I think the change is simple.
Let's parents and consumers make the decision. Do not rate something M for Mature. Simply state what is in the game: violence, profane language, sexual content, etc.

How about we just go

G
PG
PG-13
R
NC 17
N/R

That way there is no confusion.

Or we can take the Microsoft and Sony Approch

Sex violence langage gore politics scary
00 00 00 00 00 00

So that way a game with a rating of 0501xx03xx01 would be a game with light ammont of sex, high end violence, no lanugage, fair ammont of gore, no politcs and is extreamly scary.

I mean, then that way everyone would know what is going on right?

If it's McCarthyism, well then the solution is obvious: get Walter R. Murrow to invite the ESRB on their show to hoist themselves by their own petard.

Or the Daily Show, or whatever.

I'm warning you, this is going to be a long post!!

My problem with this is it is SONY who wants to secure a Teen rating for his game. It is commercial pressure - NOT censorship - that is limiting his artistic freedom.

His attack on the inconsistency of ratings is also erroneous. There's a hidden assumption here that the motion picture ratings are somehow immune to inconsistency, but that's flawed.

Try showing a penis in a film - automatic M rating or R-Rating if it's erect. Furthermore, showing a man's ass will get an M-rating, but there are movies where you see womens bare breasts that are rated only PG.

This of course ties into my next point - Sex in games. Yes, I agree it's moronic that the ESRB automatically gives a higher rating to games with sex in them.

But games can't even develop decent connections between characters. Games rarely work on developing a love interest between characters other than those used as a plot device for the player to go on a hero quest to save her (and it's ALWAYS a Her). Even friendships between characters are rarely properly fleshed out.

If game developers can't get normal relationships to work successfully in game milieus, how the hell are they expected to get sexual relationships to work?

The "sex" Eggebrect is talking about and wants to put in games is simply porn, and despite what people claim, porn isn't mature. It's made for teenagers and those in their mid twenties to titillate them. It is, on the whole, exclusive of women. Do we really want to exclude women from games further?

However, if these developers wanted Lair to be a gore filled sex fest aimed at teenagers and men in their early 20s, then they could simply release the game on PC. Console exclusivity be damned!

This is why independent theatre, book, magazine/comic and film publishers formed - the artists found mainstream commercial outlets were too restrictive, so people pushing at the boundaries of other media formed their own organisations and self published.

But developers won't do this. No games company is willing to sacrifice its profit to create "art". In every instance, their first priority is the all mighty dollar.

Part of this is the exorbitant price of making games, to be sure, but as long as game companies are going to allow themselves to be influenced by profit, then games will never be seen as art.

Remember - most of the greatest artists in history died poor. It's only in the last 100 years or so, since the creation of recording devices and implementation of intellectual property rights that Artists have made "decent" money, and the best artists in the world are still poor despite all of this.

ZippyDSMlee,

Not to get too personal but what's your problem with sex in games? Do you have the same views on sex in other mediums? If the appropriate content descriptor is on the back of the box I fail to see the problem.


Andrew Eisen

And zippy is on a mutli post roll

Heres how I'd ahev the ESRB

EC for learning and childhood development

E for all

E 10 for mature kids

T13+ for teens

M15+ for mature teens

17+ for adults no restriction other than gratiutius sex

AO=sex and thats fine by me

E. Zachary Knight
the very fact it has become X is the reason it has become invalid and needs to be replaced.

Peter Suciu
try again if a parent is letting a 12 year old play games that are 17+ without even checking what the games entail then tis pointless to even have a ratings system.

Zigs
Manhunt 2 is basically the same thing only looking better and since it dared to be on the WII the ESRB sided on caution and AO'd it and everyone started to run around like chickens with thier heads cut off forgetting that they supported the game until the AO sign.

AO has been highjacked much like X was,AO needs to be reworked for porn games only and a new rating based on violence be put in place for retailers to sneer at but not ban for fear of fou market loss.

I think a few good steps would be to start building up M17 as a solid R not the wishy washy thing it has become,to do that you need a T or M 15+ level for lite r content to go to this can be helpful to raise overly violent PG13 games to a reasonable level as well, with this in place M17 can be used for content under the level thats in "Manhunt 2" ,while manhunt 2 and NC17 level stuff can get a 18R level and all of this censorship nonsense can be put into the ground.

