The ESRB Is A Failure - Kacey

Jubenhimer

Member


This is a video that describes exactly what's wrong with the ESRB, and why judging appropriate content based solely on the rating is inherently flawed. It also talks about how developers and publishers often conflate age appropriate content, with dumbing down the game. He basically says everything I had always thought about the ESRB and rating systems in general. They're fine as a heads up warning for parents, but they're too broad and unspecific to be used as an absolute authority.
 
Last edited:
M lets me know the games will be brutal. Just like R on a movie lets me know the movie will be a little "raw".

It's really funny that in Canada most R movies are 14A and only VERY VERY FEW are actually 18A which is a "hard R" as some folks say.

Puritanical ratings boards are all flawed for so many reasons, they stifle art which isn't great, they've shaped entire industries.

As for the video, random youtuber with tiddly winks sub numbers trying to make a stink so he gets noticed.
 
Last edited:
It was a huge success in avoiding strict government regulation of the industry, which was the real goal.
 
It was a huge success in avoiding strict government regulation of the industry, which was the real goal.

This.

ESRB has succeeded in its one and only true objective.

If people have other objectives they want, they can go and create a competing platform... But good luck with finding a way to pay for it.

Note: ESRB has had competition at least once before. In 2004 a company called Veritasiti Corp tried to create an alterative called PSVRatings. They went out of business by 2006.


 
Last edited:
It's nobody's responsibility but the parents to pay attention to what their kids are doing and playing. Both consoles have parental settings and account limits that prompt you upon setup.

If you want the government or a videogame company to raise your kids for you, then perhaps consider not breeding.
 
The ESRB is a scam based on political expedience. It was created to cover the industry's ass, and turned into a lucrative little bureaucracy over time like pretty much every other ratings body.
 
Stupid as fuck. The ratings are usually accurate and tells parents, or anyone really, that it's a bloody game or has nudity or whatever. It works just fine. Not gonna even click bc that headline stinks of click bait
 
I remember the 1Up Yours crew - specifically John and Garnett - shitting on the ESRB back in 2006. "Stick a fork in it, it's done" they said.

The more things change, the more things stay the same.
 
Stupid as fuck. The ratings are usually accurate and tells parents, or anyone really, that it's a bloody game or has nudity or whatever. It works just fine. Not gonna even click bc that headline stinks of click bait

I remember the 1Up Yours crew - specifically John and Garnett - shitting on the ESRB back in 2006. "Stick a fork in it, it's done" they said.

The more things change, the more things stay the same.
It's not necessarily that the ESRB's existence is bad, I mean without it, the alternative is big government censorship. Rather, it's ratings are too broad and unspecific to be taken at face value. All rating systems have this problem, but the ESRB and MPAA ratings are particularly noteworthy. As somebody mentioned above, it should ultimately be THE PARENTS job to regulate what media is appropriate for their kids, not an organization run by faceless nobodies. In other words, don't just look at the rating on the box, look at the reasons it got that rating instead, then make a decision. Age absolutism is a broken method to regulate your kids media consumption.
 
Last edited:
It's not necessarily that the ESRB's existence is bad, I mean without it, the alternative is big government censorship. Rather, it's ratings are too broad and unspecific to be taken at face value. All rating systems have this problem, but the ESRB and MPAA ratings are particularly noteworthy. As somebody mentioned above, it should ultimately be THE PARENTS job to regulate what media is appropriate for their kids, not an organization run by faceless nobodies. In other words, don't just look at the rating on the box, look at the reasons it got that rating instead, then make a decision. Age absolutism is a broken method to regulate your kids media consumption.

It's easy to say that it's the parents job to regulate their children's media, but it is definitely helpful to have ratings guides. Not every parent is savvy enough to be able to search details about games on their own. It's easy for them to look at a rating and the reason it got the rating and get a quick idea of something should be off the table.

I don't really use the ratings myself for video games, but I would if I didn't know as much about the industry. Take a game like My Friend Pedro, if your kid only showed you the cover and it didn't have a rating, you might not think much of it. However, seeing the M rating could make you do some more research or flat out say no.

I myself use the MPAA ratings to avoid certain movies. So, I'll look at a rating and then see why it's rated that way. I prefer to have these general ratings. They may be broad, but they provide a general idea that can help you make a decision on content.

