According to Wikipedia, the ESRB assigns three whole people to determine the rating of a game. If it were solely a matter of matching submitted content up to a list of arbitrary appropriateness rules, there'd be no need for human involvement. Just plug the data into a simple computer program, and bingo, there's your rating.
Um, i would trust Wikipedia as fast as I could hit the back button on my browser, on that claim. Its not true.
this is what Wikipedia states in their article:
On its website, the ESRB states that three trained raters, working independently, watch the footage and recommend a rating.
This is straight from ESRB's website:
http://www.esrb.org/ratings/faq.jsp#14
Each ESRB rating is based on the consensus of at least three specially trained raters who view content based on numerous criteria.
I've bolded the qualifier statement that was omitted from the Wikipedia article.
At least 3. It doesn't mean that all games only get 3. A big product game with tons of footage, screens, text and lyrics to review for an M rating, would get more reviewers for the title than say a game that is vying for an E rating. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare may get at least 3 reviewers just going over the content in the game, but a game like the Imagine series by Ubisoft may only need 3 reviewers for the title.
It all depends on the title, as to how many reviewers the game will get to review for rating. The ESRB knows how many to assign to a game, by the type of content they receive to review. If they are given 20 pages of text dialogue, 10 pages of music lyrics and 6 hours of video footage to review, the title may be assigned 5 reviewers. But a game that has only 100 screenshots, and 2 pages of text (mostly menu text), then 3 reviewers is probably all the game will need.
Context matters, and therein lies the problem. Human beings are making their own value judgments, list be damned. A Harvard study (yes, appeal to authority) had this to say:
http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/249387.html
A reliable ratings system is a good idea
as a very loose guideline for the ultimate parental choice, but the current system can't be taken that seriously.
Its a report from 2006. its now 2009. A lot has changed at the ESRB since the time this article was written.
As for not taken seriously? Why? as a parent, they see the rating. If its an M, then they should know that the game is meant for adults (It specifically states M for Mature 17+). In the end, its all to parents responsibility. If the game rated M says that it has Intense Violence, Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Use of Alcohol, Use of Drugs ; that is definitely a lot of information being given to that purchaser of what is in the game.
I still see parents will buy Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto for their 10 year old kid, despite the big honking "M" on the front of the cover.
You can have all the labeling you want to tell you what is in the game, you could have it in 60 point font, stating "SEXUAL CONTENT", yet parents will still buy these games for their children.
In effect, you can beat the hell out of somebody six ways to Sunday if you're not wielding a gun. But the "s" word or showing a nipple is too much of a negative influence on teens. This suggest to me very much that the ESRB does indeed care what's in a game.
Yes they dont care what's in a game. They only care that publishers are honest with whats in it so that they game is rated CORRECTLY. Hiding any content, or not making content known that would affect an original rating adversely, publishers should be fined for it (and the fines aren't some slap on the wrist type of fine, it affects the publishers future titles as well by having longer rating reviews, expecting MORE content to be submitted in order to rate a game; demanding to get content where the game is almost completed instead of mid way through development, etc)
I'm not sure why the homosexual aspect is noteworthy. The sex scene, as I remember it, paled in comparison to pretty much any soap opera love scene kids may be exposed to. It was very, very tame -- I see no reason why teens should somehow be shielded from it.
If you noticed that many of the Soap Operas and TV serials targeted for adult, you see are rated TV-PG - TV-MA. They also air during a time when most children are in school or after 8pm in the evening.
And again, parental responsibility.
Of course there are, the issue is how they're inconsistently applied.
You'll have to give specific examples of how they are inconsistently applied.
Like I said, I understand that there is a system in place, by the definition of "system". I just think it's a poor system.
You have to provide specific examples of how this is a poor system. Its the only system we have; no other type of system has been offered to replace it or improve it.
A valid criticism is that they may not have enough content descriptors to describe what is in a game, but I can tell you right now, that a parent purchasing the game would not even take a second glance at whats listed in that section. All they want to see is if its E, T, M or not. But they've updated descriptors and removed (due to better ones) descriptors over the years.
But through it all, and I'll repeat it. Parental responsibility. In the end, the only reason why a child would have an M rated game in their hands and are playing it is because their parents allowed them to have it. I dont care if the kid received the game as a gift, its still their parents responsibility to keep that game in the home.
I understand the position that the ESRB has to take and also understand the frustration some people may have with their rating system. And I understand from the publisher stand point of how it can be difficult to fall into the guidelines for the games they produce.
But at least we have them to provide information on the titles that are being released every year. 1000 titles a year is what they have to deal with.
As for advertising, the guidelines are very simple, but they can nitpick on how things are being shown. Its more for M Rated titles, but it goes for all titles:
No intense violence sequences, no graphic violence or excessive showing of blood, and when possible show the ratings information and descriptors.
Thanks! Didn't realize Jack was finally called to account for his lack of professionalism.