This is why as a veteran video game reviewing (15 years and counting), for such magazines as Newsweek, PC Magazine, etc., I HATE the video game industry. Anytime anything like this happens they label it censorship. Some games SHOULD get an AO rating. Big deal. No one forced these companies to make this CRAP.

I lost faith in the ESRB until Manhunt 2 received an AO. That restored some faith! Let's see more reasonable ratings. Scarface should be AO as well.

And before anyone says, "M is 17, AO is 18"... the point is that you might let your 12 year old play an M. An AO is truly meant for adults. Why oh why is this such a hard concept for people to get.

@Zigs

how do you know that manhunt 2 is basically the same thing as the original?

all we really know about manhunt 2 is that it was banned in the UK and other country's and that it recieved an AO rating, pretty much for gratuitous scenes of torture

did you ever once consider that perhaps Rockstar pushed the envelope too far in this mater and the AO rating is well deserved?

and before you say that AO should not be given for violence, let me point out that NC-17 can be given out by the MPAA for non-sexual content as well, the reason we never hear about it, is because unlike Rockstar, movie studio's don't leak what the film was originally rated when they have to rework it for another rating

And X is better? There's a reason the MPAA dropped that cert, y'know.

Does anyone know what the diffence in E and E10 is? Kingdom Hearts 2 is E10 and it's a damn disney game...basically.

@ I love 1st Amendment
Far too many ratings their if you ask me, if parents apparently get confused with the current system, they'll have no chance at all with 11 categories

Here's how i'd change it:

E: Every one
PG: Parental Guidance (12+)
T: Teen (15+)
M: Mature (18+)
X: Explicit content (18+(only with really heavy sexual content))

A: Adult (18+) is a big nono, people will look at the word 'adult' and think "porn rating", which seems to be the main problem with AO at the moment

And just when I thought I would have a great game to play... So much for that. There goes another one...

Mumps

you can to a point,are they equally to blame probably not,but the ESRB inaction in damning in itself....


My Issue with porn games is threw current laws and rules,I merely wish the ESRB to label it and the games are filtered to the correct retailer,nothing more nothing less,if the retailer has issues with it then somethign needs to be done about them..

For those of you supporting the MPAA, the NC-17 is also a kiss of death for more or less the same reasons.

@Corey

I disagree. They knew what they were doing well before they started, cause they know companies like Nintendo don't allow AO titles, and companies like Wal Mart don't sell AO titles, and if they rectal-fist Take-Two hard enough, they just might go away.*

*Really though, eventually it's going to backfire and the ESRB will probably eat it. They just have to pick a more defensible target than Manhunt 2 (something really artsy) and watch the monkeys start flinging shit at each other.

zig, you gotta stop using those invisible sarcasm tags!!! :P

@I love 1st Amendment

"Personally I don’t even think that they should have a rating system."

Bingo!

Or at least, a powerless rating system, like the MPAA.*

*Does anyone but Sam Walton's rapidly decomposing corpse or a mainstream theatre even acknowledge that the MPAA system exists? Why do we have this standard when it is moving pictures of real people fucking/sucking/killing/snorting etc it is widely available to anyone but when it's a heap of ugly polygons that's suppose to look like tits they throw down their bible and shit down our throats?

I too find the Senior rating strange. What's the point? Also, a Casual game rating? That says nothing about the content.

I agree with Archgabe. Your ratings are too complex.

I think that we should start marking all Japanese games with a large Rising Sun(red dot on white background) where the ESRB rating is, and the word 'Jap' printed on the side of the package. That way Christian mothers can protect their daughters from the Japanese influences that might pull them away from God the lord almighty.

@Archgabe
The proposed 'S' rating would work like an 'EC' rating, games for those whose cognitive abilities are not on par with that of a normal humans. The games would have things like a 'pill alarm' that reminds the player when to take their pills, and if the game is on and doesn't get a response within 15 minutes, it will trigger the player's medic alert bracelet.

Get to it ESRB!

