Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2005-11-29 12:18:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:david walsh, esrb, hot coffee, joe lieberman, nimf, report card, steven kent

ESRB Gets an "F" in Annual Video Game Report Card

The National Institute on Media and the Family has just released its 10th Annual MediaWise Video Game Report Card as well as a Ten Year Overview on the Past and Future of the Video Game industry.

The release took place in Washington, D.C. where Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) joined Dr. David Walsh, president and founder of NIMF. Nationally-syndicated columnist Steven Kent spoke as well.

This year's edition of the MediaWise Video Game Report Card highlights what NIMF terms "serious issues" with the ratings system and lack of parental involvement. Among those coming in for major criticism are the ESRB and IEMA (retailers).

Check out that big, red "F" the ESRB received for ratings accuracy. Someone is going to bed without their supper - or their Hot Coffee - tonight...

Here are the grades:

Ratings Education: C+
Retailers' Policies: B
Retailers' Enforcement: D-
Ratings Accuracy: F
Arcade Survey: B-
Industry's 10-year cumulative grade: D+

You can view the entire report card here. The Ten-Year Overview is here.


Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

(135 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Ok.....
[info]bayushisan
2005-11-29 05:43 pm UTC (link)
How are the ratings not accurate? Oh yeah they don't use the whole confusing red light, yellow light, green light method. Got it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Ok.....
[info]duff_mcwhalen
2005-11-29 07:29 pm UTC (link)
and the FEAR catagory made me larf.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Ok..... - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 09:15 pm UTC
The only quibble...
[info]mazinger_z
2005-11-29 05:44 pm UTC (link)
Ratings accuracy received an F. Why?

Where were the slip-ups? Other than the Hot Coffee incident, I mean.

And there was no grade on parental enforcement of the ratings. I find that skewed. It's not illegal to sell it, so if a parent browbeats a clerk into selling an inappropriate game, who's to blame?

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: The only quibble...
[info]pope_guilty
2005-11-29 06:54 pm UTC (link)
Hot Coffee shouldn't change the rating from M. It's no worse than any number of scenes in R-rated movies.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: The only quibble... - [info]darkfalconer, 2005-11-29 07:47 pm UTC
Re: The only quibble... - [info]pope_guilty, 2005-11-29 07:50 pm UTC
Re: The only quibble... - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 08:06 pm UTC
Re: The only quibble... - [info]bar23, 2005-11-30 04:49 pm UTC
nope - (Anonymous), 2005-12-04 05:37 am UTC

[info]viridiscervus
2005-11-29 05:47 pm UTC (link)
Cracking under media/political pressure responsible for these ratings?

(Reply to this)

Nothing all that suprising, though I would debate some of the grades
[info]yukimurasanada
2005-11-29 05:49 pm UTC (link)
It's easy to understan the F for accuracy. Hot coffe anyone?

For the enforcment though, I get carded evey time I try to buy a game from a major retailer, and i'm 25.

Policies, I think thats an A, enforcemt at worse a C +. education I do agree with, big, but thats not the industries fault, they put out all the info that needs to be out there. Parents just don't pay attention.

I also feel they make a big error in there "who is playing videogames" section, we already saw recently that more and more adults play videogames.

They are right in saying that M rated games are getting more popular, but they aren't smart enough to connect this to the fact that more adults play games now.

Nimf however, though there intentions are good, are often times hard pressed to be objective, in a way, they are seeing things through 2 narrow a view point. Though I like that Dr. walsh and his group prefer educatoin to regulation, you have to have all the facts before you make judgements.

Oh well. No one is perfect, and Nimf never was anyway.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Nothing all that suprising, though I would debate some of the grades
[info]keddren
2005-11-29 06:07 pm UTC (link)
One high profile game with hidden code exploited by 3rd party modders garners an F grade for a report that covers a 10 year period?

That's fairly asinine.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Nothing all that suprising, though I would debate some of the grades - [info]catch_33, 2005-11-29 06:13 pm UTC
Re: Nothing all that suprising, though I would debate some of the grades - [info]keddren, 2005-11-29 06:17 pm UTC
Re: Nothing all that suprising, though I would debate some of the grades - [info]pope_guilty, 2005-11-29 06:55 pm UTC
Re: Nothing all that suprising, though I would debate some of the grades - [info]thedougmc, 2005-11-30 08:24 pm UTC
Re: Nothing all that suprising, though I would debate some of the grades - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 06:15 pm UTC
Re: Nothing all that suprising, though I would debate some of the grades - [info]yukimurasanada, 2005-11-29 08:34 pm UTC

[info]carmine
2005-11-29 05:50 pm UTC (link)
I admit, I'll have to agree with the NIMF's grade for retail enforcement (about half the M-rated games in my collection were bought before I turned 18, GTAIII included, the only game I've ever been carded was GTA:SA, and that was well past my 19th birthday).

