The Game Plan 07.13.07: Ratings War

Posted by James McGee on 07.13.2007

In the wake of Manhunt 2's "AO" rating and outright being banned overseas, I take a look at the ESRB ratings process

I know everyone and his uncle Jethro has something to say about the controversy surrounding Manhunt 2's "Adults Only" rating here in the U.S., and its banning in other countries, but I'll throw my two cents in as well. I wanted to wait a few weeks to speak about it, just to see where things would go, but also to let my own thoughts stew and ferment. The drawback of being involved in an immediate medium like the internet is that it's easy to let knee-jerk reactions and uninformed opinions saturate the airwaves (‘net waves?). This is not a simple, cut and dry topic, so I think it deserves a discussion that goes beyond the kind of black-and-white initial reactions we are all prone to. I'll get to my specific thoughts about Manhunt 2 next week, but this week I wanted to discuss game ratings in general. I have a beef with the ESRB, but it has nothing to do with them being out-of-touch prudes or fascist tyrants. Believe it or not, I actually think the ratings board should be more strict and meticulous than it is already. The ESRB isn't trying to keeping people from playing games—just inform consumers, and that's a good thing. If the ESRB could establish a more consistent, specific, and accurate system, their effectiveness would be even greater. As usual, I have some suggestions on how they can refine the process. I am James McGee, and here's The Game Plan.

I'd wager that most gamers are blissfully unaware of the rating process, so here's a quick and dirty introduction to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB)*. It is a non-profit, self-regulatory body whose purpose is "To help inform consumers, especially parents, about the age suitability and content of computer and video games prior to making a purchase or rental decision." Towards that end, the board assigns a committee of at least three people to review questionnaires and video material submitted by the publisher of each game. Each of the three independently reviews the material and assigns ratings based on their own observation. Publishers can then accept the final rating, revise game content and resubmit in hopes of receiving a different rating, or appeal the rating before a separate committee. Though it's a voluntary process, most retailers will not carry a game that has not undergone the ratings process, and first-party console makers won't allow such games on their system. And that's your lesson for the day.

I'm sure some people would dispute me on this, but with the exception of the dreaded "Adults Only," I don't think ratings were ever intended to keep children from playing games. At best, they are a tool that allows consumers to make informed decisions about the products they buy. In theory, parents can look at a game's rating and determine if it is suitable for their children. Responsible parents can take the next step, turning the box over to look at the explanation of why the game received the rating it did, and tailor their decisions accordingly. The specific details about a rating are the most important part of all this. If you stick with my column, you'll likely discover that one of my particular pet peeves is the idea that people magically become mature enough to handle everything when they become 18 (except drinking, because you have to wait until you're 21 for the Alcohol Fairy to wave her wand and declare you suitable for drunkedness). Age is not a universal indicator of maturity—I've met forty year olds who were less responsible, less trustworthy, and had less of a grip on reality than most eight year olds. It is the right and responsibility of every parent to weigh their child's own level of maturity and the particular moral code they choose to live by against a game's content, and from there determine if it is appropriate. Ratings give parents the ability to do that.

On the cynical side of things, ratings serve as an escape clause whenever a developer/publisher finds itself on the receiving end of consumer backlash. ESRB ratings are the industry's way of making the public aware of the content contained in games—what consumers do with that information is out of a developer's hands. So your eight-year-old dropped the "F-Bomb" because he heard it in Grand Theft Auto? Hey, lady, there's an "M" on the box for language. You should have thought of that before you bought the game. The kid used grandma's birthday money to buy the game without your knowledge? Look, it's not our fault the store didn't check the kid's ID, and besides, what kind of parent doesn't supervise what an eight-year-old does with his money? Even if it is a case of CYOA ("Cover Your Own @$$"), ratings still do their job. The moral constitution of a company that produces "M" rated games is infinitely debatable and a matter of opinion, but at least they make every effort to let the consumer know what kind of content is in that game.

