolaj Holowko- I have no doubt that there were jerks at your store that liked GTA, but are you saying that they were jerks because of GTA? I think you'd have a hard time proving that. I'm also not sure why you're saying the video is "fantasy". Also, there are already millions of millions of people are nostalgic for their childhood memories of GTA. Just check #grandtheftautomemories on twitter. I think having the ESRB is good because it's done voluntarily on the part of the industry rather than having external/governmentally imposed ratings which would be a rather slippery slope.
That said I do agree that often the ratings fail to convey how appropriate a game is. When I was about 10 my parents got all nervous when I wanted to buy Smash Bros Melee which was rated t. Meanwhile I was playing GTA, Timesplitters and Halo at my friends' houses, none of which I found the least bit disturbing. I really don't see them putting an effort in at least experimenting with that idea. And even so, it will probably be a long time until the "average" parent would attempt to accept the concept. Fat man movie director Kevin Smith talked about this very thing at a college thing he did once. Well his was more movie/tv-centric than this, but you get the idea. The point reached was that things with violence/sexuality/drugabuse/etc which also showed the consequences of such behavior were actually mature in their presentation and thus suitable for a wider audience. The things which do not show the consequences were immature and possibly more harmful to the people who watch (or in this case play).
It's hard for the ESRB to create an objective way to give a video game an age rating or a safety rating, because then you're judging the maturity of the content. I would give God of War 2 and 3 an immature rating because of their mindless storyline that defers any responsibility from its protagonist's actions for the "glory" of killing shit in a totally hella fukkin' balls to da walls awesome sort of way. Whereas I would deem Okami a very mature game, because despite it's similar fighting focus, it is done with reason and motives and has a real impact on the characters in game. But if I did this you might say I was insulting the people who created GoW3 by saying they made something immature, and the flak for that is something I wouldn't want as a ratings board. I don't think you can blame the ESRB, it is something that is trying to do good and will always be demanded for by parents wishing to buy their kids video games. I remember one time my mother chastised me for the boob physics in a MGS3 cutscene when I had spent the last hour slitting throats. Those 'rents, they'll never make sense! I think the problem is that some parents aren't being parents. They either (a. use the ESRB like a guideline book or (b. don't even care what that little letter says on the box. If we had more parents knowing how mature their kid is and actually looking into the game instead of going on the GTA KILLS bandwangon, the world would be a better place. Instead, it looks like it could get worse either way. If you let your kid play violent video games, thats find with me. Just make sure you know the kid can handle it. That's all I ask. The "Mature" tag does not mean a work is mature or immature. It means it contains mature themes. Big, huge, enormous difference. Illegal drug use is considered a mature theme, even if it's in a bad Adam Sandler movie.
The thing with voluntary ratings is that they have to be somewhat objective. They have to say, "here is what this is, and here is our suggestion". If you start getting too subjective, people feel like they're being told what to think, and they don't like that. Many parents also like ratings to be super concise, where they can tell at a glance if something fits within their pre-conceived guidelines. They simply don't want to have to think about it, not when they can just say "'M' means 'no'". No offense, but I can just imagine the hell clerks everywhere would have to endure with your suggestion, Jonathon. Most parents understand (roughly) what "Mature" means, but retraining them with a much more ambiguous system would be agonizing. I can just hear all the "but what does "potentially disturbing" MEAN?" questions now. Remember, most people aren't very smart. There is also the hierarchy, which doesn't really flow in a linear way. Something can be disturbing without being offensive, for instance. I know you're mostly talking about suggestions here, but my point is that there is a LOT to consider. Frankly, I don't think a rating system that pleases everyone is possible, which is why we end up with these simplistic codes. IONCE TOLD A BITCH
ALL ABOUT MAH GAMES AND SHE WAS LIKE WHAT? CAUSE SHE A DOG AND DOGS LIKE BONES NOT GTA THAT SHIT FOR REAL. @pokota Yes we as a population have been trained about how the rating system works by the MPAA, and as any movie-goer knows that system is horribly flawed.
There is a documentary movie about the similar problems with the MPAA rating system called "This Film is Not Yet Rated," that shows some of the downfalls with such a system. Unfortunately the MPAA is a private organization that is shadier than the ESRB, so a lot of the movie is focused on the conspiracy behind their methods, but there is still a lot of good info. The ESRB is a tool for parents. They are supposed to be the decision makers on what their kids play and if they don't have a problem with their kids playing M rated games they can buy those games for their kids. I really, really like the ESRB. I've found it to be a very useful set of guidelines, and I'd bet we'd miss it if it wasn't there.
One problem I have about them, however, is that they often use the same vague warnings to describe very different games. As examples, let's compare Halo and Metal Gear Solid. Halo is a fun and action-packed game set in the far future, based around shooting at dangerous aliens and monsters, using unrealistic high-tech weaponry, with only occasional language and the only blood being purple stuff from the aliens. The plot is secondary to the shooting, but it's mostly a standard Good Guys v. Bad Guys adventure. I would have no problem with allowing my 9-year-old sister to play this game. The Halo games are rated M for "Blood and Gore, Language, and Violence". Metal Gear Solid is a slow and serious game set in an alternate present, where it is possible to graphically kill unremarkable humans with realistic weapons. The plot is very hard to follow, serious, and adult, and poses several sincere questions about morality. My little sister is far, far too young for these games. The Metal Gear Solid games are rated M for "Blood and Gore, Language, and Violence". See a problem? I just want to say that she sounds exaclty like Susan Sarandon.