Edit: I got 11 minutes into the interview and think this guy is making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, ratings are applied inconsistently, but there are so many games to review and they're reviewed by different people. It is bound to happen.
 
Last edited:
The rating systems were only ever going to be used to control and censor art. We can see it in movies and games, anything that pushes the envelope is shut down. They tried to do this with music as well and we ended up with the Tipper sticker instead. I'm shocked at how comfortable people have become with letting companies decide what kind of art they can consume.
Imagine if your cd player/mp3 player/etc actively rejected music from your favorite band because on the surface their music isn't licensed to play on that device. Behind the scenes though it's because your band used naughty words or said mean things about women or used violent imagery on the album cover.
 
It is a general guideline not a comprehensive content statement. It is meant to give some information to the uninformed. It is self regulation because they were avoiding being put under government regulation from the likes of Joe Liberman. When given a choice, regulate your own stuff before the government does.
 
I enjoy reversible covers. That way I don't have to stare at that obnoxious alphabet letter on the cover. Parental Controls do a good job with monitoring what your kids play. We use the app from Nintendo. We have to whitelist the game before they can play it, we have a timer that goes off when they hit their max play time, and we can see everything they're doing from our phones.

We are past the days of being carded. Games are downloaded digitally without any age restriction guidelines. Anyone can put a day month and year into those fields. I talked to a guy awhile back who said he just made up a name, location, and date of birth for Steam when he was 13 or whatever. I see the ratings board working as it should when it's in front of the parents first. TV MA does a good job at letting us know what we can't watch around the kids. Especially if it says The following contains: Violence and Nudity before the show starts.

I can't imagine being <17 years old now a days and trying to download music, movies, or games. Back in the day it was having my dad buy the game for me or having a cool employee check me out at the music store. It's easy to get around, but it works if you enforce it.
 
Last edited:
The entire idea of a rating to me is meaningless just due to the fact A) I have no kids and B) I'd give a 12 year old Grand Theft Auto and play it with / explain it to them (I don't get why we always treat kids like a game will corrupt them...just explain the world to them!)

I guess I just don't get the idea that kids are these fragile little creatures who will have their brains turned to mush because of "insert scurge here"...first it was cartoons, then it was games, then the whole Beavis and Butthead thing...SOMETHING is constantly "ruining the youth"...and I think it's just a basic lack of treating kids like they don't deserve real world concepts explained to them like they are "small adults".
 
Stupid as fuck. The ratings are usually accurate and tells parents, or anyone really, that it's a bloody game or has nudity or whatever. It works just fine. Not gonna even click bc that headline stinks of click bait

The person in the video makes a good point about how odd it was in the early 2000s. Why was NFS Hot Pursuit 2 rated E, but most wanted rated T? Most wanted has no cursing, lyrics were censored, no drug references. For kids who grew up with strict parents this screwed them out of many great games.
 
The person in the video makes a good point about how odd it was in the early 2000s. Why was NFS Hot Pursuit 2 rated E, but most wanted rated T? Most wanted has no cursing, lyrics were censored, no drug references. For kids who grew up with strict parents this screwed them out of many great games.
so that makes it a "failure"? it did its job fine. no system is perfect. calling it a "failure" is hyperbole, and pretty shameless click bait. ill pass.
 
so that makes it a "failure"? it did its job fine. no system is perfect. calling it a "failure" is hyperbole, and pretty shameless click bait. ill pass.

I just thought it was an interesting video when i watched it.

My parents weren't super strict, just no M rated games, everything else was fine, so I never thought about the wild inconsistencies screwing other kids out of potentially wonderful childhood memories like I have of Most Wanted.

I do think it is an utter failure in other ways not mentioned in the video.
 
I watched this video before I saw this topic. I do think they kind of made a big deal out of the wrong issues, but I still think the ESRB is dumb.. especially with how games like super smash bros. brawl can be rated T but then games with actual gambling mechanics can be marketed towards children with nothing but a disclaimer on the back of the box
 
Don't you have a movie ratings board in the US? Games in the UK have had BBFC ratings for years that pretty much match movies and it works well, apart from the parents who think all games are for kids and that GTA and COD suitable for 6 year old Jimmy.
 
Don't you have a movie ratings board in the US? Games in the UK have had BBFC ratings for years that pretty much match movies and it works well, apart from the parents who think all games are for kids and that GTA and COD suitable for 6 year old Jimmy.