But ratings get an F? And no grade for parental involvement/enforcing? Hm, strange that they'd mention "lack of parental involvement", but no grade for it.

(Reply to this)


[info]apathyislife
2005-11-29 05:51 pm UTC (link)
I had a lot of respect for NIMF during the whole JT thing… but it’s when they release these absolutely asinine report cards… or even better, the top 10 most violent games list… that I just have to role my eyes at them.

Stuff like this just reminds me of how detached from reality the NIMF can be. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with the NIMF, and I think they have a very legitimate and noble goal, but…. Well let me put it this way. At least the list they provided of this year’s most violent games did not include games that haven’t yet been released.

(Reply to this)

Bad ESRB!
[info]fyrhotburnkitty
2005-11-29 05:52 pm UTC (link)
How did they quantify this? This looks like some BS to me. I expected more from a scientific organization. I suspect political and social pressure as well. I am looking forward to getting more info on how they arrived at this conclusion.

A.

(Reply to this)

saw it comming
(Anonymous)
2005-11-29 05:54 pm UTC (link)
I can't believe that would shock anybody...

Thompsons getting into the media and acting like a cook (and losing court cases) is starting to pay off, and I'm sure this is JUST the begining as now it's a national issue that will be in presidential campagins.

And to think, all the while people sat around think the anti-gamers were losing the battle.

As for ratings accuracy... that doesn't necissarily mean that games are put into the right ratings category, it can also mean that the categories are weak in themselves. There is a significant push to have some mature rated games pushed over the mature rating just off sheer gore factor, and people are rallying behind it... just as how the same thing happens with movies, after a certain point it's beyond R.

(Reply to this)


[info]silver_derstin
2005-11-29 05:58 pm UTC (link)
ESRB is innacurate at best, since they have only 4 ratings possible (E, G, 13+ and 17+), not considering various levels of violence and such when putting a rating. When games like Shadow Heart are 17+ and GTA is also 17+, as well as Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, it's pretty much like mixing apples with oranges and selling them under the name of Bananas.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]eusisnaphtali
2005-11-29 06:02 pm UTC (link)
Actually it's E, E 10+, T, and M. You got the right principal, and I have to agree: I find that while E 10+ maybe be helpful, it'd have been more beneficial to create a 15+ rating of some sort. like T 15+ or something. Covers the games like Digital Devil Saga that really aren't that graphic except in a few scenes. Hell, maybe just make M for 15+, change AO to cover simply extremely violent video games, and make a seperate rating for extremely sexual games. It seems like that's the reason AO isn't stocked anywhere, much like NC-17 for movies.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]silver_derstin, 2005-11-29 06:06 pm UTC
The Australian System - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 10:25 pm UTC
IDs - [info]bar23, 2005-11-30 04:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]toshirotzu, 2005-11-29 06:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]silver_derstin, 2005-11-29 06:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 06:48 pm UTC
How would T15+ be enforced? - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 07:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pope_guilty, 2005-11-29 06:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]toshirotzu, 2005-11-29 07:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 06:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 08:06 pm UTC

[info]galin
2005-11-29 06:00 pm UTC (link)
Here's why NIMF gave them an F for ratings accuracy (from the full report)

1) Ratings Accuracy. Over the years, the amount of violence in T (for Teen) rated games has increased, and M-rated games continue to push the envelope each year in graphic depictions and adult situations.
2) No AO. The ESRB has a rating for games that are only appropriate for adults. Unfortunately, almost no video games ever receive that rating. Of the 10,000 games the ESRB has rated, fewer than 20 have ever received an AO rating. Independent evaluations of many M-rated games find that they fit the criteria for the AO rating.
3) Meaningless age distinctions. There is only a 12 month difference between the recommended 17-years-old for M-rated games and 18 and older for AO.

Comments:
This is ludicrous. There is essentially no difference between the ESRB and the rating system used for movies, aside from the fact that video games don't get away with nearly as much as movies do. There are few AO games BECAUSE the distinctions are vague and usually sex-related. And the twelve-month difference between M and AO? Would they prefer AO games be 21+ [ha! How would they enforce THAT?] or would they prefer M rated games be sold to people under 17?

