Comments on: A Defense of the ESRB http://www.binarycreativity.com/2007/10/22/a-defense-of-the-esrb/ Matt Gilgenbach's blog on game development and creativity through this nascent medium of self expression. Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:22:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Matt http://www.binarycreativity.com/2007/10/22/a-defense-of-the-esrb/#comment-14899 Matt Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:09:47 +0000 http://www.binarycreativity.com/2007/10/22/a-defense-of-the-esrb/#comment-14899 Although you are implying there is a "slippery slope" associated with rating all the content on the disc, I argue the opposite. If I stick a Dreamcast game in a PC CD-ROM drive, that's not accessible in the game, but still readily accessible. What if it's a PC game and the file is ready for viewing if you just browse the files on your PC? Where do YOU draw the line about what is "accessible" enough to determine whether it should be rated? I think it's much easier to say games are rated based on what is on the disc to avoid these gray areas. The problem is in the Hot Coffee incident that they didn't "remove" it. It was still in the game with 1 little flag turning it off. I personally don't have too much experience working with the ESRB directly, but I think you normally present them with the content you think is most objectionable in your game. If you think some of your content will give you a rating you don't like, then take it out! Normally the rating is determined around alpha or beta, so there is time to remove things and test it. If it's not accessible in game, why put it on the disc? Since you need to submit stuff to the ESRB ahead of time, if something would negatively affect your rating, take it out. I don't feel that's too much to ask of developers. Although you are implying there is a “slippery slope” associated with rating all the content on the disc, I argue the opposite. If I stick a Dreamcast game in a PC CD-ROM drive, that’s not accessible in the game, but still readily accessible. What if it’s a PC game and the file is ready for viewing if you just browse the files on your PC? Where do YOU draw the line about what is “accessible” enough to determine whether it should be rated? I think it’s much easier to say games are rated based on what is on the disc to avoid these gray areas.

The problem is in the Hot Coffee incident that they didn’t “remove” it. It was still in the game with 1 little flag turning it off. I personally don’t have too much experience working with the ESRB directly, but I think you normally present them with the content you think is most objectionable in your game. If you think some of your content will give you a rating you don’t like, then take it out! Normally the rating is determined around alpha or beta, so there is time to remove things and test it.

If it’s not accessible in game, why put it on the disc? Since you need to submit stuff to the ESRB ahead of time, if something would negatively affect your rating, take it out. I don’t feel that’s too much to ask of developers.

]]> By: A Concerned Gamer http://www.binarycreativity.com/2007/10/22/a-defense-of-the-esrb/#comment-14877 A Concerned Gamer Tue, 25 Dec 2007 06:51:07 +0000 http://www.binarycreativity.com/2007/10/22/a-defense-of-the-esrb/#comment-14877 I disagree with this post. Just because the content is on the disc does not mean that it should affect the ratings if it isn't intended to be used during normal gameplay and cannot be activated with normal functions provided by the developer. Game developer is a long and complicated process. Things are added and cut constantly through the development cycle. To expect a developer to comb through every single texture, every single model, every single compiled, proprietary data file, to see if there's something that is objectionable (that is not accessible in the game) is just ludicrous. In the case of the "Hot Coffee" my guess is that the developers built that into the game -- but then when they reviewed it internally, they realized that it probably would cause the game to get an AO rating (or maybe just went "too far"), so they removed it. They might have even gone back and forth a few times -- putting it and taking it out. Mods such as "hot coffee" were activated by hacking. Plain and simple. Whether it's through binary patching a file on the PC or through memory patching it via the Game Shark/AR, it's still hacking. It's still changing the way the game was intended to function and hence is still changing the game as reviewed by the ratings boards. If you argue that the content is on the disc, so they should be held accountable. But to what extent? If they user changes 10 bytes, does the qualify as the content being on the disk? About about 1k? What about 10k? At what point does the "activation" because a "mod"? Perhaps a better solution would be to put a big sticker on the Game Shark/AR box "WARNING -- Ratings may change when using this device." Then people would know that using it invalidates the ESRB rating. I disagree with this post. Just because the content is on the disc does not mean that it should affect the ratings if it isn’t intended to be used during normal gameplay and cannot be activated with normal functions provided by the developer. Game developer is a long and complicated process. Things are added and cut constantly through the development cycle. To expect a developer to comb through every single texture, every single model, every single compiled, proprietary data file, to see if there’s something that is objectionable (that is not accessible in the game) is just ludicrous. In the case of the “Hot Coffee” my guess is that the developers built that into the game — but then when they reviewed it internally, they realized that it probably would cause the game to get an AO rating (or maybe just went “too far”), so they removed it. They might have even gone back and forth a few times — putting it and taking it out.

Mods such as “hot coffee” were activated by hacking. Plain and simple. Whether it’s through binary patching a file on the PC or through memory patching it via the Game Shark/AR, it’s still hacking. It’s still changing the way the game was intended to function and hence is still changing the game as reviewed by the ratings boards.

If you argue that the content is on the disc, so they should be held accountable. But to what extent? If they user changes 10 bytes, does the qualify as the content being on the disk? About about 1k? What about 10k? At what point does the “activation” because a “mod”?

Perhaps a better solution would be to put a big sticker on the Game Shark/AR box “WARNING — Ratings may change when using this device.” Then people would know that using it invalidates the ESRB rating.

