There is something deeply wrong with the ESRB rating system

[Dirty Hipsters]

There is something deeply wrong with the way the ESRB rates the content of games. Theoretically the more violent and mind-warpingly twisted a game is, the higher its rating should be, but that doesn't seem to be the case as of late. Here's 3 recent examples, Modern Warfare 3, Halo Reach, Batman Arkham City. All 3 of these games ratings seem incorrect to me, both Halo Reach and Modern Warfare 3 are M rated games that I think should be rated T, and Batman Arkham City is a T rated game that seems to me to have the makings of an M.

Lets compare the 3 games:

Halo Reach:
Enemies - Aliens
Gore content - Minimal. the aliens bleed Blue, Orange, and Purple blood, and the blood sprays aren't that noticeable or frequent. If you examine the bodies on the ground the models have no damage.
Language - Minimal. I think a couple of the characters say "shit" once in a while. Not noticeable.
Most graphic moment - One of the team members gets shot in the head, and there is a small spray of red blood.

Modern Warfare 3:
Enemies - Human Soldiers (mostly Russian)
Gore Content - Minimal. Every time you shoot someone you get a little spray of blood for a fraction of a second, then they ragdoll. If you examine the bodies on the ground the models have no damage.
Language - Moderate. There is some cursing, and the word "bastard" is thrown around fairly frequently.
Most graphic moment -

Spoiler

When the player kills Makarov he punches him in the face a number of times before wrapping a wire around his neck and hanging him.

Batman Arkham City
Enemies - Human inmates and guards, plus a number of super villains.
Gore Content - Minimal. Batman doesn't kill people, and while the villains do, the most you ever see is someone's clothing soaked in blood from a wound that isn't clearly visible.
Language - Very frequent graphic descriptions of brutal murders and torture. Much of the language implies forcible rape scenarios.
Most graphic moment -

Spoiler

Raz Al Ghul stabs himself through the chest with his own sword before being impaled on an iron fence. Batman makes a joke about it.

So which of these has the most egregious content? From my point of view it's definitely Batman Arkham City. The descriptions of violence are absolutely gut wrenching (and brilliant), and even though you can never see them occurring they are described so frequently, and in such lucid detail that you can't help imagine them in more complete ways than they ever could be physically shown. Compared to that, the content of Halo Reach and Black Ops isn't nearly as violent. Out of the 3 Batman Arkham City also had the most graphic moment, I feel (although MW3 got pretty close). Halo Reach wasn't even in the running.

It's pretty obvious that Halo and MW3 don't have the chops to be rated M, so they either need to be bumped down to T, or Batman Arkham City should have been an M, otherwise the rating system seems completely useless and ineffective.

 

[lacktheknack]

You're missing some variables. Realism, for instance, or context. Halo and CoD are realistic and Batman is stylized.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

All rating systems are useless, illogical and ineffective.

 

[ZeroMachine]

I wouldn't let my kid play Halo until he was 16, or the CoDs until they were at least 17.

Way I see it, they're fine. It's rare that I've disagreed with a rating. I think Halo and MW 1,2,3 deserve M's.

BUT, if what you say is true about that scene in Arkham City, then I'd say that it may deserve an M as well.

All rating systems are useless, illogical and ineffective.

I love it when people say stuff like this. The blatant contrarian attitude is just adorable.

Show me how it's useless and illogical (it's effectiveness is only brought into question because of people's ignorance on the matter) and I'll agree with you. Until then, I feel like you're saying that I hear all the time from people who think that EVERYTHING like that is useless, illogical, and ineffective. And they can never back up their claims.

I like the system in England. PEGI is good, at 12, 16 and 18, but I prefer the increments in BBFC - 12, 15, and 18. That 15 rating is a godsend.

Plus, it removes the lettering system that only serves to make life harder.

I love the Pegi-style rating system. So much easier. I feel like the idea of there being numbers rather than letters would actually make parents pay more attention. At least a little.

... A man can dream...

 

[GrandmaFunk]

All rating systems are useless, illogical and ineffective.

I love it when people say stuff like this. The blatant contrarian attitude is just adorable.

Show me how it's useless and illogical (it's effectiveness is only brought into question because of people's ignorance on the matter) and I'll agree with you.

they're useless because they fail at their primary goal, which is to qualify the content of a piece of media and to determine it's age-appropriateness.

why it fails is tied into why it's illogical: the systems are usually controlled by a very small group, making arbitrary and/or subjective judgment, usually based on their given preconceptions and values. It's a process that has no transparency and no way to maintain internal logic or consistency.

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is a pretty good primer on the movie industry's rating system but highlights the problems common to pretty much all the systems like it.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

Guns=instant M, regardless of actual gore content or context.

 

[ZeroMachine]

All rating systems are useless, illogical and ineffective.

I love it when people say stuff like this. The blatant contrarian attitude is just adorable.

Show me how it's useless and illogical (it's effectiveness is only brought into question because of people's ignorance on the matter) and I'll agree with you.

they're useless because they fail at their primary goal, which is to qualify the content of a piece of media and to determine it's age-appropriateness.

why it fails is tied into why it's illogical: the systems are usually controlled by a very small group, making arbitrary and/or subjective judgment, usually based on their given preconceptions and values. It's a process that has no transparency and no way to maintain internal logic or consistency.

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is a pretty good primer on the movie industry's rating system but highlights the problems common to pretty much all the systems like it.

... Huh...

Well, I rescind my statement about you being "contrarian" and I have to admit, you actually gave a logical explanation.

I disagree that's they're inherently useless, though. Just overall in their current state.

 

[isometry]

Yeah, the ESRB is inconsistent. This is because there are 100s of ESRB members that evaluate games, so each game is evaluated by a different group of people.