We really need to have a new rating system. The one we have now have too big of age gab. We are growing so fast these day. Here what I think the new one should be:

EA: Early Childhood (but who is going to use it)
E: Every one
LC: Late Childhood (8+)
PT: Pre-Teen (10+)
T: Teen (12+)
YA: Young Adult (14+)
M: Mature (16+)
A: Adult (18+)
X: Explicit content (18+(only with really heavy sexual content))
CG: Casual Gamer (any one)
S: Senior (50+)

Okay, so at best we have the ESRB employing a broken system, right? Pretty much par for the course in our society as a whole. And like all other such cases, it needs some reworking. Here are my suggestions for a uniform ratings system, which took me about 15 minutes:

1) Leave almost all the ratings in their current name. The exception is the AO rating. I would rename it as A18+ because I think AO is a little too stigmatizing.

2) The descriptors will be used as a point system to determine the rating.

3) Descriptors will be divided into the following classes:
Blood & Gore
Violence
Sexual themes
Emotional distress
Language
Age related themes

4) Each class will be divided into levels, which will have point values assigned. The following examples will further explain:

Blood & Gore:
Level 1- An injurie with severity up to the point of requiring stitches, or having more than 10 such injuries
Level 2 - An injury requiring stiches or other such closure up to 50 stitches, or more than 10 such injuries
Level 3 - Injuries requiring greater medical care than previously specified, but not including dismemberment, etc.
Level 4 - Injuries involving dismemberment or disembowelment, but not necessarily deadly
Level 5 - Injuries which cause instantaneous death
Note: The number of occurrances and durations of these situations will be factored into sublevels after focus groups have been used.

Language:
Level 1 - Language acceptable for all individuals
Level 2 - Language acceptable for demographics watching evening broadcast television
Level 3 - Language acceptable for prime time broadcast television
Level 4 - Vulgar, but language generally accepted by consenting adults
Level 5 - The 7 words that can't be said on TV (sorry, I couldn't be more official sounding here)
Note: Focus groups would be used here as above, but include analysis of what words fall under what categories

I'll stop the examples there since this is already getting long.

5) Focus groups will be conducted every 5 years to keep the values updated with social standards.

6) The points assigned will determine the rating. Exceptions may be made in extreme cases.

7) All descriptors will be listed somewhere in game packaging materials. Packaged materials themselves count

So there it is. Is it a perfect system? Definitely not. But it's uniform. And it's just a simple draft for an idea. Any further suggestions?

@ Zippy

X was the red-headed step child of the movie industry. It was not treated as a real rating by the MPAA and therefore was not taken seriously by theatres.

The AO rating was designed to be a valid rating. It was meant to be the NC-17 not the X. It was the console manufacturers and retailers that turned it to X. They should not change it, but enforce it as a valid rating.

E. Zachary Knight
Why can't they foresee the issues at hand and go ahead and evolve "X to NC17" why must they wait 4 more years to do it thats my question,there is a lot of history to look at and say we should go ahead and do this now.

@ Corey

The esrb is at fault for making it so games with violence and no hardcore sexuality gets an AO rating by which consoles would not allow Manhunt 2.
The esrb should only give games that have hardcore sexuality AO ratings, not games like Manhunt 2. Because of the esrb taking away our right to witness certain violence, we cannot really expect to see alot of scenes that would make a horror game for instance disturbing. I do not want to worry about not being able to be disturbed when I get a horror type game because I know that the esrb is violating my ammendment right by threatening video game companies that if they do not take out certain scenes that the game would get an AO by which the esrb knows that the consoles do not allow AO rated games.

If gamers keep on saying that the esrb is not at fault then we could expect to see more censoring that is against our rights. If the consoles do not allow AO rated games, then the esrb should not be giving a rating of AO to games like Manhunt 2 just because of the violence.

If politicians that are for gamers rights seen this comment then I would suggest they take the ones that are in charge of the esrb to court to get rid of the AO rating for games like Manhunt 2.

@ Gameboy, how about a change from 17 to 16.

@Corey:

Good point! Retailers have notoriously banned games, movies, books, & music long before ratings systems were in place soley based on attention grabbing headlines and hype and they continue to do it to this day.