This reeks of amateurism. A little bit of critical thinking put into the report card would have been nice.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]origamifrog
2005-11-29 08:51 pm UTC (link)
I don't think they realize that the main reason that few games get AO ratings is that few game makers want their games to be pulled from the shelves. The average powerful game publisher/developer (ie. EA, Take Two, etc.) is fully aware of the ESRB's criteria and knows exactly how much sex/violence/whatever they can get away with putting in to keep the rating at an M. This doesn't mean they're gaming the system or anything, just that they know it well enough that they are unlikely to be taken by surprise with a higher rating than they were aiming for. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if the Hot Coffee sex scene was initially removed from GTA (y'know, back when it was just hidden away, presumably to avoid potentially breaking the game by taking out chunks of code, not when it was completely eliminated from the game) to drop the rating a notch for sales purposes.

In general, the lower the rating, the better a game will sell -- sure, M games are popular, but I seem to remember reading that they're still dwarfed by the popularity of E rated games, no matter what video game opponents may claim. However, I may be wrong here, and I encourage anyone with a better memory or better data to correct me :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Hmm...
[info]catch_33
2005-11-29 06:04 pm UTC (link)
Ratings Education: C+

Commericals and signs not enough? Fine. I'll get on a rooftop with a megaphone and yell out "M-rated games are not for kids!".

Retailers' Policies: B

Fair.

Retailers' Enforcement: D-

That's a little harsh.

Ratings Accuracy: F

They can kiss my ass on this. Hot Coffee's the only incident to speak of so far.

Arcade Survey: B-

Fair.

Industry's 10-year cumulative grade: D+</i>

Better than last year at least.

(Reply to this)


[info]theogal
2005-11-29 06:07 pm UTC (link)
Hey GP, you're listed as a source. Thumbs up for getting on the radar screens?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]keddren
2005-11-29 06:17 pm UTC (link)
I noticed that, too. Well done.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]gamepolitics, 2005-11-29 06:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]theogal, 2005-11-29 06:38 pm UTC
The stupidity hurts my brain.
[info]the_new_l
2005-11-29 06:08 pm UTC (link)
This is another one of those things that I'm going to type slowly to get the point across. No, it doesn't make sense, but neither do most of those grades.

Hot. Coffee. Is. Not. In. Normal. Gameplay. It. Is. A. Bitch. To. Get. It. Does. Not. Make. The. Game. Adults. Only. Material. As. It. Is. Not. Normally. In. The. Game.

Jeez, people. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!

-TheNewL

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: The stupidity hurts my brain. Part 2
(Anonymous)
2005-11-30 10:50 pm UTC (link)
It was rated M. 17+. Only worried parents of kids between 17 and 18 have any grounds to think about possibly complaining about the thing that is not part of normal gamplay anyhow.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: The stupidity hurts my brain. Part 2 - (Anonymous), 2005-11-30 11:45 pm UTC

[info]greysecond
2005-11-29 06:12 pm UTC (link)
With this level of zeal, bitterness and lack of comprehension of the subject matter at hand, I don't see any reason for us to care what they think.

(Reply to this)


[info]greysecond
2005-11-29 06:15 pm UTC (link)
reading this further, note that under "WHO'S PLAY VIDEO GAMES NOW?" they insist that only children play them.

linking it to obesity... well, to be honest, i'll give them that point.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]keddren
2005-11-29 06:20 pm UTC (link)
So do I, but only to a certain extent. Most of the blame lies, again, on the parents. Part of parenting is teaching your children proper eating habits and not shelling out night after night for fast food, take out, or pizza delivery because they're too lazy/tired/whatever to cook a healthy meal.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 07:12 pm UTC
Somewhat Agree
[info]dmdyet
2005-11-29 06:16 pm UTC (link)
I have to agree with this, actually. The ESRB can be way off with ratings quite often, and I'd say it had to do with the fact of a confusing system based solely on another system...

However, I can see an undertone in here about something I have been thinking about. We have ratings classification advertisements for usual stuff like movies and DVD's, the ESRB needs to invest time and money into teaching parents about their ratings, so when silly-old-grandma goes to get little 10-year-old-Billy a video game for Christmas this year, he doesn't open up GTA: San Andreas.

Unfortunately, it's silly, but oh so true that most parents, grandparents, uncles, and pretty much everybody that isn't a gamer, doesn't know or understand the ratings system. They read of it what is familiar, and, unfortunately, that is often wrong.

The ESRB needs some more direction in this sense. They seriously need to review their practices and try to find more ideal ways of classifying games and informing people as to what the classifications MEAN. They should make classifications matter to... but, this is something most people don't care about.