The ESRB doesn't evaluate the whole game either. They use a sort of honor system and say to the publisher "send me the most graphic parts of your game" and base the grade on that. Also the people on the ESRB don't play videogames, not even close, they are prude old people who self-identify as "concerned about content in games."

Publishers with lots of money can achieve more favorable ratings in a way, because they have enough money to go back and edit parts of the game and re-send it back to the ESRB (which involves lawyers and fees, so most low-budget productions are stuck with whatever rating they get the first time). Obviously a T rating instead of M can mean more sales for some games, so it would seem that Arkham City did enough back and forth with the ESRB to get the rating they wanted, while Halo and MW3 don't care since millions of parents buy those games for their kids anyway.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

I disagree that's they're inherently useless, though. Just overall in their current state.

well the usefulness of the concept itself is probably subjective to what a parent thinks of other ppl determining what's appropriate for their children. Especially when those other ppl are not actually required to be experts in either the subject matter or child psychology/education.

Personally, I'm a big proponent of "watch/play/read it yourself first, you know your kid, you're the most qualified to judge what they can handle".

 

[ZeroMachine]

I disagree that's they're inherently useless, though. Just overall in their current state.

well the usefulness of the concept itself is probably subjective to what a parent thinks of other ppl determining what's appropriate for their children. Especially when those other ppl are not actually required to be experts in either the subject matter or child psychology/education.

Personally, I'm a big proponent of "watch/play/read it yourself first, you know your kid, you're the most qualified to judge what they can handle".

Something we can both agree on.

At the very least, research it, watch some professionalism reviews and videos.

I kinda want to be a parent just to show others how it's done...

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

You're missing some variables. Realism, for instance, or context. Halo and CoD are realistic and Batman is stylized.

I'd venture to say that Batman Arkham City is much more realistic than Halo.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

You're missing some variables. Realism, for instance, or context. Halo and CoD are realistic and Batman is stylized.

Batman's visuals are certainly stylized, but the violence is not. Batman might not kill people, but he breaks bones frequently, and his counters in hand to hand combat are downright vicious. He snaps peoples arms out of position all the time in the game.

 

[Shadowstar38]

I agree with you on bumping down Halo. Its a playable cartoon basically. COD is gonna get that M because its a realistic shooter where you shoot realistic people. Its lame, but I see why it has it.

But I think your going to far with Batman. If the rape scenario lines are what I think your talking about, their sly sexist indeuendo that would still pass on a TV14 TV show. As for that one gory moment. I didnt see much blood to call it gory. Plus, it was pointed out to you multiple times before that scene that death doesnt work the same way for that character. Thats the reason why another character in the game can just cough and fall dead but still leave an impact.

 

[guidance]

I never understood why Halo was rated M, for a long time I kept saying a starcraft 1 cinematic were more graphic.

If you don't believe me watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg8WuiU7TvI&feature=related

his face gets destroyed, and that is pretty realistic, for 1998 anyways.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

Guns=instant M, regardless of actual gore content or context.

BZZZZZT. The Aperture Science Handheld Portal Device would like a word with you. He says it is quite urgent.

 

[maladictem]

I disagree that's they're inherently useless, though. Just overall in their current state.

well the usefulness of the concept itself is probably subjective to what a parent thinks of other ppl determining what's appropriate for their children. Especially when those other ppl are not actually required to be experts in either the subject matter or child psychology/education.

Personally, I'm a big proponent of "watch/play/read it yourself first, you know your kid, you're the most qualified to judge what they can handle".

I understand where your coming from, but it's unrealistic to expect a parent to play every game their child wants to play. Many parents don't play video games and the rating offers them a, albeit sparse, review of the games content. Even parents who are gamers might not have the time to first play through every game. We shouldn't be concerned what letter rating (E, T, M etc.) a game gets, that isn't the important part of the rating, its the context for the descriptions (violence, language, etc.), which is the important part. Parents should focus on those.

OT: While Arkham Asylum was very dark and violent and there were murders, the player wasn't the one carrying out those murders; while in COD and Halo you are the one doing the killing. That seems to be the reason that those games got the M rating.

 

[Vitagen]

The problem with relying on the age component of the rating system is different people are going to have different opinions on what is and is not appropriate for people of different ages.
This guy:

We shouldn't be concerned what letter rating (E, T, M etc.) a game gets, that isn't the important part of the rating, its the context for the descriptions (violence, language, etc.), which is the important part. Parents should focus on those.

seems to have a pretty good grasp on things. I like this guy.
The only thing I have to add to that is that a parent wishing to make a genuinely informed decision should probably watch a few gameplay videos to get a better idea of what's in store.

Guns=instant M, regardless of actual gore content or context.

Er. . . HOW, praytell, did you arrive at that conclusion? Not to be rude, but there are somewhere in the realm of a bajillion games rated as low as 'E' with guns of some sort in them. Even if you set the bar at realistic guns, you're gonna get a lot of 'T's in there.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Guns=instant M, regardless of actual gore content or context.

Pretty much all the Ghost Recon games are rated T, and they all have guns in them, realistic ones, therefore your observation seems to definitely be wrong.

 

[Sixcess]

MW3 might not have dismemberment kills but you can't say there's not much blood. Bloody smears on the ground where bodies have fallen are pretty common, not to mention the 'bloody screen' effect, and it's all portrayed 'realistically.' That's leaving aside the series' propensity for torture scenes, knives in the throat and civilian massacre.

All that said, I suspect that if MW3 had obtained a T rating the developers would have went back and upped the violence content until it did get an M Rating, because it's the kind of series that really doesn't want to be seen in the eyes of its target audience as a 'kiddy' game.