Halo 2 Delayed For ESRB Rating Change

[Andy Chalk]

Halo 2 Delayed For ESRB Rating Change

Halo 2 [http://www.microsoft.com], due to a "content error" which forced a change in the game's ESRB rating.

Referred to in a statement as "unfortunate" and "obscure," the material in question is a photograph showing a "bare backside," which can be displayed when a particular error occurs in the game's map editor. Although a statement from the ESRB [http://www.esrb.org/]itself said that the material was "likely to be inaccessible to the vast majority of users," the presence of the photograph in the game's code forced the addition of "partial nudity" warnings to the game's rating. Microsoft is holding back the initial release of the game so that appropriate labels may be added to the packaging.

Along with updated packaging, Microsoft has also developed an online update, available from www.halo2.com [http://www.halo2.com], which will remove the offending content.

In a statement, the company said, "At Microsoft we take the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) guidelines very seriously and hold ourselves to high standards, with our customers always in mind." Concerned parents across the country are no doubt relieved that their children will be able to graphically butcher one another online without risk of accidentally viewing an exposed buttock.

Halo 2 for Vista is now scheduled to ship on May 31.


Permalink

 

[Archon]

Note to ESRB: You need to re-evaluate the standard by which you assign ratings to games. The presence of a photograph that appears only on a rare error is hardly cause for the economic damage of a rating change.

In every other area, entertainment companies focus on the experience of the mainstream consumer. Even the DRM that protects content is built for the mainstream consumer. Why then are ratings built around the possible content that may be exposed by a hacker?

 

[Russ Pitts]

What's more economically damaging: pulling approval pre-distribution or pulling approval post-distribution, after the mass media has grabbed hold of this thing and propelled it to Columbine levels of cultural importance?

I'm not agreeing with either the tactic or the philosophy, but in their current mindset, that of "any violation is egregious", the measure makes sense.

The ESRB is facing an uphill credibility battle on two fronts, but I think they're understandably focusing on the political front right now, and I can't really blame them.

 

[Joe]

Personally, I think it's a brilliant move on Microsoft's part. Now, it'll at least appear like the makers of a game designed to let people kill each other over and over were at least willing to play ball and tack "partial nudity" onto a three-year-old game with only limited appeal on the PC market.

 

[Andy Chalk]

My first thought was that the ESRB has already lost that battle - it's an inherently flawed institution that has no credibility or relevance left. But then it struck me that the ESRB isn't the problem, it's just a symptom of a much larger malaise that's gripping our (Western) society. The ESRB doesn't protect children, it protects entrenched political machinery that is less concerned with taking action than it is with appearing to take action. Inertia and fear is a wicked combination. What are publishers really going to be able to do against that except bend over and smile?

 

[Ian Dorsch]

Speaking of bending over, the map editor error message in question:

http://kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/05/asserror.png

Best error message evar! Well, except for that Zune one, you guys know what I'm talking about.

 

[Bongo Bill]

The presence of a photograph that appears only on a rare error is hardly cause for the economic damage of a rating change.

I dunno, man. When the game runs in Windows....


Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Tip your waiters.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Speaking of bending over, the map editor error message in question:

http://kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/05/asserror.png

OK, if that actually does appear in the retail version of the game, then I have no problem with ESRB's ruling against it. It's obviously a joke, but in extremely bad taste. Who in their right mind would consider adding a gratuitous picture of a naked man's ass to be a good idea?

Second thought, let's not go there.

 

[Andy Chalk]

But the game is rated M to begin with: "Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain mature sexual themes, more intense violence and/or strong language."

So how does an obscure error with a grainy picture of some guy's ass have any impact on that whatsoever? Is the presence of this image going to dissuade parents from buying a game designed specifically to allow kids to graphically slaughter one another online? (Actually, I suppose in America it might.) The ESRB's requirement for a "partial nudity" rating may be correct in terms of letter of the law, but that doesn't make it any less asinine or irrational.

 

[Arbre]

If it had been an alien ass, it would have been ok I suppose.
On the other hand... if a kid sees the picture.

Well, it's just a bum.

Everybody who disagrees with ESRB's decision are pedophiles lying to themselves.

Right?

 

[Russ Pitts]

I think there's a huge difference between having M rated content in an M rated game (and for the record, there's a difference between animated nudity and full-color photo nudity. An ass may be an ass, you say, but there's a practical difference where games are concerned.) is different than putting in a stupid pic of somebody's ass as a joke. ESRB made the right call here.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Within the context of the existing ESRB system, maybe, but if that system is flawed to begin with then you're left with something that follows the letter of the law but still doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.

 

[Russ Pitts]

It's better than the alternative, Maly, which is allowing the federal govmint, or - heaven forfend p- a "consumer group" decide how and why to rate games. There's no escaping the need for a rating system, and for my money, I'd rather that system be implemented and regulated by the industry than an outside consortium.