which is a good thing, if it is anything at all To be perfectly honest, I don't believe most kids actually pay attention to the rating stickers. I never did. I was more interested in playing this cool title that my friends recommended than I was in the level of violence o_O The main problem with how people see children nowadays, is that they think, that kids are nothing more than a pieces of plasticine that can be formed however they want, that's why parents try to fence off their children from "bad" influences (often trying too hard and pushing them away with that attitude). But kids are more like foam rubber - you can shape them, but once you let go, they'll form their own shape, whether you want it or not. If a child gets more and more violent as he grows up, you can do whatever you want, even sedate him, but that will not help and frequently will only make things even worse. You can make your kid go to church, make him work out physically, feed him vegetables and read him Carl Jung before he goes to bed, but there's still a good chance that he will eventually beat up a hooker and then go and inject himself with heroin by the end of the day. Or not.
The only thing a good parent should do, is not to make his child die, that's it. Personality can not be shaped however you want, eventually it's the kid himself who makes all decisions. That's why we see people growing up in slums with alcoholic parents, and often they're not like their parents at all. And same can be said the other way around. That's why ESRB's existence is pointless in my humble opinion. I liked what you said Holmes, I don't know exactly how children would react to your system but 'Potentially Traumatising' sounds a lot less attractive than 'Adult-only'. One sounds repulsive, the other slightly risque.
Having said that though I still believe there should be a limit on how many adult-orientated games children play and how often they are allowed to play. I'm not saying they should have some sort of quota system - like only one per year or something stupid like that but children need enough space between playing the game and real-life to absorb what they've seen and make sense of it. @Holmes
"@ sqlrob- The descriptions on the ESRB website are just fine. The rating system it self and the way its implemented is not working." Sales to minors are down, I'll find the article discussing that and link it later. How is hte rating system as currently implemented not working? @Holmes
I guess he meant fantastic. :) Great article, kids are much more capable of handling stuff than society thinks. Everytime I read something about this topic immediately this music video comes to my mind. http://vimeo.com/25318752 It's really interesting if you realize that kid's play features violent content probably since the beginning of time. Cowboy & Indian, Cop & Robber, Sabertoothtiger & Guy with Spear (probably), the floor is lava, etc. One Piece: Pirate Warriors 2 has Dynasty Warriors vibesTecmo Koei's One Piece manga/anime action game is coming to North American PS3s this summer. One Piece: Pirate Warriors 2 has fan favorites Luffy, Sanji and Zoro joining new characters like Eneru for the first time to explor... more Battle Robot Spirits: Tons of anime mecha in one gameThis opening video for upcoming Japanese PSP game Battle Robot Spirits will either be a who's who of anime mecha or a mess of lasers and boxy metal heaps to you, depending on your interest level. I'm a huge f*cking nerd, so ... more Kamen Rider game trailer has gameplay, CG, Apollo GeistJust yesterday we brought you news of Kamen Rider: Battle Ride Wars, a soon-to-be-released PS3 game in the Dynasty Warriors mold. Turns out that that isn't entirely correct, as Namco Bandai's new trailer reveals the gam... more Finally, a new Dynasty Warriors-style Kamen Rider gameWell, it's about time! Toei's Kamen Rider was a Dynasty Warriors before Dynasty Warriors of a sort, defined as it was by a lone hero in a ridiculous costume effortlessly plowing through hordes of weak mini... more Persona 3 film dated for 2013 in JapanThe film adaptation of Persona 3 was confirmed in the middle of last year, but we've been left hanging since then. Pull those guns away from your head, people; the film has finally been dated. The first movie will land... more Aww Yiss: MF'n Devil Survivor 2 anime trailerI'm with our sister site Japanator in wondering why they didn't start with the first Devil Survivor game to make an anime, but that won't stop me from being excited about the upcoming Devil Survivor 2 adaptation, set to laun... more The Mass Effect anime is still a thing, here's the teaserRemember the Mass Effect anime project? That's still happening, and the trailer above is a new look at the first chapter: Paragon Lost. Instead of being about a really cool part of Mass Effect's timeline, like how Garrus bec... more The Nintendo Wii lives on thanks to Namco BandaiThings have been pretty dire for Wii owners for a good long while now. And now that Nintendo has the Wii U to worry about, things aren't likely to ever improve on that front. In fact, the platform holder doesn't currently hav... more Naruto Powerful Shippuden coming to the 3DS in March 2013Namco Bandai has announced that 3DS title Naruto Powerful Shippuden will be coming to North America in March 2013. This anime sidescroller comes from developers Inti Creates with a bit of help from Naruto game regulars Cyber... more Namco Bandai announces Project Versus JThe latest issue of Weekly Shonen Jump has hit shelves in Japan, and in it readers have found the announcement of a new game from Namco Bandai called Project Versus J. We know next to nothing about the title other than ... more |     Dtoid is... Dale North Editor-in-Chief Jim Sterling Reviews Editor Hamza Aziz Dir. Communications Conrad Zimmerman Managing Editor Jordan Devore PC Editor Andy Dixon Community Manager Rick Olson Dtoid.TV Producer Niero Gonzalez Publisher Editors Meet the team Our sites Flixist Japanator Tomopop Contact Us Suggest News Advertising General Info  |
4:00 PM on 11.08.2011