It seems those who would seek to censor something do not learn from history that censoring leads to proliferation of that which is censored.

The ESRB is not the problem. They have never banned a game from being sold or refused rating. The problem is the retailers and the console makers who wont allow AO games on their systems and in their stores. If we want anything to change its those groups we should be after, not the ESRB. When all games can be sold at retail there wont be a problem anymore.

@ The Central Scrutinizer

I aggree with what you said about the content to affecting the quality. The Sims is another game that allowed you to marry someone of the same gender.

I think that he is just complaining for complaining's sake.

I realize this veers off the current discussion but it needs to be pointed out that, despite what Eggebrecht claims, that there are no games that portray homosexuality, the game FABLE allows you to court and marry another man. Its done with the greatest taste and decorum and shows how sexuality in a game can be portrayed for all sexes and orientations in an acceptable way.

Frankly just saying games need more sex is a little silly. It sure as hell hasn't helped the quality of movies and if you're using the argument in the context of "games as art" then you better choose your words wisely and be careful of what you wish for.

Back to the current discussion: I agree and have always said the ESRB needs more transparency, we've all barked up that tree ad neauseum, but all this talk means nothing if the hardware platform manufactures won't allow certain content to be played on their systems. It won't matter what you call it or rate it if Nintendo, Msoft or Sony won't allow it.

-mw

@ Joran Lund

It can only be a double standard when the organization is rating both medias. The ESRB and the MPAA have nothing to do with each other (even thought the ESRB tried to work with them in the beginning.) There is no double standard here. We have to different mediums being rated differently.

@ Terrible Tom, DarrelBT and Zippy

I am not saying that it is the lesser of two evils. I am saying that it is good and will evolve and adapt to become better. We cannot expect them to be perfect right off the bat.

@Jabrwock, "Methinks before bashing the ESRB he should take a serious look at the ratings systems in the EU first."

Why?

He sells his games in the US. ESRB policies directly affect the sales of his games. If he sees something wrong with the ESRB, then why can't he comment on it?

I'm sure he'll be voicing his opinions on the EU rating system as well, if he finds something wrong with it.

DarrelBT - Yes its better but its not okay. It doesn't sit well and it doesn't make me happy. It doesn't give me confidence in buying a game and it makes me feel like they are trying to force their morals and culture onto me. I hate any organization that restricts content and I hate any government that represents me that refuses to give me freedom.

Just because something is the lesser evil doesn't mean we should support it in fear of having something worse. Going for the lesser evil is absolutely absurd. We should be fighting for what is right not for what is better than terribly wrong. Maybe you guys don't desire Freedom as much as me but personally I'll bitch, moan, complain, protest, preach and fight over not having enough freedom until that freedom is mine to be taken. I can't get myself in the mindset of conforming to popular belief that one culture is more important than any other and should be preserved at the cost of liberty.

@ Jack Thompson

I apologize for that mix up about The Warriors game.

I would be willing to challenge you any time on a video game situation. I have been through a harsh situation with my family when I was both a preteen and a teenager to the point that I started my life over without them and at that time period games like Mortal Kombat and Doom came out and I spent alot of time playing them to escape reality. Me being 25 I have to say that entertainment like those games kept me out of trouble rather than me going out and doing illegal things.

Now about the esrb, I believe that it is not right that a game can get the AO rating for a certain amount of violence by which those consoles do not allow games with that rating. I believe that it is against our ammendment rights.

I actually like Jack to come on for a challenge and also since sometimes he presents us with news going around about video games.

All of us gamers should go out of our way to make sure that games cannot be rated AO for a certain amount of violence. We should do whatever we can to cause the esrb to get rid of the AO rating for violent games so we would not have to worry about another game in the future getting messed over like Manhunt 2.

I have faith that Rockstar games would go out of their way to have the full version of Manhunt 2 available for the consoles without putting up with that AO nonsense. Rockstar, keep putting up a fight for our ammendment rights. If gamers went out of their way to not have anything censored than I see a bright future for video games.

