Scroll down for the December 13 edit.
Reading Assignment for All!
Lately there's been a little buzz about a study from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And while I haven't finished reading it, I encourage you to pick it up and at least skim it's 30-some pages. Within the first few pages, the study starts off with a great message:
No ratings system can replace good parenting.The study isn't all about videogames--it covers movies, comic books, radio, music and television. Each medium has its own section that recaps the history of that medium's controversy, rating system(s), politics and legislation. I've been meaning to look into the history of media rating systems outside of videogames, and find this as a really interesting read.
p. 3, last paragraph
EDIT TIME :D
Posted December 13, 2007 @ 8:32 p.m. EST
Videogame portion of the study
-Stop! Grammar time!-
By the way, CEI, since you have this site bookmarked and I would like to take a few seconds to be a grammar nazi (kinda surprised you guys found this blog, actually). The fourth word on page 21 should be "which" instead of "wich". Tsk, tsk on your editing.
//end grammar nazi
As with the other sections of this study, the videogame section begins with the history of the medium's controversy. Death Race (Exidy, 1973) and Custer's Revenge (Atari, 1983) are listed as the main offenders before political action against games was taken in 1992 when Mortal Kombat was released for Sega game systems and Nintendo's NES and GameBoy. MK was a big deal because of fatality and dismemberment finishing moves and added blood, which Capcom's Street Fighter II, Sega's competition, did not have (although these aspects were edited out of Nintendo MK games). MK had been in arcades for a couple of months before the game console releases, but it looks like it only became a political issue when it debuted on such systems and, therefore, into living rooms everywhere.
The study touches on the events that led up to political action briefly, but leaves me with one major question: why wasn't there any political action until 1992? That's almost 20 years after Death Race. Was it that a large and powerful title finally hit home consoles, and parents were worried? Sega had sunk a lot of advertising money into the MK venture and it was a hit right away. Was it that politicians had been occupied with the Cold War and the Gulf War and had bigger issues to worry about than addressing media violence? This is a real stretch, but 1992 was an election year, and even now, media violence is a fun topic to utilize to sway some votes your way.
Because the study talks about political involvement in the development of ratings systems, I would have liked to see an answer to this question. I wonder if it can even be answered. (And this is where not knowing U.S. history post 1960s comes and bites me in the butt).
After MK lit a political fire in Washington, Congress was about to pass a bill that would give the videogame industry one year to develop a ratings system of their own. But, the game industry beat them to the punch before the bill even passed, creating the well-known Electronics Software Rating Board (ESRB). The study praises the ESRB system for its flexibility and its ability to react quickly to the ever-changing game industry and US culture.
Criticism of the ESRB's rating process was talked about briefly, touching on the most common complaint about ESRB...
[The ratings process] involves three or more trained game raters watching a DVD prepared by the game publisher which must contain “[a]ll pertinent content (as defined by ESRB), including the most extreme instances, across all relevant categories including but not limited to violence, language, sex, controlled substances and gambling.” Some have criticized this method for an alleged lack of thoroughness, which supposedly allows some content to slip past the raters....and swiftly discredited this argument.
p. 22
Given the potential for such costs, why would a game manufacturerI don't know if I quite agree with this. From the example of GTA and Manhunt 2, which surprisingly was not mentioned at all in this study, one can see that being dubbed said pariah = controversy = controversial publicity = free advertising = BIG SALES. This is, of course, in absentia, the game merits at least a Mature rating come sales time.
submit to the ESRB rating process? Quite simply, for market access.
.... If the ESRB determines that a manufacturer is acting
dishonestly, it can make a pariah out of the company and its games.
p. 22
The CEI study also covered the typical fare of parental controls and Rockstar's Hot Coffee controversy. I'm surprised the mayhem surrounding Manhunt 2 was not mentioned at all. Maybe because that would have nullified the "why would game publishers shoot themselves in the foot?" Simple answer: controversy = sales.
With talk of controversial game ratings inevitably comes the Adults-Only (AO) and Mature (M) ratings. Mature ratings are for ages 17+ and, according to the ESRB ratings guide, "may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language." Adults-Only ratings are for ages 18+, in other words legal adults, and "may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity." Seeing that most game retailers refuse to carry AO titles, the AO rating has become socially unacceptable.
Yet, the only real difference between the ratings' definitions is the word "prolonged" and one year. One year. Other than being able to legally buy porn and cigarettes, does that one year really make a difference in the content you view? Is 18 magically more able to handle "controversial" content than 17? Why just one year? Something does not seem right with that. Except, I don't know what a socially acceptable solution might be. Merging M and AO into one adult super-rating probably would not work because having that middle ground between Teen and adult seems like a necessary buffer. Maybe bumping back Mature to 16+ might make a teensy bit more sense... I don't know. This topic is easily another article entirely.
What I've been meaning to get to, however, is that I would like to see a study cover this topic of Mature vs. Adults-Only more in-depth. I thought the CEI study might touch on it because of its examination of the ESRB. It's not disappointing that they didn't, but it is something I would like to see in the future.
