Discussion: ESRB content descriptors

[Jabrwock]

Is the system THAT inaccurate, and would the inclusion of more descriptors "flood" the box with descriptors as the ESRB claims?

Or would the inclusion of too many descriptors overwhelm those who use the ESRB as a guide? Would parents be tuned out by seeing "sexual conduct" on every box, if it was used to describe everything from mild innuendos to full blown Leisure Suit Larry type stuff?

How useful would you find a system where the "major" content descriptors get put on the front of the box, and the "minor" ones get put on the back, as well as a short description of what each means.

For example, GTA:SA (decaffeinated version)

Front: M 17+, Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs

Back:
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

Blood and Gore - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts
Intense Violence - Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, gore, weapons and depictions of human injury and death
Strong Language - Explicit and/or frequent use of profanity
Strong Sexual Content - Graphic references to and/or depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity
Use of Drugs - The consumption or use of illegal drugs

Should all this information be on the box? Or should the box merely list the descriptors, and then point the consumer to the website for descriptor information? Should retailers hand out an ESRB flyer with each purchase, that details what all the ratings and descriptors mean, so that parents (the ones who care, let's be realistic here), can have at hand the information needed to decipher exactly what the ESRB considers "Strong Sexual Content"... (sort of like what some pharmacy chains do with prescriptions...)

Would moving the descriptors to the front make them more visible? Expanding the ESRB label to accomodate all the descriptors?

[beemoh]

I'd like to point out the more recent tactic employed by the UK film industry, which is to annotate ratings with things like "contains one use of foul language", because somebody swears once.

Do we really need patronising like that?

[Grahamr]

lol,that would even lead to spoilers.



i think that the ratings should show both negative and positive content descriptors. they already do,to some extent. see the "Edutainment" descriptor.

[ZippyDSMlee]

But seriously what more can be done wrap the package in a black label and have all the descriptors on the front and the back giving you full descriptions of the Offending Offenses in it? 0_o


Give me a break people can seem to understand the moves rating setup and the ESRB is going OUT OF THEIR WAY to add more info on the package...

what more do you need...well..ok things are missing....

EARLY CHILDHOOD (G)
Titles rated EC (Early Childhood) have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.

EVERYONE (G-PG)
Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.

EVERYONE 10+ (PG)
Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.

TEEN (PG13)
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.

MATURE (PG13-R)
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

ADULTS ONLY (R-NC17)
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

RATING PENDING (for courts to decide)
Titles listed as RP (Rating Pending) have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.)


From my stand point descriptors need to go and acouple things changed.

E for everyone
its to vague we have to keep it simple

EC/G

"G" would be non violent puzzle and learning games change EARLY CHILDHOOD to CHILDHOOD MEDIA
-----------------------
E/PG
needs to be 2 lvls

"PG" would be games like Zelda where you fight and have more things going on,some puzzle games can be in here since some puzzle games are not quite "G"

EVERYONE 10+ is ok for PG lvl 2 teh hardcore G.
---------
Teen/PG13
I think PG13 should come in 2 levels

PG13 would be like Metroid prime and FFX and the like

PG15? could involve games that have a bit harder content like DQ8 mabye?
no the bouncies kinda knocker that up a level...mmm no wait I am distracted err yes DQ8 ..possable PG15 list

Dq8
Sudeki(minus gbbing)
UT03-04
Morrowind
Oblivion

M/R for a logical world
M16+ GTA,Dq8,Sudeki,UT03-04,Morrowind,Oblivion,

M18+ VTM:BL,Fallout?,Bioshock,


M/R
M is ok as it is one could drop it to 16 or 15 and fix that 2nd level of PG13 as well as give more space to M 18... but then fundies will bitch and moan...like they wont anyway..

M18+ once you hit 18 hands off and the more gore the better
now that we have a 2nd level of M we can have AO and AO is for Sex games



NC17/AO
AO simply will not do...simply will not do at all because their are games based on gore that go above M on violence alone and "banning" its sale in retail stores is fcking silly I can see the banning of Porn games or running them "underground" with that said I already added a 2nd level to M.

[Tollwutig]

I think the biggest issue the ESRB faces isn't the accuracy of it's ratings, it the methodology they employ to obtain the ratings. The problem is NO ONE knows how the ESRB goes about it specifically.

We all know that 3 raters review a video and fill out a questionaire on thier opinion of the video. We also know that the publisher submits a questionaire with the video describing the worst that can be done.

What is unknown is three fold:
1) What the publisher submission videos look like. It supposed to be gameplay, but noone ever sees it besides the raters. Thus the average parent can not determine if they agree with the raters or not.

2) No one knows what training the raters receive. In addition, all of the raters come from New York city. While I will agree this is a probably the most diverse city in the country there is one problem. New York is perceived as liberal to most of the country. No matter how conservative a New Yorker you find, to some parts of Alabama or Georgia, you're going to be perceived as a frightening left winger.

3) The definitions of the content descriptors. I hate to keep bringing it up but the Harvard studies are extremely accurate with THIER definitions of the content descriptors. Unfortunately they were unable to use the ESRB definitions due to the fact that the ESRB won't disclose it's specific definitions. So Harvard used very liberal definitions of violence. They had no option without cooperation from the ESRB.


Over almost all of the ESRBs problems could be solved by being more open about the process, something they refuse to do.

[Jabrwock]

I'd like to point out the more recent tactic employed by the UK film industry, which is to annotate ratings with things like "contains one use of foul language", because somebody swears once.

Do we really need patronising like that?
It's what Rogers Video does with their movie rentals. I remember the cover for "South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut".

* Sex/Nudity: talk of female and male body parts; topless animated women; sex off-screen; animated sex toys; constant talk of sex
* Drugs/Alcohol: talk of using drugs; drug paraphernalia; alcohol bribery; casual drinks
* Violence/Scariness: bloody operation; Kenny goes to Hell; fatal shootings; countless people are blown apart; bloody, gory animation
* Objectional Words/Phrases: way too many to count (over 300)

Oddly enough, Rogers doesn't provide the same detail for their video games...

[Michael James Nock]

I belive a UK video like system would work (I live in the UK)

It works simply enough, like:

Language: Once, stong, often, mild
Sex/Nuidity: Mild sex reference
Blood/Gore: Once, Mild

It may not be idea, but do you have any better ideas?

[Silver_Derstin]

Over almost all of the ESRBs problems could be solved by being more open about the process, something they refuse to do.

Very few rating boards would like to be open when their process clearly appears to be based on "Bribes and the Company idea of T for Teen".

[ZippyDSMlee]

I belive a UK video like system would work (I live in the UK)

It works simply enough, like:

Language: Once, stong, often, mild
Sex/Nuidity: Mild sex reference
Blood/Gore: Once, Mild

It may not be idea, but do you have any better ideas?

what dose often mean? sex/nudity need to have at least 5 descriptors all by itself,Language needs 3 more and Blood/Gore needs 5 more... what I am saying here is descriptors are futile and add to confustion...

A simple 2 tier system set around the 4 age groupings would be best,young kids,kids,teens and adult,not only is it simple but its coherent enough to better rate games than the movie industry can rate movies .