ESRB Now Auto-Rates All Downloadable Games By Computer

[JDKJ]

And even though the Supreme Court is currently debating the efficacy of a Californian law . . . ."

The Court never debates the "efficacy" (i.e., the effectiveness) of a law. The Court only concerns itself with the "constitutionality" of a law. A law could be as ineffective as all get-out, as long as it passes the Court's constitutional muster, then it is, as a matter of law, a good law.

Good point. Fixed in post. Thanks!

Greg

Actually the workability of the law can be taken into account by the more 'modern' memebers of the court. "Constitutionality" is what the measure is supposed to traditioanlly be but as time has moved on more factors are taken into account. It's less 'fixed' than many would have you beleive and common sense can be applied.

I dunno about that. I can pretty much recite the three prongs of the strict scrutiny test of constitutionality from memory and nowhere does it include "effectiveness." I can't imagine the Supreme Court writing and publishing an opinion in which it abandons decades of well-established First Amendment jurisprudence and substitutes its own version of what that jurisprudence requires. Even Scalia, as talented as he is with a pen, ain't gonna try to do that.

Yes that is how it is supposed to work but decisions often take into account the law as a whole.

In pratice the supreme court pretty much does what it feels like. The system isn't broken as a matter of routine but the supreme court is not afriad of a good bend if it can be justified even in favor of their own opinions (see the trouble a lot of "new Deal" reforms had in the very conservative court at the time).

The thing constitution is open it interpretation and therefore Constitutionality is open to your pint of veiw. Therfore the make-up of the court will effect a decision wildly. Some justices are strict constitutionalists, others are not. Even then the idea of the consitution that judge holds will effect how he sees holding a law strictly to the constitution.

What im getting at here is that other factors are in play, even as far as what could be considered as pretty wild opinionation, and have been in play throughout the history of the court. The cases by definition are pretty ambiguous since the court acts as an arbiter. The values, ideals, inperpretation or even the mood of a justice is something that will effect a decision.

Yes, Justices bring their own -- let's call it "baggage" -- to the Bench. But they still , when deciding cases, have to work within a fairly rigid framework. They can't color outside the lines.

 

[Lucane]

does anyone really care about the rating for arcade games that hard? pretty much none of them contain any m-rated content anyway

That may be but the it's rare fir someone who didn't work on the project to go out of thier way to lie about the content unless they have an agenda.Otherwise someone in house of the company could know of several issues of question that would be the difference between E10+ and T for or just one thing or dirty joke that seems like nothing or harmless to the makers but is AO or M to ESRB and/or majority of people told it in a survey.

with it being M/R rated you're offered a lot more customers who don't need permission for access where as AO/NC-17 are a locked in smaller group.

 

[JDKJ]

So effectively developers are rating their own games?

WTF??

It's been like that for a while. Just like the the MPAA works with the movie studios to ensure that their films avoid the kiss-of-death "R" rating.

Weird the opposite is true with games.

Kinda.

The M-rating literally translates to an R-rating but all the biggest selling games seem to actively target an M-rating unless they are going for an ultra-casual audience.

It's shame that movies pander so much to PG-13 but it was inevitable considering all 25-40 year olds got home theatre systems and the tweens and young families began flocking to the cinema.

I hate going to the cinema now, not because films are generally crap but because everywhere I see nothing but roving gaggles of young teens and families with younger kids. And of course they are all as noisy, obnoxious and smelly as hell. That and the TINY SEATS! I'm only 6'2" and I have to always stretch my legs into the aisles or practically pull my knees to to my chest. These seats are kids sized.

Though this is in the UK. We even have a new rating pandering to PG-13, called 12-A (must be 12+ or accompanied by parent) and I find hardly any of my favourite films have come out in the past 10 years, and most of those are not from the Hollywood style movie system but more obscure DVD imports.

Cinema has not grown up with me.

Video game however I think have matured with me. Not sure how to argue for that.

I think the ESRB "AO" rating is more aking to the MPAA's "R" rating. Perhaps not in terms of age in a straight up comparison but in terms of the effect on the products' profitability. Get an "R" rating from the MPAA and you lose the kiddie market. Get an "AO" rating from the ESRB and no major retailer will carry your game and you lose the Target-Best Buy-WalMart market. But I could be wrong. The intricacies of marketing games ain't my forte. Women in need of good lovin' is my forte. : P

 

[direkiller]

So effectively developers are rating their own games?