The conclusion of the study was definitely the most interesting.
In our judgment, the ESRB ratings system—the least government-I cannot agree more with the fourth point. That is so important to remember, especially in today's culture where we cannot explain some of the tragic violence around us and look for scapegoats, something that can give us reason why one person snapped and went on a rampage. That "why" is very comforting--it doesn't matter if it's right or not, we just need it. And all media, not just videogames, are constantly evolving, making them fresh for the finger-pointing.
influenced of the lot—does the best job of giving parents the information
they need to make decisions for their children. At the other extreme,
the radio regulatory system, which is almost entirely political, provides
parents practically no useful information. Between the poles, we see a
great diversity of opinion. We close, therefore, with four pieces of advice:
First, keep politics out of ratings systems
... Ratings systems that avoid government involvement will do a better job giving people the information they need.
Second, know the medium being rated. Video games are complex... This complexity requires a ratings system that provides lots of information....
Third, if a ratings system collapses, it is not a cause for concern. Changing tastes or attitudes mean that all ratings systems will need to be updated....
Finally, ratings systems will never substitute for other social institutions.
Parents, houses of worship, schools, and communities need to take the lead
in keeping obscene, dangerous, or offensive materials away from children.
Ratings systems cannot be expected to do this. Properly constructed, they
provide useful information to parents, nothing more and nothing less.
p. 24-25
I really agree with keeping government regulation out of media, especially if the medium's industry is willing to take responsibility with some kind of ratings. The day that our videogames have to go under federal government review would be a sad day, indeed. This goes hand-in-hand with the second point mentioned, which is knowing the medium and acknowledging its complexity. Games are too complex to be broken down with paperwork, stamps and laws. You truly need that case-by-case scenario that the ESRB provides, and the possibility of having someone's politically-driven agenda behind that scares me.
After reviewing the CEI's conclusions, it's time to come to my own. Because my knowledge of rating system histories outside of videogames is limited, this was an interesting read. I haven't finished reading all of the sections yet, but maybe that can help provide new and better insights for this site and this article. The section about videogames and conclusion seem to mirror what I've seen and heard on the game industry scene lately. I'd say the study had some solid analysis, but this study almost seems to be too pro-ESRB, -videogames to be true.
Here's the link to the study at the CEI site.
Here's the link to the study (PDF format).
+5 cookie points
if you get this :D
if you get this :D
Toasty!
2 comments:
Thank you for reviewing the study; we appreciate you sharing the study with your readers.
To answer your question about Manhunt, I don't think the example nullifies the enforcement argument I made.
Yes, Manhunt 2 has gotten a lot of press, but it's not because Rockstar lied during the ratings process. When they submitted Manhunt 2 for rating in July the ESRB gave them an appropriate rating, AO. Later, Rock Star cut down the violence and the rating was dropped to the M level.
It’s not as though Rockstar made a cost benefit analysis and concluded that it could afford to lie because of increased sales. They never lied in the first place. If they did, the fine could be up to $1 million. If this cost proves to be an insufficient deterent in the future, the ESRB can always choose to raise it.
I’d also like to touch on your question about M and an AO ratings. Why have two ratings when seemingly they perform the same role? The answer is that they don’t.
The key difference between M and AO is that M is sold in stores like Best Buy and Wal-Mart, while AO is not. This is analogous to movies. While both NC-17 movies and X movies are only available to adults, X rated movies are definitely not sold in Wal-Mart. Though this isn’t an official ESRB stance, most every retailer, large and small will not carry AO games if it sells games to a general audience.
I think this makes sense for video games and movies. There is a difference between sexual and pornographic, just as there is a difference between violence and snuff. Some things are adult, other things are VERY adult. It’s reasonable to expect that many adults wouldn’t want that level of material in the average store, not only preferring it be kept away from kids, but kept away from them as well. Hence why AO games are usually only available online and why X rated movies are usually placed in adults-only areas of stores or sold at specialty stores.
The difference between X and AO is that AO is an actual rating, while X is simply a placeholder as the pornography movie industry doesn’t participate in the MPAA’s CARA rating system. That’s different with video games, because when a company has agreed to have its games rated by the ESRB, it agrees to have ALL of its games rated by the ESRB.
So, when Sierra submits Leisure Suit Larry, they get an AO, because the game is explicitly sexual throughout. Its AO marks it as not to be sold in large retail stores. Since the ESRB rates all games by participating publishers, it needs an official equivalent of X.
Most adult games, however, are made by publishers that only publish adult games. That’s why only 23 games are listed on the ESRB website as being rated AO.
I hope that answered your questions. CEI will be doing more work on gaming in the weeks and months to come, so make sure to check in at cei.org or openmarket.org for updates on policy issues affecting gamers.
Please email me at cblomquist@cei.org with any questions you may have about the study.
Post a Comment