They have the MPAA, but the big differences between the UK and the US are that movies don't have to have ratings in the US, and the ratings aren't legally enforceable either. That means that they're only suggestions and cinemas can choose how they want to enforce them, and unrated cuts can be released as long as somewhere will show/stock them. This isn't the case for the 15 and 18 (and 12 on disc) ratings in the UK ; those ratings are enforced by law in cinemas and shops.

The BBFC doesn't generally rate games any more in the UK though. Game ratings are handled by PEGI, but they have the same force of law behind them. I have some problems with PEGI, but the BBFC weren't ideal for games, and they're not for movies either IMO: they can enforce censorship where it's not legally necessary, and the justification for the cuts they make seems to almost always be on the basis of a theoretical belief that something could cause harm rather than providing hard evidence that something has caused or will certainly cause harm. I have no problems with things being cut to get a lower rating should the distributor or creator request this, but I have a massive problem with things that receive an 18 rating being cut when there's no legal necessity. They're nowhere near as bad as they used to be but they still can't resist getting their scissors out on occasion.
 
Last edited:
The rating systems were only ever going to be used to control and censor art.
Admittedly, in the years when the ESRB became a thing, it seemed that "pushing the envelope" meant "just go overboard with gore and violence" for most western developers. Basically every Full Motion Video-based game that's still remembered today (with very few exceptions) was all about that, and those that had a sequel just ramped the violence and gore up. Sexual content largely remained in the titillation range because America, not because of fear of authority action. You can't deny that for most devs, "realism" in the early 90's meant "digitized people getting butchered in the most creative ways". The government getting aware of that was just a matter of time.

I like to think that rating systems like the ESRB, hypocritical as they may get when applied, helped stifling a very uncreative trend in video games.
 
Admittedly, in the years when the ESRB became a thing, it seemed that "pushing the envelope" meant "just go overboard with gore and violence" for most western developers. Basically every Full Motion Video-based game that's still remembered today (with very few exceptions) was all about that, and those that had a sequel just ramped the violence and gore up. Sexual content largely remained in the titillation range because America, not because of fear of authority action. You can't deny that for most devs, "realism" in the early 90's meant "digitized people getting butchered in the most creative ways". The government getting aware of that was just a matter of time.

I like to think that rating systems like the ESRB, hypocritical as they may get when applied, helped stifling a very uncreative trend in video games.
I disagree, it was typical fear mongering from pearl clutching politicians and news hit jobs that painted an industry full of violent gore fests, but the reality was far from that. Look at the titles that were released in 1994 (year ESRB was established) and it was hardly a deluge of blood & guts. Just like the left wing nut jobs that used to frequent this forum lying about the industry drowning in an ocean of "sexual objectification", in the 90s it was the same fabricated outrage over edge cases.
 
It's not necessarily that the ESRB's existence is bad, I mean without it, the alternative is big government censorship. Rather, it's ratings are too broad and unspecific to be taken at face value. All rating systems have this problem, but the ESRB and MPAA ratings are particularly noteworthy. As somebody mentioned above, it should ultimately be THE PARENTS job to regulate what media is appropriate for their kids, not an organization run by faceless nobodies. In other words, don't just look at the rating on the box, look at the reasons it got that rating instead, then make a decision. Age absolutism is a broken method to regulate your kids media consumption.
Parents are allowed to buy their kids M rated games if they want. Not sure I understand your point.

How will parents know that content is in the game to make the decision about whether it's ok for their kids? I agree the information could be better. I always read the Parent's guide on IMDB when I'm going to watch a movie with the kids.

In general, I agree with the sentiment, but we were facing government regulation so this was the better alternative. With modern sjw moralizing, can you imagine how bad the Tipper Gore hearings would be if we had something similar nowadays?
 
Last edited:
It's easy to say that it's the parents job to regulate their children's media, but it is definitely helpful to have ratings guides. Not every parent is savvy enough to be able to search details about games on their own. It's easy for them to look at a rating and the reason it got the rating and get a quick idea of something should be off the table.
I agree. Ratings are fine as a quick heads-up warning for parents. But I think using them as an absolute authority on what your kids can play is a fundamentally broken method of content regulation. For starters, Kids mature at different rates, so a 10 year old might be able to handle Assasin's creed while a 13 year old may not be ready for that just yet. Second, games get their ratings for very different reasons, and often, they're pretty inconsistent. The best thing a parent can do is check the content descriptors on the back of the box. That alone will give you a better idea of what content you feel is appropriate for your child than just the vague letter on the front.
 