WTF??

It's been like that for a while. Just like the the MPAA works with the movie studios to ensure that their films avoid the kiss-of-death "R" rating.

Weird the opposite is true with games.

Kinda.

The M-rating literally translates to an R-rating but all the biggest selling games seem to actively target an M-rating unless they are going for an ultra-casual audience.

It's shame that movies pander so much to PG-13 but it was inevitable considering all 25-40 year olds got home theatre systems and the tweens and young families began flocking to the cinema.

I hate going to the cinema now, not because films are generally crap but because everywhere I see nothing but roving gaggles of young teens and families with younger kids. And of course they are all as noisy, obnoxious and smelly as hell. That and the TINY SEATS! I'm only 6'2" and I have to always stretch my legs into the aisles or practically pull my knees to to my chest. These seats are kids sized.

Though this is in the UK. We even have a new rating pandering to PG-13, called 12-A (must be 12+ or accompanied by parent) and I find hardly any of my favourite films have come out in the past 10 years, and most of those are not from the Hollywood style movie system but more obscure DVD imports.

Cinema has not grown up with me.

Video game however I think have matured with me. Not sure how to argue for that.

I think the ESRB "AO" rating is more aking to the MPAA's "R" rating. Perhaps not in terms of age in a straight up comparison but in terms of the effect on the products profitability. Get an "R" rating from the MPAA and you lose the kiddie market. Get an "AO" rating from the ESRB and no major retailer will carry your game and you lose the Target-Best Buy-WalMart market. But I could be wrong. The intricacies of marketing games ain't my forte. Women in need of good lovin' is my forte. : P

M is equvilant to R

There is a rating NC-17 that is the kiss of death for movies

 

[JDKJ]

So effectively developers are rating their own games?

WTF??

It's been like that for a while. Just like the the MPAA works with the movie studios to ensure that their films avoid the kiss-of-death "R" rating.

Weird the opposite is true with games.

Kinda.

The M-rating literally translates to an R-rating but all the biggest selling games seem to actively target an M-rating unless they are going for an ultra-casual audience.

It's shame that movies pander so much to PG-13 but it was inevitable considering all 25-40 year olds got home theatre systems and the tweens and young families began flocking to the cinema.

I hate going to the cinema now, not because films are generally crap but because everywhere I see nothing but roving gaggles of young teens and families with younger kids. And of course they are all as noisy, obnoxious and smelly as hell. That and the TINY SEATS! I'm only 6'2" and I have to always stretch my legs into the aisles or practically pull my knees to to my chest. These seats are kids sized.

Though this is in the UK. We even have a new rating pandering to PG-13, called 12-A (must be 12+ or accompanied by parent) and I find hardly any of my favourite films have come out in the past 10 years, and most of those are not from the Hollywood style movie system but more obscure DVD imports.

Cinema has not grown up with me.

Video game however I think have matured with me. Not sure how to argue for that.

I think the ESRB "AO" rating is more aking to the MPAA's "R" rating. Perhaps not in terms of age in a straight up comparison but in terms of the effect on the products profitability. Get an "R" rating from the MPAA and you lose the kiddie market. Get an "AO" rating from the ESRB and no major retailer will carry your game and you lose the Target-Best Buy-WalMart market. But I could be wrong. The intricacies of marketing games ain't my forte. Women in need of good lovin' is my forte. : P

M is equvilant to R

There is a rating NC-17 that is the kiss of death for movies

I can't dispute that. Whaddo I know? All the movies I ever rent are found in that lil' room in the back behind the beaded curtain. : P

 

[JDKJ]

And even though the Supreme Court is currently debating the efficacy of a Californian law . . . ."

The Court never debates the "efficacy" (i.e., the effectiveness) of a law. The Court only concerns itself with the "constitutionality" of a law. A law could be as ineffective as all get-out, as long as it passes the Court's constitutional muster, then it is, as a matter of law, a good law.

Good point. Fixed in post. Thanks!