Have you seen a movie or the like when you were not old enough to meet the age restriction? *Raises hand*

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Somewhat Agree
[info]sir_bissel
2005-11-29 06:30 pm UTC (link)
How much easier can "T for Teen" "M for Mature" "E for Everyone" be, though?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Somewhat Agree - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 06:43 pm UTC
Re: Somewhat Agree - [info]gargos, 2005-11-29 06:55 pm UTC
Re: Somewhat Agree - [info]zynth, 2005-11-29 06:56 pm UTC

[info]mandike
2005-11-29 06:21 pm UTC (link)
So basically they're basing the entire "Ratings Accuracy" section on one game.

If they were really basing it on all the games the ESRB rates, then I would love to see what they would have needed to do in order to pass.

I forget the exact number, but its close to like 80% of parents agree with the ESRB ratings, how much more accurate can you get?

Seriously, this report is pretty lousy.

(Reply to this)


[info]sir_bissel
2005-11-29 06:28 pm UTC (link)
I'm not sure how hot coffee would even be a failure of ratings accuracy-- the esrb didn't know it was there, so it wouldn't be able to rate a game based with that...

If anything, I'd say retailers enforcement should be a lower grade than ratings accuracy....

(Reply to this)

NIMF is messed up
(Anonymous)
2005-11-29 06:40 pm UTC (link)
Yeah this is the actual comment on ESRB website. "83% of the time parents agree with the ratings assigned by the ESRB, while another 5% of the time they think the ratings are "too strict." (According to a study conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates commissioned by the ESRB November 2004)"
NIMF is just another BS organization that blames video games for societies problems. While unable to find any conclusive scientific evidence to support their claims yet still calling for governmental regulation for "protection." Seriously these people are getting annoying.

(Reply to this)

Just Read Their Ten Year Over-view
[info]catch_33
2005-11-29 06:46 pm UTC (link)
A little zealous, but fairly accurate. Here's a part I took particular notice of:

THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY TODAY

The industry's power is most evident in its influence over culture. Each year, for instance, more and more video games are the basis for motion pictures, as well as the other way around. Video game characters and terms continue to enter, and remain in, the American lexicon. Unveilings of new video game consoles bring the excitement and speculation reserved for new automobiles in past decades.

Perhaps even more important is the industry's power in terms of numbers. Since 1995, nearly three billion video games have been sold globally. The worldwide video game market racked up twenty-five and a half billion dollars last year. Projections foresee that number growing past 54 billion in the next four years. The U.S. market alone represented 8.2 billion dollars of the worldwide total in 2004, and it is expected to bring in more than 15 billion by 2009. It's important to note that those numbers only account for the games themselves and online access fees - they don't include the hefty prices parents shell out each year for the consoles on which the games are played. When you factor in those numbers, the U.S. market alone spent just shy of ten billion dollars on video games last year. Online gaming, currently bringing in under 300 million per year, is expected to account for over 2 billion just four years from now.

Suck it Jack Thompson. Suck it good.

While the industry is right to congratulate itself for such explosive growth, it's important to note exactly which games are fueling its growing power. For the past several years, the most popular games have been ultra-violent first-person shooters, exactly the games that seem to be the most harmful to young players.

It's what the people want, obviously. What's so hard to understand about that?

Disturbingly, these games, including several in the widely known Grand Theft Auto series, are the very same games that our research has found are most popular with kids.

The same could be said about violent movies. Kids always want to do grown-up things.

In other words, the industry's power and profits have come at the expense of children's welfare.

Only by a fraction. And that fraction is brought about by irresponsible parenting.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Just Read Their Ten Year Over-view
[info]catch_33
2005-11-29 06:49 pm UTC (link)
There's also this:

A DECADE OF SCRUTINY

10 Year Grade………………………………………………………..D+

There have been industry reforms and progress in response to the Institute's criticism and pressure.

Yet it's never enough. I wonder why...

However, violent and sadistic games are still ending up in the hands of children,

The world isn't perfect. And parents are responsible for that most of the time.

and parents continue to lack adequate information and tools from the industry to make informed choices.

The information and tools are there. You want us to beam into people's heads or something?

The industry continues to ignore the emerging health, behavioral and cultural negative consequences for our kids, our communities and our nation.

That's because most of that is bull shit.

