Xbox One allows players to auto-resume games through cloud
Xbox One achievements dynamic, not limited to single games
Xbox One Kinect reading emotions and heart rate
Battlefield 4 launching October 29; confirmed for Xbox One and PS4
Ex-ESRB Rater Offers Harsh Critique of System
by Aaron Linde, Mar 07, 2008 7:58pm PSTFormer rater for the Entertainment Software Ratings Board Jerry Bonner thoroughly criticized his ex-employer in an article appearing in this month's issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly, GameSpot reports.
In his editorial, Bonner called on the ESRB to make a number of changes to its current system and policies for rating games, asking that the Board drop its insistence on secrecy and make the process of rating games more transparent.
Bonner also suggested that the ESRB should consider splitting the T for Teen rating into the age-specific ratings of T13 and T16. He advocated eliminating the AO for Adults Only rating altogether, and changing the M for Mature rating to apply for gamers 18 and older, a one year increase to the current age limit.
The former rater also shed some light on the goings-on within the organization, revealing that more than once the ESRB has overruled designations agreed upon by its raters. Though many of the changes were minor tweaks to descriptive terms and the like, Bonner claimed that the ESRB would occasionally step in to switch up a T rating to an M rating or vice versa. The raters were rarely given explanations as to why the changes were made.
Moreover, the editorial suggested that the ESRB's announcement that full-time raters would get hands-on time with products, time permitting, was false. Bonner wrote that the only games he and his fellow raters got to play were random titles from the ESRB's archive. The ESRB's current policy only requires that employees watch selected footage of a game, rather than play it themselves.
In the same issue of EGM, ESRB president Patricia Vance responded to Bonner's commentary, saying that the article "contains numerous misleading statements, factual inaccuracies, and misrepresentations with respect to key aspects of the rating system."
Comments
Over the last decade, the ESRB rating system has become much more predictable. Predictability in ratings is a GOOD THING. The quality of your content doesn't matter; only the experience itself. Crudely modeled mass slaughter will be rated the same as highly detailed mass slaughter if both are meant to convey the same experience.
That said, it would be helpful if the ESRB would play at least a small portion of the game, even in a pre-release state, prior to assigning ratings. The ESRB is the only rating system worldwide that does not play the game at least in part before assigning the ratings.
That isn't to say they don't play the games. They pick games at random after release and verify the questionnaire and video properly represent the final product. Games that don't line up can get fined, re-stickered, etc.
Regarding ratings "tweaks," they do happen, but there are reasons why the raters wouldn't be involved. Publishers and developers work with representatives at the ESRB as part of an appeal process and many times we'll get a higher rating or a descriptor because of a single item on the questionnaire or in the video. We will negotiate via phone to decide what needs to change in order to get a lower rating or lose a descriptor, we'll make the change, the publisher will sign a sworn affidavit saying the content or code was removed, and then we get the changed rating.
While I agree that a T-rating split could be beneficial, I don't see changing M as being beneficial at all. Right now, M and AO are perfect corollaries for R and NC-17, and I wouldn't mess with that dividing line.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 21 replies.
Keeping the rating, on the other hand, doesn't seem to require much work as far as I can tell, even if it is not used much, or ever, at the moment. It's just a logo, right?
You must be logged in to post.