Also, on the update content, why do you want a T rating for an obvious M idea? That's right, more sales! Come on, Eggebrecht, at least TRY to disguise your desire to sell your game to as many kids as you can.

The only reason you see a need for an on between rating, is because the ESRB has let it's ratings slide. AO is a veritable ban. M is the new AO because it has been so villanized. T is too ambiguous, you have Jak and Dexter alongside games about Desert Storm. E wasn't strong enough, so E10 was added to account for games like Kingdom Hearts. The ESRB is allowing the inevitable ratings slide to effect their game plan too much. But, this doesn't mean they should create new ratings, or have some other overhaul.

McCarthyism was a poor choice of words, I think. However, he does have a point about satire. If you cannot satire an organization/institution/organization then the ability to have open intellectual discussion becomes last. This is because satire is a form of criticism, often the lightest, and criticism must be allowed. If you can't call your cheat "hot coffee", then how could you ever openly say that the ESRB is wrong about something?

This having been said, the ESRB exists to help protect the industry from politicians. It is a concession that we make to allow us the freedom to make games as we want them... as long as the rules of ratings are followed, anything we make should theoretically be allowed (barring criminal content). The problem is that, like it or not, the USAmerica was founded by puritans. Those values have built our society...I mean, we actually tried to ban alcohol for God's sake. It would be awesome to see a game with a homosexual relationship... the fact you could kiss a guy in Bully thrilled me to no end. But he is right...first we have to get over the idea that sex of any kind is wrong and dirty. But this is a cultural thing and the ESRB is only responding to culture.

So... is this somehow related to Lair's delayed release date? Well, hurry up! I wanna ride a dragon into war!

He makes an interesting point about the difficulties of portraying games as art and yet treating some subjects as Taboo. I may not play games on those subjects (just like I may not watch movies on those subjects), but having the option would be nice.

@ Jack Thompson

Um... What the hell? What does that have to do with anything? At all?

"Hey, guys, I just saved a ton on money on my car insurance by switching to Gieco!"

I think a rating in between T and M like a MT15+ for Mature Teens 15 and older is a great idea.

John Bruce,
Annnd... what?

As has been mentioned before, many things are "addictive" or can be "obsessed" over.

Even religion. We know for a FACT that individuals get so involved and brainwashed by religion that it may be dangerous, even harmful to children? Perhaps we should "protect our children" from the harmful, addictive, influences of religion. Both the mental, verbal, physical, and/or sexual abuse caused in the name of religion either against those brainwashed and addicted to religion or victims of those who are brainwashed and addicted to religion need to be "protected" from such "harmful" stimuli.

Think it's unreasonable? Think it's extreme? I'm just showing you the extent one could take your arguments to. Or, as always, are those things that you approve of above your arguments against things you don't personally, religiously, and/or politically support?

Hey, you started it. The Topic was the value and motivation of the ESRB. Perhaps you should create your own blog. I'm sure SOMEONE will link to it or send you... readers.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Ok now lets see if he is willing to do something about it as well as bitch about it.

@Darrel BT
.... wait what?


I was talking about Julian Eggebrecht.

@ GP

Damn. Well, I guess I should of known better. It wasn't some "breaking news" about his impending disbarment and he didn't even insult anyone or imply you are a terrible person who invites children into the back of your van with candy or whatever lies he could come up with. It was utterly non-Jack behavior.

@ GregoriusH

I'd rather not have a 15+ rating than not have a 17+ rating.

@GamerDad

While calling it McCarthyism is inaccurate at best, it does sound reminiscent of the old Comics Code Authority.

The American system cares about only one culture. Be it politics or organizations such as the ESRB fact is they only represent ONE culture and that culture is not the one I wish to belong to.

"Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite. All of which are American dreams "

I suggest he do a little bit of research about McCarthy. He was a SENATOR. Read: Federal Government. The ESRB is an industry, voluntary ratings board. Two very different issues, and hardly comparable.