Like I said, a little zealous.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Just Read Their Ten Year Over-view - [info]bar23, 2005-11-30 05:05 pm UTC
My Thoughts
[info]kharne83
2005-11-29 06:47 pm UTC (link)
Ratings Education: Comericals state the raitings, there's a handly little icon on each box, *and* you can probably looks this crap up online. That being said, I could see some improvement, hand out a pamphlet or something, but really, how much do you need?

Retailers' Policies: Fair enough. Show card, get game, right?

Retailers' Enforcement: I'm unsure on this one. Nobody questions it when I buy a violent game. Then again, I'm a 6-foot tall giant with a beard you could get lost in. Who'd argue with that?

Ratings Accuracy: Here's my thought on this. The game ratings are similer to the movie ratings, as are the TV ratings. Music has a parential advisory. Books have nothing. That being said, if we take this logically TV, movies and games should all have roughly the same grade. Music should have a lower grade, and books the worst of all. Assumeing thay review and grade all media, for games to get an F then either means there's something something special about games, or the NIMF simply hates all ratings across the board.

Arcade Survey: I don't know what the hell this iss, but apparently it's good.

Industry's 10-year cumulative grade: Assuming games kept getting low grades do to the OH NOES VIOLENCE!!11 issues over the years, this makes sence.

Of cource, the whole thing is kind of pointless. It's only usefull for paretns with little kids, and that's only part of the issue.

Not to say that they don't have a point, but even if they had stright A's and everything was perfect, that can still only handle things oh so far without the parents doing their part.

(Reply to this)


[info]kajex
2005-11-29 06:49 pm UTC (link)
I ignore this crap. This is just a bunch of angry parents emoing at the thought that they might be held accountable for these kinds of incidents, so they organize a system where they can rate the ESRB so they can demonize it further. The only reason it doesn't work is because a "Report Card" sounds more than just a little childish for something that they supposedly take seriously, and they'd much rather put the negative in it all rather than the positive. I don't have any numbers, but I'm almost certain that there are more games rated "T" and under, than there are games rated "M" and over.

The only real explanation I could see with all of this is that they just don't like what it is they see, and thus try to impose that there is a problem with the way the system works (even if there isn't). It's well known that an organization's report is more attention-grabbing and noteworthy than a bunch of angry parents sending in angry letters.

...

Although PA kind've proved that wrong... Oh well.

My stance? Bulls***. Ignore.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]catch_33
2005-11-29 06:52 pm UTC (link)
I don't have any numbers, but I'm almost certain that there are more games rated "T" and under, than there are games rated "M" and over.

There are. When it comes to the amount of titles, everything below "M" outnumbers the M-rated about 5 to 1. Even the amount of copies sold is concentrated under "M".

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]rum_monkey
2005-11-29 06:51 pm UTC (link)
I do have some doubts about the accuracy of the cited papers. It seems that there a few repeated names in that list. Looks like I'm off to the library to look at those journals. Also, Christian Science Monitor hasn't been very successful at being non-biased and scientific about its subject matter, so I really am curious about other topics these authors have studied. Do your homework, kids, a major reason so mush BS is accepted nowadays is because people are too lazy to do their own research, so whatever numbers they get thrown at them sound reasonable. Don't be a made up statistic, think for yourself.

(Reply to this)

ESRB not broken
[info]verbinator
2005-11-29 06:56 pm UTC (link)
One of my take-aways from this report card was that NIMF (like their fellow traveler JT) want the right to rate and thereby control the content in video games taken away from the industry that makes them. They suggest an independent group (essentially claiming that any industry that polices itself is going to misbehave) ... but the funding for that group would have to come from somewhere -- either the government (which would put the government into the role of censor of ideas and speech) ... or more likely from the industry itself (which would in essence be like the current status quo). You can be fairly certain that groups that are clamoring for an "independent" ratings board are really saying, "We want to be that board." And if they are Jack Thompson they are really saying "We want to be able to sue and punish these pornographers!!"

I'm disappointed that the survey doesn't address time trade offs. My generation (I was an adult before video games were part of mainstream culture) grew up with television as the great satan in our homes. Kids were spending all their time in front of televisions getting fat. My point is that the time that my generation spent watching TV (passive, non-challenging entertainment) is now spent playing games (interactive and challenging entertainment).

I do agree with the NIMF's advice to parents about media in children's bedrooms. Computers, televisions, and game playing devices belong in public portions of the household where parents can monitor their use both for content and time spent with them. I raised my own two children in this manner and it has appeared to work.

(Reply to this)


[info]xiiiwulf
2005-11-29 06:57 pm UTC (link)
Oh...
Fuck.

(Reply to this)

(135 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…