Greg

Actually the workability of the law can be taken into account by the more 'modern' memebers of the court. "Constitutionality" is what the measure is supposed to traditioanlly be but as time has moved on more factors are taken into account. It's less 'fixed' than many would have you beleive and common sense can be applied.

I dunno about that. I can pretty much recite the three prongs of the strict scrutiny test of constitutionality from memory and nowhere does it include "effectiveness." I can't imagine the Supreme Court writing and publishing an opinion in which it abandons decades of well-established First Amendment jurisprudence and substitutes its own version of what that jurisprudence requires. Even Scalia, as talented as he is with a pen, ain't gonna try to do that.

Yes that is how it is supposed to work but decisions often take into account the law as a whole.

In pratice the supreme court pretty much does what it feels like. The system isn't broken as a matter of routine but the supreme court is not afriad of a good bend if it can be justified even in favor of their own opinions (see the trouble a lot of "new Deal" reforms had in the very conservative court at the time).

The thing constitution is open it interpretation and therefore Constitutionality is open to your pint of veiw. Therfore the make-up of the court will effect a decision wildly. Some justices are strict constitutionalists, others are not. Even then the idea of the consitution that judge holds will effect how he sees holding a law strictly to the constitution.

What im getting at here is that other factors are in play, even as far as what could be considered as pretty wild opinionation, and have been in play throughout the history of the court. The cases by definition are pretty ambiguous since the court acts as an arbiter. The values, ideals, inperpretation or even the mood of a justice is something that will effect a decision.

Yes, Justices bring their own -- let's call it "baggage" -- to the Bench. But they still , when deciding cases, have to work within a fairly rigid framework. They can't color outside the lines.

Again. In theory. Look we could sit here all night and debate the subjective nature of the law but i have yet to finish portal 2. Like their decisions the actions of the supreme court are open to interpreation, so i guess this is my point of veiw, on their point of veiw, on the points of the law =P.


All i will say is some of the decisions of the supreme court say some pretty odd and contradictory things about the constition if this ultra-rigid decision process has always been followed with robotic tancity. The constitution has not changed over time but what is considered legal has changed pretty wildly (see; pretty much most dealings with coloured people) and the change in the ideals and veiwpoints of the members of the court is the only real way to explain this.

"Colored people?!" Ain't been no "colored people" since the early 1900s. And that's before we were "negroes" and we ain't been that since the early 1950s.

 

[Virgil]

Unable to deal with the number of games released on Xbox Live, PSN, and WiiWare and DS marketplaces, the ESRB will automatically rate games based on criteria submitted by publishers.

This is actually not that different than the rating process was before. Fun Fact: I put together the review package and filled out all the paperwork to get The Saga of Ryzom [http://www.ryzom.com] it's original ESRB rating.

The submission form was a pretty detailed questionnaire that asked about all the different content, as well as all the 'worst' examples of things that the ESRB rates, and a video of gameplay illustrating them. Note that it didn't actually require a playable version of the game, nor was one even available at that point. The review process, as far as I know, simply consisted of someone reading the form, watching the video to make sure it matches the textual descriptions, and then assigning a rating based on what was there. It's the kind of job that begs for automation.

Despite what a lot of people assume, the ESRB ratings are not from people playing through the games and assigning a rating based on what they played. It's all based on paperwork that the game's publisher (or in this case, marketing/support agency) filled out.

 

[JDKJ]

Unable to deal with the number of games released on Xbox Live, PSN, and WiiWare and DS marketplaces, the ESRB will automatically rate games based on criteria submitted by publishers.

This is actually not that different than the rating process was before. Fun Fact: I put together the review package and filled out all the paperwork to get The Saga of Ryzom [http://www.ryzom.com] it's original ESRB rating.

The submission form was a pretty detailed questionnaire that asked about all the different content, as well as all the 'worst' examples of things that the ESRB rates, and a video of gameplay illustrating them. Note that it didn't actually require a playable version of the game, nor was one even available at that point. The review process, as far as I know, simply consisted of someone reading the form, watching the video to make sure it matches the textual descriptions, and then assigning a rating based on what was there. It's the kind of job that begs for automation.

