Warning: linked videos may contain potentially disturbing scenes.
When you go into a game store, on the face of every game cover, poster, and on the pages of game ads is a rating of the game. That rating was put in place by people working out of an office in New York. By their own judgments and measurements, they decide who the game is most likely to be appropriate for. However, there are several problems with the way their current system works:
It revolves around money - The industry as a whole is deathly afraid of the ‘Adults Only’ tag. Games rated AO are not found on store shelves, anywhere. This encourages developers of highly violent or controversial games to be dishonest, if they feel their game is going to get the AO stamp. After all, getting an AO tag means no shelf space, and thus leads to lower sales.
It revolves around age - While I’m sure everyone would agree with me that average 10 year olds should not be playing Grand Theft Auto, it stands to reason that there are some 14 year olds who are mature enough to play, as well as there being some 20 year olds who are not able to reasonably handle the experience. The system uses age as a ‘guide’, but I have a problem again with the AO rating. What exactly can the average 17 year old not handle that 18 year olds can?
Granted, our entire society grants certain privileges at particular ages. Driving, voting, cigarettes and alcohol all require us to be of a certain measured ripeness. The difference is that all of the above either significantly affect others or are a serious hazard to your physical development, backed up with medical proof. Despite what Jack Thompson and those in line with him have to say, there is no proof of harm directly from games.
The ESRB is woefully understaffed for the process - The ESRB does not play through every game that comes through their door. A majority of the ratings are from screenshots, gameplay videos, and even trailers. Before you think too much about whether this is effective or not, lets take a look at one game I have always had a problem with the rating of: Manhunt.
First, lets look at the trailer made for Manhunt 2 (I am unable to locate a trailer for Manhunt 1):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J5VGtncbvY4
Now, lets look at a game play video made by a fan of Manhunt:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=w7ZYrs0vS1g
Very different, would you agree? Now, this is not to say that the ESRB gave Manhunt a ‘mature’ rating based on the gameplay trailer. I’m hoping they were more involved than that. However, if Manhunt does not “include prolonged scenes of intense violence,” (from the definition of the Adults Only rating) I don’t think I want to see what does.
It is inconsistent - Let’s look at the games that have qualified (from Wikipedia–I’ve added publishing years where I could) for the AO rating:
* All Nude Cyber (Mac, PC) - Strong Sexual Content
* All Nude Glamour (Mac, PC) - Strong Sexual Content
* All Nude Nikki (Mac, PC) - Strong Sexual Content
* Body Language (DVD) - Strong Sexual Content
* Critical Point (PC) - Strong Sexual Content, Violence - 1998
* Crystal Fantasy (Mac, PC) - Strong Sexual Content
* Cyber Photographer (Mac, PC) - Strong Sexual Content
* Fahrenheit: Indigo Prophecy Director’s Cut (PC) - Blood, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs and Alcohol, Violence - 2005
* Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PC, PS2, Xbox) - Originally received an M rating; however, the rating was changed to AO (with the “Nudity” descriptor added) several months after its release due to the Hot Coffee mod. Afterward a newer version (labeled “Second Edition”) was released on all three systems. This version had the content removed and are now rated M. - 2004
* The Joy of Sex (CD-i) - Strong Sexual Content - 1996
* Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude Uncut and Uncensored (PC) - Mature Humor, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Alcohol - 2004
* Lula 3D (PC) - Blood, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Violence - 2005
* Peak Entertainment Casinos (PC) - Gambling
* Playboy Screensaver: The Women Of Playboy (Mac) - Mature Sexual Themes
* Playboy the Mansion: Private Party (PC) - Nudity, Strong Sexual Content
* Riana Rouge (Mac, PC) - Realistic Blood and Gore, Strong Sexual Themes - 1997
* Singles: Flirt Up Your Life (PC) - Nudity, Strong Sexual Content - 2004
* Snow Drop (PC) - Strong Sexual Content - 2001
* Thrill Kill (PlayStation) (Cancelled) - Animated Blood and Gore, Animated Violence, Strong Sexual, Mature Sexual Themes
* Tokimeki Check in! (PC) - Strong Sexual Content - 2001
* Water Closet: The Forbidden Chamber (PC) - Strong Sexual Content - 2001
* WET - The Sexy Empire (PC) - Strong Sexual Content - 1998
* X-Change (PC) - Strong Sexual Content - 2001
Not surprisingly, there is not much information about these games. Even tracking down the year of their publication is difficult. Assuming that “The Joy of Sex” was the first ‘game’ to ever get the rating, that is only 23 games in 11 years, or about two a year. Many of these titles have had sequels that opt-out of ESRB rating, and it’s no wonder, given the Industry’s cold-shoulder to the AO rating. Why pay money to be cast into shadow?