]]> By: Matt http://www.binarycreativity.com/2007/10/22/a-defense-of-the-esrb/#comment-14202 Matt Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:38:30 +0000 http://www.binarycreativity.com/2007/10/22/a-defense-of-the-esrb/#comment-14202 There are some guidelines that I believe the ESRB provides to game developers. Now, I haven't seen them, so perhaps I'm incorrect and my information is based on conversations individuals have had with the ESRB, but I think they have standards that they can provide to you. I've heard there are limits on how long a character can be on fire for each rating, how much blood is acceptable in a Teen rated game, etc. So, I think the ESRB is at least somewhat open with the developers on some of their standards. In the end though, a rating is subjective because the tone of the product has to be taken into account, so I think it's understandable they have somewhat loose measuring sticks. Although I'm sure the ESRB isn't perfect just like the MPAA isn't, I feel like they are doing their job. I do agree with you that the ESRB was unfairly bullying 3d Realms for no reason, but outside of that, I think the ratings are pretty reasonable. Although NC-17 rated films don't get wide releases, they are released in theaters and are relatively easy to find on DVD, so I think it's less of a problem than in games. That being said, “This Film is Not Yet Rated” was already in my netflix queue, so perhaps I'll re-evaluate my opinion after seeing it. Although the government doesn't care about unrated DVDs, they are always looking for an excuse to pass game legislation. All the existing legislation has been tossed out because it's been poorly worded or just plain dumb, but it's possible should adult games become accessible to kids through poor self registration, games could be regulated like pornography. I feel that the game should be rated for the content on the disc regardless of how accessible it is or not similar to the way the ESRB feels. I only mentioned the gameshark because that was what changed my mind on how I felt about game ratings. Thanks for the comment! There are some guidelines that I believe the ESRB provides to game developers. Now, I haven’t seen them, so perhaps I’m incorrect and my information is based on conversations individuals have had with the ESRB, but I think they have standards that they can provide to you. I’ve heard there are limits on how long a character can be on fire for each rating, how much blood is acceptable in a Teen rated game, etc. So, I think the ESRB is at least somewhat open with the developers on some of their standards. In the end though, a rating is subjective because the tone of the product has to be taken into account, so I think it’s understandable they have somewhat loose measuring sticks. Although I’m sure the ESRB isn’t perfect just like the MPAA isn’t, I feel like they are doing their job. I do agree with you that the ESRB was unfairly bullying 3d Realms for no reason, but outside of that, I think the ratings are pretty reasonable.

Although NC-17 rated films don’t get wide releases, they are released in theaters and are relatively easy to find on DVD, so I think it’s less of a problem than in games. That being said, “This Film is Not Yet Rated” was already in my netflix queue, so perhaps I’ll re-evaluate my opinion after seeing it.

Although the government doesn’t care about unrated DVDs, they are always looking for an excuse to pass game legislation. All the existing legislation has been tossed out because it’s been poorly worded or just plain dumb, but it’s possible should adult games become accessible to kids through poor self registration, games could be regulated like pornography.

I feel that the game should be rated for the content on the disc regardless of how accessible it is or not similar to the way the ESRB feels. I only mentioned the gameshark because that was what changed my mind on how I felt about game ratings.

Thanks for the comment!

]]> By: Pete K http://www.binarycreativity.com/2007/10/22/a-defense-of-the-esrb/#comment-14200 Pete K Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:03:36 +0000 http://www.binarycreativity.com/2007/10/22/a-defense-of-the-esrb/#comment-14200 I take issue with the ESRB's lack of transparency. There's no clear indication what level of gore is acceptable, this leaves it open to subjective interpretation. The company I work for has already had problems with the ESRB in the past and I don't doubt we'll have many problems trying to get an M rating for our latest title not only because of the content of the game, but also the politics that come into play when you have loose measuring sticks. The AO rating has the same problems as the NC-17 rating (see This Film Is Not Yet Rated). You'll notice that stores carry the unrated versions of the dvds where the movie theater/mpaa cartel has almost no pull. It's too bad there's not enough viable markets to buy unrated videogames. As for the government coming in and regulating things if the ESRB doesn't take care of all the nasty bits that gamers really want to see: if the government doesn't do it for unrated dvds, we need to stop being scared of that boogie man. The ESRB hasn't stemmed the tide of wasteful videogame legislation pushes that end up being tossed out in the courts and only result in wasted tax payer money. "Hot Coffee" on PS2 deserved a re-rating? You've got to be kidding me! The content wasn't available via any standard input to the console. A memory changing device like the GameShark/AR should not be considered a standard input device. It can theoretically change anything in the game's memory. For example, it could change any game's textures and text content to be sexually explicit. There's no possible way that the game developer can stop you from using it. That definitely falls under "user content" in my book. If you want to re-rate anything, give the GameShark an M rating. I take issue with the ESRB’s lack of transparency. There’s no clear indication what level of gore is acceptable, this leaves it open to subjective interpretation. The company I work for has already had problems with the ESRB in the past and I don’t doubt we’ll have many problems trying to get an M rating for our latest title not only because of the content of the game, but also the politics that come into play when you have loose measuring sticks.

The AO rating has the same problems as the NC-17 rating (see This Film Is Not Yet Rated). You’ll notice that stores carry the unrated versions of the dvds where the movie theater/mpaa cartel has almost no pull. It’s too bad there’s not enough viable markets to buy unrated videogames.

As for the government coming in and regulating things if the ESRB doesn’t take care of all the nasty bits that gamers really want to see: if the government doesn’t do it for unrated dvds, we need to stop being scared of that boogie man. The ESRB hasn’t stemmed the tide of wasteful videogame legislation pushes that end up being tossed out in the courts and only result in wasted tax payer money.

“Hot Coffee” on PS2 deserved a re-rating? You’ve got to be kidding me! The content wasn’t available via any standard input to the console. A memory changing device like the GameShark/AR should not be considered a standard input device. It can theoretically change anything in the game’s memory. For example, it could change any game’s textures and text content to be sexually explicit. There’s no possible way that the game developer can stop you from using it. That definitely falls under “user content” in my book. If you want to re-rate anything, give the GameShark an M rating.

]]>