ESRB Adds Expanded Videogame Rating Summaries

[Andy Chalk]

ESRB Adds Expanded Videogame Rating Summaries

As the Christmas shopping season approaches, the Entertainment Software Rating Board has created new "rating summaries" for videogames, providing game buyers an objective look at the "context and relevant content that factored into a game's ESRB rating assignment."

The ESRB is now providing rating summaries on its website for all games rated since July 1 2008*, as well as through a new mobile website at m.esrb.org [m.esrb.org] which will let consumers check game summaries over their mobile phones while they shop. The new information will supplement the well-established rating categories and content descriptors already in use by the ESRB.

"Research shows that the vast majority of parents who purchase games for their kids are aware of and regularly check ESRB ratings, but parents can always use more help when making choices as to which games are right for their children," said ESRB President Patricia Vance. "With our new rating summaries, which provide exclusive and unprecedented insight into the nature of the content that triggered a given rating assignment, parents will be that much more empowered in making those choices."

"Videogames can be entertaining for children, but parents need to be cognizant that there are some games that are neither created nor intended for children," added National Institute of Media and the Family [http://www.mediafamily.org/] founder David Walsh, a frequent critic of videogames and the ESRB who nonetheless elected to take part in the announcement. "ESRB ratings provide a guide that parents can and should use to determine whether a game is one they deem appropriate for their child. The ESRB's rating summaries go even further, shedding greater light on a game's rating and giving parents additional detailed information to make healthier gaming decisions."

"I commend the ESRB for taking this step to serve the needs of parents," he added.

Examples of games that have received the new rating summaries on the ESRB website include www.esrb.org [http://farcry.us.ubi.com/].

*[UPDATE]: Ratings summaries will be available for all games rated since July 1, 2008, not released, as was originally reported.


Permalink

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

Wait a minute... Parents check the ratings now?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

"Research shows that the vast majority of parents who purchase games for their kids are aware of and regularly check ESRB ratings

*howls with laughter*

 

[NeedAUserName]

Spoiler

Thats [spaced out] weird [/spaced out]. I just set that picture as my desktop picture.

 

[dekkarax]

Makes me glad the PEGI is at least reasonably competent

 

[HobbesMkii]

In other words, the ESRB will just copy/paste the "Features" on the back of the box to that B&W panel on the front of the box.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

I find myself on both sides of the fence on this whole thing...

On the one side, I agree parents need to be informed, and if the ESRB were just an advisory service with no power or clout, and if their rating weren't a legally-enforceable limitation, I'd be all for them. No, a 10-year-old shouldn't be playing GTA3. Yes, parents should be able to look at a game's box and be informed if there's sex, drugs, and/or nearly-orgasmic levels of violence and gore.

But on the other side, the side that I choose if forced to go one way or the other, is that the ESRB is a conglomerate of fucknuts, fundies, and prude old whores trying to force their morality on the world. The ESRB is a bucket of fail, because they don't just assign the ratings, they influence development and limit sales. When a developer cuts content because he needs a lower rating or Walmart won't sell his product, the whole system goes from information to censorship, and so the ESRB is more bad than good.

Now I wonder how they'd rate a game where the player's avatar is an anti-censorship vigilante who goes around the city hunting and brutally dismembering ESRB staff/members. Could then get a movie made of it, but replace ESRB with MPAA. Weeeeee!
*twitch*

The same problem in Film. I once watched a movie that documented it, the Film rating review board is corrupt. You aren't allowed to know whose on it, and while SUPPOSEDLY people are only employed a fewmonths at a time there are those who work for years. They even have PRIESTS on the review board, and your not allowed to appeal or even -argue- with the Board.

It's soft censorship leftover from the 1930's(?), and the ESRB isn't QUITE as bad but all they have to do is stick an AO on a game and it's doomed.

Oh, but on the other hand I AM glad they're getting more explainatory about specific games and i'm glad they admit there are games not designed or intended for children now.

 

[Rankao]

At the moment I do not see any problem with ESRB. I personally haven't seen any game that has been given a rating that I though was outrageous. A lot of the AO games are mostly just sex games, and likely the only reason the ones with some minor nudity make it into AO is because Americans tend to be anal about sex (Ha its a pun... kinda)

On the one side, I agree parents need to be informed, and if the ESRB were just an advisory service with no power or clout, and if their rating weren't a legally-enforceable limitation.

Also Khell_Sennet, what do you mean by legally-enforceable limitation? As far as I am aware, (and please correct me with proof if I am wrong, not because I am an asshole, but I would like to better my knowledge) The reason that a lot of the games won't be taken is because the retailers won't take the game unless its under AO. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are talking about, or you have knowledge of something I do not.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

No board who controls censorship should have its members anonymous. We the people deserve to know if it's a bunch of religious nutjobs or even a room-full of perverts. Who rates it matters, because there's two problems with anonymity. First, you never know if the person is qualified to do such censoring/rating, and second, you never know if they're biased. If you were to find out that half or more of the ESRB were CEOs of EA, it would make a big difference in how you interpret the ratings given to Blizztavision or 2K games.

This is unfortunatly the case with the film review board. Film studio CEO's are on the boards.

 

[crazy-j]

"Research shows that the vast majority of parents who purchase games for their kids are aware of and regularly check ESRB ratings

*howls with laughter*

i cant help but agree that is a massive lie

 

[Rankao]

Don't have anything to back this up (too tired, going to bed after this post), wikipedia it or something if you want proof, but as far as I've always understood it, the ESRB rating M for example made a game illegal to sell to someone 13 and under. The ratings have a "unsuitable for people under X yrs old" aspect to each level, and at least in Canada, selling to someone under the rating could land the employee in shit. AO's a whole other ballpark, but the 18+ age limit is again enforced by the police, if caught selling an AO game to a minor, you can be fined and/or incarcerated.

Which is the same with film. Renting R-rated movies to a 10-year-old is illegal. Why? I don't know. That rating should be a good indication about suitability, and I'm fine with rental companies enforcing the age limits as policy, but not as law. A censorship board has no right to say renting Terminator to a tween is illegal. Stupid, maybe, but not illegal.

All right, I might definitely be different in Canada; However, in the United States a large portion(90%) of the rating control is done by the retail and renting companies policies in fear of legal regulation. Any Legal enforcement of the ESRB and MPAA ratings are done by the state. American policy as far as retailers usually goes, "Regulate yourself or the government will do it for you, and well lets just say you would prefer us not to do it."

"There is no federal law that stipulates it is illegal to sell or rent R-rated movies to persons under the age of 17, but many video stores, retail stores, movie theaters and vendors adhere to the Motion Picture Association of America?s voluntary film ratings system. Under those guidelines, an R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, hard language, violence, sexually-oriented nudity and drug abuse. Children under 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian. " Source [http://www.selfservice.org/article_3663_23.php]

Any regulation is done by the State, City, County or local level. I definitely agree that it should just be the industry that regulates itself and not the government. That's why I fight any Democrat or Republican who wants to have the government control the regulation of most of the industries (that does not involve health or similar issues)