EA responds to Battlefield 3 ESRB rating

EA has issued a statement in response to the controversial game moments identified in an ESRB rating of Battlefield 3.


You may recall the "No Russian" mission in Modern Warfare 2 kicked up a bit of a kerfuffle. While you didn't have to gun down civilians, you could, and that didn't sit well with some people. EA may have found a way to top that moral ambiguity in Battlefield 3, as outed by the Electronic Software Ratings Board (ESRB).

Be warned, this may contain Battlefield 3 campaign spoilers.

The ESRB rating (via Eurogamer) suggests killing in cold blood while a character is restrained, and shooting at police officers to complete a mission objective. Gunning down cops is generally the hyperbolic thing that uninformed pundits say about video games. We're not sure of the context in Battlefield 3, but you can almost smell the controversy boiling already.

In response, EA has issued a statement to Eurogamer, though we can't imagine the attempt at humor will sate anyone who's offended. "I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation. For God's sake, there is a nuke in Paris! Millions of lives are at stake!!"

From The Chatty
  • reply
    October 11, 2011 10:45 AM

    Steve Watts posted a new article, EA responds to Battlefield 3 ESRB rating.

    EA has issued a statement in response to the controversial game moments identified in an ESRB rating of Battlefield 3.

    • reply
      October 11, 2011 11:10 AM


    • reply
      October 11, 2011 11:31 AM

      I thought it was funny.

    • reply
      October 11, 2011 11:34 AM

      What is the story here? Was BF3 ever intended to be rated anything less than "M for Mature" ?

      Curious to know what the big stink is about.

    • reply
      October 11, 2011 11:50 AM

      when is the ESRB gonna get the balls to just start handing out an A-O rating?... they have it, so why don't the just use it...

      • reply
        October 11, 2011 11:53 AM

        It is like the NC-17 rating for movies, a lot of places will not carry games with an AO rating. The rating exists pretty much to serve as the "you went too far, tone things down a bit."

        • reply
          October 11, 2011 11:54 AM

          "a lot of places will not carry games with an AO rating."

          What's up with that, by the way? Loss of business from parents and stuck up people?

          • reply
            October 11, 2011 11:57 AM

            I think AO to most retailers puts it in the same category as porn.

          • reply
            October 11, 2011 11:58 AM

            Pretty much. I would not avoid a game if it had an AO rating, but I also do not feel like I am missing out on anything with what we have seen in M rated games.

      • reply
        October 11, 2011 11:56 AM

        They do use it.


        Very few games reach the standards that require it. Also, few developers bother if they're aiming for a game that would get that rating. Who's going to sell those in stores. They'll just sell online or in boutique shops, there's no requirement to carry the rating, it's purely voluntary and enforced by retailers.

        The biggest exception is probably Manhunt 2, and retailers stopped selling it.

    • reply
      October 11, 2011 12:36 PM

      Looks like the French are in for a beating in the two major war games this year.

    • reply
      October 11, 2011 5:34 PM

      You can shoot cops in GTA. Who cares? It's a video game. Anyone who blames actual violence on fictional violence needs to think closely about their life choices and how is it that they got their heads so far up their asses. All forms of entertainment have some violence in them. Physical art, music, photography, movies, books, cartoons, porn, THE FUCKING NEWS. I still don't understand why video games get singled out.

      • reply
        October 11, 2011 7:06 PM

        It's the new and young medium. motion pictures went through the same phase. Also remember Rock and Roll used to be music of the devil.

Hello, Meet Lola