But do ratings get the job done? How effective are they? After all, the whole process is a subjective and somewhat abstract concept. A group of three individuals determine a game's age-demographic based on their personal perception of what is adult content. The ESRB website explains that games rated "T for Teen" may contain (among other things) "minimal blood" and "infrequent use of strong language." But what constitutes "minimal" and "infrequent?" Everyone has different opinions on these things, and so it is perfectly possible that, had Manhunt 2 been evaluated by a different committee, it would have been given an "M" with little fanfare. Think of all the people affected by a game's rating: the entire development staff, publishers, marketing teams, retailers, children, parents, etc. Is it fair for a decision that touches so many lives to be made through such arbitrary means? There needs to be a more consistent and specific method of rating games. Just as an example, let's say each game gets a point for every naughty word, violent act, sexual innuendo, etc. Games with 0-5 points get an "E," 5-10 get an "E+10", and so on. Establishing the initial criteria would still be subjective (do all naughty words have the same value, is violence considered more offensive than sexual content, etc.), but at least having set, concrete guidelines would yield consistency.

Not only is the criteria between different ratings fuzzy, the guidelines allow far too much leeway within each rating. All "M's" are not created equal, as is evidenced by Resident Evil's "M for Animated Blood and Gore, Animated Violence" versus the original Manhunt's "M for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, and Strong Language." Any system that gives these two games the same rating is inherently flawed. There is simply no comparison between the first game's b-movie horror and the latter's visceral, quasi-realistic violence. The ESRB should not come under fire for giving Manhunt 2 an "Adults Only" rating, but rather for not having more gradations between the different ratings. There has to be a point where material crosses the line into another ratings category, but the ESRB tries to cover far too much ground with "Ts" and "Ms". There is already an "E for Everyone" and an "E+10 for Everyone 10 and Older"—why not similar gradations for "Teen" and "Mature" ratings?


Plus, for the most part, the people doing the ratings aren't even playing the games—they're watching videos and reading reports about the game content. The industry likes to crow all the time about how they offer an interactive experience as opposed to a passive one, yet the games are almost always being judged based on passive observation. ESRB's justification for not playing through entire games is that, with games being so time-consuming and dependent on user interaction, playing through them is impractical and may still not yield every last ounce of content. I agree, but, not seeking out that content leads to situations like the infamous "Hot Coffee" cheat code for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, where a sexual mini-game was discovered by users after the title was already on the market. The result was a retroactive "Adults Only" rating that saw the game pulled off store shelves, forcing Rockstar to put time and money into re-programming and re-releasing a modified version of the game. Rockstar was stupid to try hiding the content in the first place, and I'm not a fan of them trying to back-pedal their way out of it once the jig was up, but the ESRB is at fault for not finding the content, too. According to one report, it will cost Rockstar $1 million to revamp Manhunt 2 in order to avoid its "AO" rating, but I'd wager that's better than the cost of recalling and retooling GTA: SA after the fact. Ideally, someone should play through a game in its entirety, then discuss with developers any content that may have been overlooked. Rating should be a partnership between the ESRB and the rest of the industry, because mistakes and secrets cause more headaches for everyone down the road.

I honestly believe that the ESRB does the best it can under the current practices, and I'll be the first to admit how impractical most of the suggestions I've made are. However, more objective ratings criteria, more detailed rating gradations, and more thorough judging of games as whole products would lead to more accurate ratings and less trouble in the long-run. Certain "high-risk" games already get the full-play-through treatment, and the board has recently begun hiring full-time players (a dream job if ever there was one) in an attempt to give more games this same attention. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction, and similar baby-steps in the other areas I've mentioned can only help bolster the ESRB's credibility and effectiveness. I'm not a fan of outright banning things, but some material simply is not suitable for all ages (or, more accurately, all levels of maturity). For that reason, consistent, informative ratings are nothing if not a good thing. If the industry is able to show it can regulate itself and keep its customers informed, then it keeps muckity-mucks at bay and allows everyone to go about their business, making the games they want to make.

I have really simplified this whole ratings business, so I encourage you to visit the ESRB website, where they go into far greater detail than I ever could here. The effectiveness and consistency of ratings is a problem that spans all forms of entertainment, so I also recommend the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which addresses some of the same issues I've discussed here, only in reference to the Motion Picture Association of America's film rating system. But be warned: the movie is rated NC-17, so make sure the age fairy has paid you a visit before giving it a look.


*All information about the ESRB, the ratings process, game ratings and details are courtesy www.esrb.org