ESRB

The topic of today's blog is that of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, or the ESRB. This company takes all forms of digital and electronic entertainment (which is mostly comprised of video games) and rates them to inform the public of the nature of the game or media. The ESRB has been around for a while, being established by a bill to Congress in 1994. They are the one and only ratings board for video games, and are a very important entity. The ESRB like any company has had its ups and downs. Their rating system has been criticized many times, and their conduct within the video game industry has been noted to be harsh at times.

The ESRB has become more than just a ratings board. In countless cases, they have become a entity that influences the development of games. If a game is found to be too violent by the company, many publishers will edit and re-do things in their games to get a better rating. The ESRB has misused this influence many times, and in some cases has made "a mountain out of a molehill". This comes along due to their very poor way of rating games. The current technique in rating a game starts with random employees chosen to rate the stated game. The publisher then sends video with the most violent aspects of their game. The ratings board looks over this and rates it as follows. In many cases, no one touches the game at the ESRB until after the game's release. A great example of this very obvious flaw is that of Halo. Microsoft Game Studios released a video with the most violent parts of Halo: Combat Evolved. The ESRB decided to rate the game M for Mature. First hand experience of the game actually reveals that Halo probably should not get an M rating, but that of a T rating. Comparing Halo to a game such as Call of Duty 3 (with a rating of T), Call of Duty 3 was noted to have intense blood, language, and violence. Halo was noted to have blood and gore and violence, although it contains no human blood, no language, and violence comparible to COD3. Yet it still gained an M rating. COD3 has everything that Halo had plus language, and yet it gains a T rating.

The ESRB has tried to maintain balance with this inconsistency, with their ability to re-rate a game after release. One such example would be the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which was originally rated T and changed to M a year later. Not only does this create problems for retailers due to outdated ratings on the boxes, it cost money to take all of the previous games off the market and introduced newly labeled ones.

As important as a system to rate games is, the ESRB's system in ridiculous. Watching a video of a game is no way to determine if the game is appropriate or not. Playing is the only way to do so. This system also leaves room for publishers to send edited tapes to the ESRB, screening what content they want to show the board to garner a better rating. This is the publisher's fault, yes, but the system is setting itself up for failure. The only way the ESRB can actually be a good and profitably board is if they play the games.

The ESRB also uses its influence in the industry to change video games. This is very evident in the Mortal Combat series, where the original game (which was released in 1992, prior to the creation of the ESRB) is known to be one of the most violent games ever. The titles continued with violence, garnering M ratings along the way. After much pressure for sales, Midway's new title Mortal Combat vs. DC Universe was toned down significantly to get a T rating. Although the ESRB enjoyed this, Midway did not, and MC vs. DC did not sell well at all. Midway would soon go bankrupt, and even though this cannot be the sole reason for Midway's bankruptcy, it is a contributing factor. Publishers cannot be tied down by the ESRB. If a game series such as Mortal Combat is known for its violence, it is the ESRB's job to note the violence, not comment upon it. It has a job to tell people about it, and not prohibit the creation of it. The ESRB is meant to be objective.

I will continue this discussion in my next blog on Tuesday by trying to address the ESRB inconsistency with its "letter" rating system, and try to figure out a solution for their troubles...