It was 100% necessary to avoid government intervention. I don't really think it could have been done any better.
It was an old play book from back in the days of comic books to try and skirt regulation. Musicians like John Denver and Frank Zappa fought similar attempts to apply "truth in advertising" to music because they knew that applying these kind of warning labels to music would serve later as scarlet letters to ostracize music not deemed suitable for the mass market. The exact thing we see today in movies and games. Music survived just fine with just a stupid Tipper sticker and long since abandoned it.
The so called fear of government regulation is a weak argument because we at least have an avenue to knock down such intrusions to our freedom via the courts. Evil organizations like the ESRB and MPAA are private institutions where artists and their fans have no way to circumvent that process that doesn't lead into obscurity. Gaming still has the PC where art can be free, but you see how hard the same self-righteous pricks attack it. Demanding we all live in the console wall gardens of their choosing.
Parents need to be parents and either research entertainment to protect little Timmy or simply don't buy the product. I'm tired of people sacrificing my personal freedoms just to appease lazy motherfuckers who can't be assed to do the research or tell their child no.
 
Last edited:
Who the fuck is Kacey?

To make sure my boys turned into men I had them play MKII on genesis when they were 4. Fuck you ESRB.
 
I disagree, it was typical fear mongering from pearl clutching politicians and news hit jobs that painted an industry full of violent gore fests, but the reality was far from that. Look at the titles that were released in 1994 (year ESRB was established) and it was hardly a deluge of blood & guts. Just like the left wing nut jobs that used to frequent this forum lying about the industry drowning in an ocean of "sexual objectification", in the 90s it was the same fabricated outrage over edge cases.
We weren't drowning in it, but some of those products were almost unimaginable just a year or two prior. Japan also didn't seem to be leaning towards such content in such a realistic way (Street Fighter II was violent, but nowhere in the vicinity of Mortal Kombat). When digitized characters and full motion video became the new sensation, though, it's undeniable that western devs seemed to think that such tech would be best employed to offer content with a high shock factor. Night Trap could be done without FMV, yet it's one of the games that started the whole ESRB thing and it's interesting that such a game came out precisely as a showcase for the Sega CD's capabilities. There's less explicit and realistic violence in all the classic Resident Evil games than in The Harvester, The 11th Hour, or Phantasmagoria. The trend was pretty clear, even if it was just limited to a few games, and the content was pretty gratuitous just for the sake of being shocking. Most of those games weren't even good games too, so it's clear that gameplay wasn't as important as the visual content to the devs. There's reports of Trilobyte Games wanting to really go over the top with FMV in The 11th Hour, even more than what's in the final game. Regulating all that possibly led to better games, that could still have violence and gore in them (as Japan showed just a few years later on the new consoles).

I'm not saying that the whole thing wasn't overblown, or that it wasn't more pearl clutching than genuine concern. But things suddenly went from 0 to 100 regarding violent content in video games, and some heads were going to turn no matter what. The ESRB may have been a better "solution" to the issue than many others.
 
I don't want the government regulating our games. It's best that the industry regulates itself

The main concern is that the ESRB is operated by the industry. They have a vested interest in ensuring games are rated to maximize their commercial viability.
 
The main concern is that the ESRB is operated by the industry. They have a vested interest in ensuring games are rated to maximize their commercial viability.
My main concern is that we have a bunch of 80-year old politicians who are controlled by special interest groups like the NRA or MADD who want to regulate what can and cannot be in video games and stifle creativity.
 
It is a total disaster. The ESRB couldn't stop me from lighting a cross dressing serial killer on fire in Police Quest: Open Season or witnessing the gnarly death scenes and sweet titties in Phantasmagoria. I salute the Wal-Mart employee who helped me satisfy my underage lust for FMV violence and breasts.
 
Last edited:


This is a video that describes exactly what's wrong with the ESRB, and why judging appropriate content based solely on the rating is inherently flawed. It also talks about how developers and publishers often conflate age appropriate content, with dumbing down the game. He basically says everything I had always thought about the ESRB and rating systems in general. They're fine as a heads up warning for parents, but they're too broad and unspecific to be used as an absolute authority.

I don't know...
Maybe
 
Top Bottom