Despite what a lot of people assume, the ESRB ratings are not from people playing through the games and assigning a rating based on what they played. It's all based on paperwork that the game's publisher (or in this case, marketing/support agency) filled out.

Makes you wonder what they're getting paid to do. They might as well just let you slap your self-determined rating on your box. But if they cut to the chase and let you do that, then those hefty fees they collect from you wouldn't make much sense, would they?

And I like the way you worked in a plug of your game with your post. That was smoove.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I think it's not a bad idea at all, given that it has to be done somehow, but I do feel that the punishment (particularly in case of deliberate misrating) should be greater.

The point of outside perception is a good one though.

 

[OldAccount]

It seems unavoidable. It'll probably work just fine as long a ESRB imposes tough penalties on any publisher that tries to slip something past them. Something like heavy fines the first time and refusal to classify games if it becomes reoccurring.

 

[Double A]

So effectively developers are rating their own games?

WTF??

It's been like that for a while. Just like the the MPAA works with the movie studios to ensure that their films avoid the kiss-of-death "R" rating.

Weird the opposite is true with games.

Kinda.

The M-rating literally translates to an R-rating but all the biggest selling games seem to actively target an M-rating unless they are going for an ultra-casual audience.

It's shame that movies pander so much to PG-13 but it was inevitable considering all 25-40 year olds got home theatre systems and the tweens and young families began flocking to the cinema.

I hate going to the cinema now, not because films are generally crap but because everywhere I see nothing but roving gaggles of young teens and families with younger kids. And of course they are all as noisy, obnoxious and smelly as hell. That and the TINY SEATS! I'm only 6'2" and I have to always stretch my legs into the aisles or practically pull my knees to to my chest. These seats are kids sized.

Though this is in the UK. We even have a new rating pandering to PG-13, called 12-A (must be 12+ or accompanied by parent) and I find hardly any of my favourite films have come out in the past 10 years, and most of those are not from the Hollywood style movie system but more obscure DVD imports.

Cinema has not grown up with me.

Video game however I think have matured with me. Not sure how to argue for that.

I think the ESRB "AO" rating is more aking to the MPAA's "R" rating. Perhaps not in terms of age in a straight up comparison but in terms of the effect on the products' profitability. Get an "R" rating from the MPAA and you lose the kiddie market. Get an "AO" rating from the ESRB and no major retailer will carry your game and you lose the Target-Best Buy-WalMart market. But I could be wrong. The intricacies of marketing games ain't my forte. Women in need of good lovin' is my forte. : P

AO is more like X, really. M is like R, because plenty of little kids watch R movies (just as long as their parents bought it). But not even 1% of parents would let their kid watch an X-rated movie. AO games are usually porn, so AO=R.

 

[Poofs]

im okay with this, especially considering that the people who made a game probably know it the best

 

[Covarr]

On the other hand, putting more of an onus on the publisher to answer questions appropriately might not assuage some of the worries of anti-gaming activists that the ESRB isn't tough enough on violence.

As it is, the ESRB doesn't play through every game it rates, it simply doesn't have time. It asks publishers to show a sampling of content that might be questionable. The opportunity for dishonesty was already there, and nothing has changed in that regard.

In the end, it's still the same rules as before, nothing has changed except that the process is more streamlined.

P.S. Thanks

 

[JDKJ]

So effectively developers are rating their own games?

WTF??

It's been like that for a while. Just like the the MPAA works with the movie studios to ensure that their films avoid the kiss-of-death "R" rating.

Weird the opposite is true with games.

Kinda.

The M-rating literally translates to an R-rating but all the biggest selling games seem to actively target an M-rating unless they are going for an ultra-casual audience.

It's shame that movies pander so much to PG-13 but it was inevitable considering all 25-40 year olds got home theatre systems and the tweens and young families began flocking to the cinema.

I hate going to the cinema now, not because films are generally crap but because everywhere I see nothing but roving gaggles of young teens and families with younger kids. And of course they are all as noisy, obnoxious and smelly as hell. That and the TINY SEATS! I'm only 6'2" and I have to always stretch my legs into the aisles or practically pull my knees to to my chest. These seats are kids sized.