Only one of these games has ever been rated AO strictly for violence (Interestingly, on ESRB.org, it is listed as ‘Animated Blood and Gore, Animated Violence’, while the back of the box-that-never-was also includes ‘Mature Sexual Themes’), and despite its cancellation, still saw public release in the form of Internet leaks. Below is a link to game play footage of Thrill Kill on GameTrailers.com:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=10073&pl=game&type=wmv
Keep in mind that Thrill Kill was set to be released in a post Mortal Kombat and Postal, but pre-GTA3 world. The game is little more than a beefed up four player Mortal Kombat with a twist of sexual… themes. I’m not saying the game does not deserve the AO rating–quite the contrary–I’m saying it was a good precedent that the ESRB was not able to maintain.
But how do we fix it?
This is a hot issue, after the ‘Hot Coffee’ incident (I refuse to call it a scandal). It is the best example of ‘too many cooks in the kitchen’ that I can think of. Legislatures, parents, and even gamers all want to stir the soup to make sure it comes out how they want it. Here are the main points that I see are problems:
The system is not trustworthy - Since the ratings tend to fluctuate, some of the parents that actually do use the system don’t trust it. It needs to reach MPAA rating credibility. It needs to document its decisions and justify them. It needs either more clear-cut rules or it needs to firmly stand by its existing rules. The AO rating should not be a nail in a coffin. It needs to exist, because there is a very real difference in the violence contained within Quake and the violence in Postal. Those are two different worlds of experiences that cannot possibly fit under the same classification.
Developers do not support it - Every game that is sold in a retail store has the ESRB logo on it; the publishers pay the money to get it rated, and off it goes. However, when a game like GTA comes under fire for being too violent, the developers and other creative team members are nowhere to be found. They duck their head, count their money, and wait for the storm to blow over. They need to stand behind their work. Developers should be allowed to make any game they can dream up, even if the context goes far beyond the morality of the general public, so long as they are willing to stand behind their product. You need to justify why the game exists, and why it deserves the rating it has received. Super Columbine Massacre RPG is a fantastic game. It draws on emotions, it creates discussions, it gets attention. But most importantly, the guy behind the game defends it. He explains why he made it, what his goals where, and I challenge anyone disgusted with the game’s existence to not feel a little enlightened by how he justifies himself.
Parents don’t use it - This is the only problem I see that will likely ‘fix itself’. As gamers grow up to be parents, most of us know what we’re getting into with games. We understand that just because it’s a video game doesn’t mean it’s for little Sally to play. The misconception of ‘games are for kids’ will be shed as our generation gets older. We understand that it is important to be proactive about this, to be actively engaged in what our children are experiencing.
The ESRB does a great job given their current state. However, it has proven itself to be quite a fallible system. It needs to branch out and really kick itself in the butt and get serious. It needs the industry’s support to do this. Developers and gamers alike need to really throw their support behind the ESRB, and critique them when we feel they are wrong. We need to show the industry that there is a demand for games with the AO rating, because the games they sell us now basically are AO games. It they take the Wal-Mart road and refuse to stock it, we’ll buy it elsewhere. Digital distribution and the increase of broadband in the homes makes this concern almost moot. If you make it, and we want it, we’ll get it if you make it easy enough.