[QUOTE]Former ESRB Rater’s Article Now Available Online

GamePolitics readers may recall our recent coverage of former ESRB rater Jerry Bonner’s criticism of the video game industry’s content rating board and its practices (see: Ex-Game Rater Dishes the Dirt… ESRB Boss Fires Back).

At the time we were only able to cite excerpts from the April issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly. However, the full article, including a rebuttal from ESRB president Patricia Vance (left), is now available on 1up.

It’s definitely worth a read. [/QUOTE]

[url]http://gamepolitics.com/2008/03/15/former-esrb-raters-article-now-available-online/#comments[/url]

[QUOTE]I used to scoff at videogame reviewers who complained about all the terrible games they were "forced" to play. I don't do that anymore, because I understand. I worked for the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), the industry's only official body for evaluating and labeling game content, and I rated approximately 700 games during my time there.

So I know what it's like to play (and, more often, watch) lousy games. More importantly, I know what's wrong with the industry's rating system, which has had a rough ride lately after the Grand Theft Auto Hot Coffee scandal, Manhunt 2 Mature-rating controversy, and -- worst of all -- pressure from politicians to legally regulate the system.

I'd like to point out the problems and offer solutions. But first, a word about the ESRB itself. The majority of the people I encountered there were hardworking, intelligent folks who were just as passionate about videogames and the gaming lifestyle as you or I. My intentions here are to speak to those at the ESRB who truly care about videogames and to kick them out of their complacency. You have the power to change the ratings system before it becomes irretrievably lost. Something desperately needs to happen here because the alternative -- a government mandated and controlled rating scheme -- is a downright frightening concept. Here are six ways to improve things....

1. Reboot the system

The ESRB should be flexible, ready to change quickly or move forward as fast as this rapidly evolving industry. They did adopt the E10+ rating in 2005 and hired six full-time raters this past spring. While these changes are nice, I believe they need to go a bit further.

First and foremost, the ESRB's ratings system desperately needs to be updated. Its fundamental flaw is the "lame duck" Adults Only rating that no one will support (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have repeatedly stated that no AO game would be allowed on their consoles, while retail outlets like Wal-Mart and Target have refused to stock AO-rated games, thereby banishing them to a retail version of the Phantom Zone). ESRB management has talked about changing the system, but for now that's all it is -- talk. Any monumental change would have to be approved by the board at parent agency the Entertainment Software Association, and they do nothing on a whim. My suggestion is this: Change the letter ratings to E(veryone), E(veryone)10+, T(een)13, T(een)16, and M(ature). AO goes the way of the dodo and Mature now becomes the top of the scale, recommending that players be 18 and older to purchase. My other strong suggestion is to do away with the static content descriptors ("cartoon violence," etc.) and use a more free-form approach like the Motion Picture Association of America, which tailors its descriptors for specific movie content.

2. Play the games

What the general public may not know is that the ESRB's current pool of full-time raters (six people: three men and three women) does not actually play the games that they rate. They just watch submitted videotapes or DVDs of someone else playing the game. Now, when the switch was made from the use of a large pool of part-time raters to the current group of full-timers, the ESRB did decide to have the full-time raters actually play games as well, but these were rarely games that we dealt with in the rating process. They were just "random" titles from the vast ESRB archive, culled for busywork. And the raters were only required to play the games for four hours, anyway. For some titles, this is more than enough; for others, it is woefully inadequate.

Instead of watching videotapes or DVDs of gameplay on a never-ending quest for the ever-elusive "pertinent content," I would strongly suggest having the raters play the games to completion and carefully log their findings throughout the playtest. I've already heard the ESRB's argument on this one: "That'll take way too long and it will compromise our turn-around time." My solution to that is simple: Hire more people. The ESRB is a relatively small organization with about 30 full-time employees. This can be bolstered a bit, and I'm sure the developers and publishers can wait an extra week or so for their ratings if they know that a better, more thorough job is being done.

3. Forget parity

Parity to the ESRB is like dots to Pac-Man or blood to Dracula -- a life-sustaining fuel. The logic goes like this: If game X gets a Teen rating, then it stands to reason that the sequel will get the same and so on and so forth into infinity. In my time as a rater this concept just handcuffed us more than helped us, because nine times out of 10 the other raters had no idea that the game we were viewing was the sixth in a continuing franchise. Not knowing "the parity" became a huge, confusing issue. Forget the whole concept of parity, or minimize the dependence on it, and judge each individual game solely on its content and nothing else. It just makes things easier that way.

4. Drop the curtain

I used to tell a joke while working at the ESRB that their acronym should be changed to CIA -- I never understood why the board was so secretive about their modus operandi and why we, as raters, couldn't be known to the general public or ever speak to a reporter. I finally asked about this and was told that it was for our protection, to "save" us from unscrupulous publishers or journalists who might offer us money for a favorable rating or some inside information. The idea of it sounded absurd to me -- people going to those shady lengths over game ratings? Seemed a bit excessive....

Realistically, there is nothing to hide at the ESRB. Everything was above board as far as I could tell and all the employees are well-adjusted adults who can handle themselves in complicated situations. But by acting in a secretive, mysterious way, the ESRB creates an appearance of impropriety. This serves no purpose. And if the day does come when the ESRB drops the curtain, then the general public would be in a position to offer its own ideas on improving the system as well.

5. Let the raters rate

It was my understanding when I was hired that I would actually be rating games. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case in some instances. The raters were viewed as more of an "electoral college," and our ratings were not always the final ones issued. Sometimes, we'd see a full letter rating change (a game we gave an M would be lowered to a T, for example, or a T raised to an M). Other times it would be a simple content-descriptor change (we would give a game the "mild cartoon violence" descriptor and it would be changed to "comic mischief"). To be fair, if/when our ratings were altered, it was usually just a simple content-descriptor change. But when this would happen, we were rarely given a sufficient explanation as to why the rating was tweaked. This was extraordinarily frustrating. The other raters and I would debate long and hard to come up with what we thought was a logical and intelligent rating for each and every game. To have it changed without any input from us was, in a word, ridiculous. Trust the raters. I know, firsthand, that they are smart and conscientious people. Let them do the jobs they were hired to do.

6. We need competition

Back in the day, the ESRB wasn't the only game in town. For a time, Sega and 3D0 had their own internal ratings systems, and there was also the Recreational Software Advisory Council, which folded in 1999. I know that the ESRB is the only ratings system "officially" recognized by Congress in 1994, but it seems that Congress has fallen out of love with the ESRB as of late. Who is to say that some upstart entrepreneurs couldn't contest the ESRB's status, especially now? Who says that the ESRB has to be the only game in town? The threat alone of a competing ratings entity would force the ESRB to take a long, hard look at how they are doing things and, in turn, make the necessary changes to move forward. Some may say that a competing system would just confuse things further, that it could invite government regulation because politicians could claim that the industry no longer has the ability to field a single, dependable regulating body. But what I'm suggesting here is capitalism at its finest -- the American Way, if you will. Compete or perish. We all know that the best Madden games are made when 2K puts out a strong contending product, right? So there you go. Competition produces results. Lack of competition...well, you get the idea.

One example of the ESRB's inconsistency came at the expense of Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which shipped with a Teen rating. When modders altered character models to appear naked in the PC version, the ESRB re-rated the game Mature. Unlike Hot Coffee, however, the content in this case was added by third parties rather than hidden on the disc."

End game

In a perfect world there would be no need for the ESRB or anything like it. Parents would do their jobs, pay attention to their children, and make informed decisions when it came to what their children could and could not play or view.

con..........
[/quote]