Though this is in the UK. We even have a new rating pandering to PG-13, called 12-A (must be 12+ or accompanied by parent) and I find hardly any of my favourite films have come out in the past 10 years, and most of those are not from the Hollywood style movie system but more obscure DVD imports.

Cinema has not grown up with me.

Video game however I think have matured with me. Not sure how to argue for that.

I think the ESRB "AO" rating is more aking to the MPAA's "R" rating. Perhaps not in terms of age in a straight up comparison but in terms of the effect on the products' profitability. Get an "R" rating from the MPAA and you lose the kiddie market. Get an "AO" rating from the ESRB and no major retailer will carry your game and you lose the Target-Best Buy-WalMart market. But I could be wrong. The intricacies of marketing games ain't my forte. Women in need of good lovin' is my forte. : P

AO is more like X, really. M is like R, because plenty of little kids watch R movies (just as long as their parents bought it). But not even 1% of parents would let their kid watch an X-rated movie. AO games are usually porn, so AO=R.

I do know a lil' sum-sum about an X-rated movie. Back before they cleaned up Times Square, they had a lotta $5 triple-bill porn cinemas on 42nd Street, where I would sometimes hang out all night during the winter because the heat in my drafty-ass apartment didn't work very well. The popcorn wasn't bad either, as I recall. Cheap and filling.

 

[JDKJ]

"Colored people?!" Ain't been no "colored people" since the early 1900s. And that's before we were "negroes" and we ain't been that since the early 1950s.

I was trying to think of a term that covered the treatment of most non-white people in america. Hence; people of colour. It's a slightly odd term i know but the aspiration of the constitution's words and their application (or lack there of) ring most hollow for native americans, hespanics, yes black people and generally anyone that fell under the auspicious of "not a WASP" up until the later half of the 20th century.

OK, I checked you're profile and the fact that you're British may explain why the nuances of race in the United States and the terms used in relation thereto may have escaped you. The term "persons of color" is generally acceptable to describe non-whites and is understood to included Latinos, Blacks, Asians, etc. However, the term "colored people" is generally used only as a reference to Blacks and is a throwback to an era thankfully long gone in the United States and, for many Blacks, has a very negative connotation. While there may be a current dispute among Blacks as to how to they should be referred to -- ranging from African-American to Black -- ain't no black people -- at least none that I know of -- arguing that they should be referred to as "colored people."

 

[direkiller]

So effectively developers are rating their own games?

WTF??

It's been like that for a while. Just like the the MPAA works with the movie studios to ensure that their films avoid the kiss-of-death "R" rating.

Weird the opposite is true with games.

Kinda.

The M-rating literally translates to an R-rating but all the biggest selling games seem to actively target an M-rating unless they are going for an ultra-casual audience.

It's shame that movies pander so much to PG-13 but it was inevitable considering all 25-40 year olds got home theatre systems and the tweens and young families began flocking to the cinema.

I hate going to the cinema now, not because films are generally crap but because everywhere I see nothing but roving gaggles of young teens and families with younger kids. And of course they are all as noisy, obnoxious and smelly as hell. That and the TINY SEATS! I'm only 6'2" and I have to always stretch my legs into the aisles or practically pull my knees to to my chest. These seats are kids sized.

Though this is in the UK. We even have a new rating pandering to PG-13, called 12-A (must be 12+ or accompanied by parent) and I find hardly any of my favourite films have come out in the past 10 years, and most of those are not from the Hollywood style movie system but more obscure DVD imports.

Cinema has not grown up with me.

Video game however I think have matured with me. Not sure how to argue for that.

I think the ESRB "AO" rating is more aking to the MPAA's "R" rating. Perhaps not in terms of age in a straight up comparison but in terms of the effect on the products profitability. Get an "R" rating from the MPAA and you lose the kiddie market. Get an "AO" rating from the ESRB and no major retailer will carry your game and you lose the Target-Best Buy-WalMart market. But I could be wrong. The intricacies of marketing games ain't my forte. Women in need of good lovin' is my forte. : P

M is equvilant to R

There is a rating NC-17 that is the kiss of death for movies

I can't dispute that. Whaddo I know? All the movies I ever rent are found in that lil' room in the back behind the beaded curtain. : P

just sorta found it odd how you think R movies never get seen
90% of what movie bob reviews is rated R