You have an issue, Factor 5? Refuse ESRB rating, go PC, go online distribution. It's a risk, but if you are so confident in your 'art,' the ability to make butt-loads of cash from Wal-Mart (and other big-box) sales shouldn't matter, right? If your organization had more guts, it'd make all the sexual content you desire, all the 'Hot Coffee' easter-eggs you want, and put together all the art you like. But, you don't want to break the mold - you want to sit back, reap all the benefits the ESRB garners, and complain that your art is being censored. There is nothing stopping anyone from releasing whatever game content they wish, only their wish to capitalize off of mainstream distribution. The ESRB keeps it this way, despite its issues. I'd rather it be the ESRB than moral-sewer/ protect the children politicians.

Yes, the ESRB isn't perfect. Yes, there is room for improvement. Yes, the ESRB has become more resolute in keeping the industry's rules surrounding video game ads/trailers. But McCarthyism? I think not. In fact, I would argue the ESRB keeps McCarthy-style censorship at bay.

Methinks before bashing the ESRB he should take a serious look at the ratings systems in the EU first. The US may have a defacto ban through AO, but in the EU, they have an ACTUAL ban on games that try to push the envelope.

I agree that a "higher than T but lower than M" rating would probably be a good idea, same as there is a "PG" and "PA 15+" in some Cdn provinces. It would provide for games that are mature enough to rate a "high-teen", but not so high they'd require a "adult-ish" rating (since using AO is clearly out...)

ESRB is not as bad as The Old Comic Codes. The OLD comic Cdes has MORE restrictions than you can shake a stick at.

If the ESRB was REALLY like the old Comic Codes, GTA, Halo and the like wouldn't be made AT ALL.

just because something "is not as bad" doesn't mean its good or even okay. Restrictions should NEVER be tolerated. The idea of regulating games is a flaw. People should be responsible for what they purchase for themselves or their children. There is NO NEED for the ESRB acting like they are our parents when it comes to video games.

@Terrible Tom,

True, but at least it's better than a TOTAL ban.

Er Jack...

I hate to break it to you but...

You're addicted to the internet.

Why else would you be obsessive enough to stalk everyone you hate by posting e-mails against them.

Also, you post on almost EVERY new-site that says anything negative about you. Isn't that being a tad...obsessive? Like you're googling your name for anyone who criticises you.

Not to defend the ESRB here but McCarthysim? Factor 5 needs to get a book on McCarthyism. Also, this opinion was given in a country, on a continent, that features ACTUAL government censorship, control, and banning of "game speech"?

Europe would be much better off with a self-regulated and independent ESRB ratings system frankly.

But that doesn't diminish his overall point that the ESRB is odd, quirky, secretive, and often completely misses the forest for the trees. But then again, if the ESRB DID the job parents WANT it to do... I'd be out of a job.

GamerDad.com
"Going Beyond the ESRB to Help Parents"

I don't reall think it's the ESRB that's backwards.

They're just reflecting the backwardness of Americans. You see the same stuff everywhere.

Nudity, even the non-sexual kind, is to be banned from media everywhere at all costs. The Attorney General is covering statues with sheets, for God's sake!

Profanity the same. Radio and TV stations get fined hundreds of thousands of dollars just because a guest on a live interview sid "fuck". Once.

But violence, that's different. The more the better. However, if there's any blood, then that's a no-no.

It doesn't make ANY sense.

UK and other places have a 15 rating. I don't know why the ESRB can't have one. They made a 10 and up rating.

I agree with this guy, I mean what ARE the guidlines for a M-rated game?

With video games being treated like this no wonder people still think they are all for kids and not adults.

Having unclear standards is a problem, but not allowing people to make fun of the ESRB is a big problem.

Does anyone actually have a ctation abotu the ESRB forcing the removal of killing little sisters in Bioshock? I've heard that bandied abotu here, but everything I've read from the developers said it was never in the game. They considered it, but thought it would make it into the wrong kind of game, much like the killing of civilians isn't allowed in Gears of War.

Actually speaking ot the article, the man couldn't have said it better. America has become so ass backwards that great art that has been there for years will be defaced in the name of "the children"

Ah, yes... you never know if there's another Senator Joe in the government who disapproves of something (in this case, violence in games) and suddenly decides it shouldn't exist (just like Senator Joe did with communism).

Conservative America is so screwy these days.

Now we need a film called This GAME is Not Yet Rated.