The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Improving the Entertainment Software Rating Board
ProfessorH0j0Jr
Registered User new member
Registered User new member
I was reading through an EGM article on the ESRB where the writer commented on changes to the rating system, and was wondering what changes you guys feel would be best to improve the rating system. I’ll quickly outline what was mentioned and then state my opinions..
-The rating categories are not flexible enough and nobody cares to support the Adults Only rating. Proposed solution was to have the Mature rating be the top of the scale, which is recommended to anyone 18 or older, and would include everything that was AO previously.
-There are only six full-time raters and they don’t even play the games they rate, just watch videos of other people playing them. Proposed solution was to have all raters play games from start to finish in completion and take notes along the way, as well as hire more raters so the pool is larger.
-Sequels and game series sometimes carry on the same rating as the previous game, where they should be judged individually.
-After the raters decide on a rating the officials would sometimes change the rating without feedback from the raters, where their work should be trusted that they are doing their job correctly and providing accurate ratings.
My opinion:
Maybe I haven’t paying attention but the fact that only six raters are coming up with these ratings was somewhat shocking to me, but I don’t think simply beefing up the crew with more raters is enough. Their backgrounds should be taken into account, more than just their gender, to ensure a diverse group of raters that will provide perspectives from many different angles. I’m talking about getting people with different cultural backgrounds from various countries, for applications such as.. what may be offensive to a parent from one cultural background may not be offensive to a parent from a different one.
The last part about the final rating getting modified by the officials bothers me the most but it’s nothing that I didn’t think was going on already. This part of the process is where the media and political crap gets it’s shot at making their decisions about what they think games should be rated.
Looking forward to hearing some more opinions on the subject..
-The rating categories are not flexible enough and nobody cares to support the Adults Only rating. Proposed solution was to have the Mature rating be the top of the scale, which is recommended to anyone 18 or older, and would include everything that was AO previously.
-There are only six full-time raters and they don’t even play the games they rate, just watch videos of other people playing them. Proposed solution was to have all raters play games from start to finish in completion and take notes along the way, as well as hire more raters so the pool is larger.
-Sequels and game series sometimes carry on the same rating as the previous game, where they should be judged individually.
-After the raters decide on a rating the officials would sometimes change the rating without feedback from the raters, where their work should be trusted that they are doing their job correctly and providing accurate ratings.
My opinion:
Maybe I haven’t paying attention but the fact that only six raters are coming up with these ratings was somewhat shocking to me, but I don’t think simply beefing up the crew with more raters is enough. Their backgrounds should be taken into account, more than just their gender, to ensure a diverse group of raters that will provide perspectives from many different angles. I’m talking about getting people with different cultural backgrounds from various countries, for applications such as.. what may be offensive to a parent from one cultural background may not be offensive to a parent from a different one.
The last part about the final rating getting modified by the officials bothers me the most but it’s nothing that I didn’t think was going on already. This part of the process is where the media and political crap gets it’s shot at making their decisions about what they think games should be rated.
Looking forward to hearing some more opinions on the subject..
ProfessorH0j0Jr on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
I can appreciate what you're going for there, but it makes me curious-- how exactly are they rating right now? Is it a consensus vote among the 6 members, or do they try to do majority rules?
It makes me wonder how much more complicated things would get with a larger panel/more deliberation.
Ka-Chung!
Ka-Chung!
Currently, I think that they have 3 raters review it, and if consensus is reached there, that rating is applied, while no consensus results in additional raters reviewing the submitted footage.
As to improvements - while I would like to see them actually play the games, in practice the submission of video footage probably sufficient, provided its actually of the correct sections of the games. Also, User created mods of a game should never be considered in the rating of the game itself - the ESRB should be rating the product a publisher sent them, not the conversion of that product 3 months down the line by someone with no actual involvement in the creation of the game.
They'll never find the tits in the extra stages of Touhou! AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
The number of games that come out or are re-released and require an ESRB rating is staggering, and having them play through games in their entirety is borderline nuts just because it's not that hard to determine if a game needs an E, T, M or whatever rating based on a short video and description of the worst scenes in the game.
The biggest problems with the ESRB ratings system lie outside the ESRB itself. Ignorance on the part of consumers, and undisclosed content in a rated title. Those two things are the only things that need to change right now (barring anomalies like the Oblivion rating where Bethesda asked for an M and was ignored)
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
the last thing you want to do is give the censors is an inch
they keep taking and taking and taking
it never moves backwards
The article didn't detail that part but I'd assume it is a consensus vote. While I see the point that a larger panel might get more complicated, it is really a more diverse group that I am suggesting to push for (it doesn't have to be that much larger but at least a few more people).
That's a good point, but my question would be who is actually playing the game then. If their ratings are done in house (within the company, by employees of the company), then the videos prepared should be done the same so they have full control of what they claim to rate. It wouldn't make much sense to me if they're using outside sources to get game footage, while it may be adequate, it would make it harder for them to claim their ratings are accurate.
Alternately, they could simply ask the developers what their target audience is, and check that out.
also, i dislike when a game is rated T or something for "use of alcohol" kids of 6 know about alcohol, so unless the character gets drunk and goes crazy, i dont think that reason should be used
As it currently stands, for example, a game depicting rape and a game glorifying rape would be considered the same thing. Same goes for violence, aggressive behaviour, misogyny and gore.
Although this is probably more an issue with the media and governments than it is the ratings boards.
I do think the ratings should be adjusted to more acurrately describe whats "Mature" about the game (since the shit that gets games "mature" ratings often isn't mature at all). I'd much rather see something like "Violence: 10/10. Sexual Content: 10/10. Language: 1/10".
It's used as a deterrent; to set a sort of maximum that you can't cross unless you want your game's sales to tank (and console manufacturers to reject licensing). It's similar to the BBFC's "Refused Classification", except economically rather than legally enforced.
The main thing I would change would be to move the entire ESRB information to the front of the box so parents can see the content descriptors from outside a store's locked display case. Even if it was done in the form of a sticker on the shrinkwrap I think that information is actually more important than the overall rating of the game and should be displayed prominently.
I think the idea behind putting it on the front is that when parents are with their kids browsing games in stores like WalMart or similar where the games are behind a glass case, they can see the ratings before calling over the poor guy working electronics. I think generally, if it doesn't look too bad on the front, parents are less likely to bother checking the back if it's all little johnny is asking for.
If it were on the front, they could see "Rated M for beating up hookers and shooting heads off" and tell him no, and pick another game.
Its more of a convenience for the store, but also for the parent so they know before they are taken to the register.
Oh, and also, lots of stores won't even hand you the game. I've had employees walk the game to the register before they'll let me read the back of it. So that's kinda killing the "check the rating and pick another if need be" because parents won't want to take the time.
Which I guess brings up another point. Really, I think the ESRB is doing just fine. It's just bad parenting. They need to take the time to know what's in a game before handing it over to their kids on their birthday and watch what they are playing, so you know what's really in the game and how they respond to it.
So six full time raters per game ? or six total for the entire ESRB. How many part time raters do they have?
Playing the game through completely imo is not realistic, would be nice tho.
Anyways here is my 3 bits
1. Hire more people
2.Companies must submit a presentation showing all violent/mature material, nudity, adult situations, a synopsis of the story and anything in the gameplay that would make it more interactive (like the Wii version of Godfather, chokey chokey. :P ) as well as mention of real life situations, consquences for negative behavior within the game and any sort of context in those situations. (Well Joe is killing everyone in this country because his dog was ran over by someone from that country)
3. Anything that can be added in via mods or changing the games coding are not subject to review unless the mod is released by the company itself.
4. Get rid of AO.
Six full time raters for the entire ESRB, I'm not sure how many part time raters.
猿も木から落ちる