add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Radiology Boards Preparation - Radiology Mock Boards and Radiology... radiologyboards.org | Heart Rate Variability (HRV) Software | Biocom System | Heart Rate... biof.com | Visual Acuity Testing Software: Optometry software, ophthalmologist... precision-vision.com | Medicare Rates - Family Friendly - Medicare Rates - Family Safe -... in2physicaltherapy.com |
The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is a self-regulatory organization that assigns age and content ratings, enforces industry-adopted advertising guidelines, and ensures responsible online privacy principles for computer and video games and other entertainment software in Canada and the United States.[2] The ESRB was established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (formerly Interactive Digital Software Association).[1] By late 2009, it had assigned nearly 18,000 ratings to titles submitted by more than 350 publishers. One of the reasons the ESRB was founded was due to violent content found in video games such as Night Trap, Mortal Kombat and Doom, as well as other controversial video games portraying overly violent or intense sexual situations at the time. The ESRB assigns ratings to games based on their content, similar to the motion picture rating systems used in many countries. Their aim is to aid consumers in determining a game's content and suitability. A game's rating is displayed on its box, the media, in advertisements and on the game's Website(s). The rating system is strictly voluntary, however nearly all video games are submitted for rating due to the fact that many retail stores prohibit the sale of unrated video games and the major console manufacturers will not license games for their systems unless they carry ESRB ratings.
[edit] Ratings The symbols ESRB uses are stylized depictions of alphabetical letters meant to convey at a glance the game's suitability. ESRB currently uses 7 different ratings. [edit] Current
[edit] DiscontinuedThe following ratings are no longer used, but they may appear on games published prior to their discontinuation.
[edit] Content descriptorsThe content descriptors are not exhaustive descriptions of all content within a game: they are applied within the context of the rating a game is assigned. For example, a Teen game with one use of strong language and numerous uses of mild language would receive a "Mild Language" descriptor. They are also not always printed as shown below. They may have additional words added to further clarify the highlighted content such as "Mild Blood" and "Mild Suggestive Themes". More recently, games rated T or M may also have the disclaimer "May contain content inappropriate for children" displayed in the games' trailers, although for the former rating, it does not necessarily mean that the game should not be played by younger children, as although it can be intense, it is still not enough to be considered extreme, and therefore is still sold without any restrictions in actual age, with the rating merely advisory in nature, although parental guidance is still recommended. [edit] Current
[edit] DiscontinuedThe following content descriptors have been updated or are no longer used, but they may appear on games published prior to their discontinuation. Reissued games that were originally rated when the now-discontinued descriptors used by the ESRB may still contain such descriptors on their packaging.
[edit] Rating processTo obtain a rating for a game, a publisher sends the ESRB videotaped footage of the most graphic and extreme content found in the game. The publisher also fills out a questionnaire describing the game's content and pays a fee based on the game's development cost:[6]
On its website, the ESRB states that three trained raters, working independently, watch the footage and recommend a rating. If all raters agree on the rating, content descriptors are added and the ESRB notifies the publisher of its decision. If there is no consensus, additional raters review the footage and materials, or the majority opinion rules. After the rating is agreed upon, the ESRB in-house personnel review the footage and all materials to ensure that all information is accurate and a certificate is sent to the publisher. However, that decision is not final. If the publisher wishes, they may edit the game and resubmit the footage and questionnaire in order to achieve a lower rating, or appeal the information. If this is the case, the process begins anew. The publisher may also appeal the game's rating if they wish. The appeals committee is composed of entertainment software industry representatives. When the game is ready for release, the publisher sends copies of the final version of the game to the ESRB. The game packaging is reviewed, and the ESRB says that its in-house personnel randomly play games to ensure that all the information provided during the rating process was complete and accurate. Penalties may apply to the publisher if it is eventually found, either through the in-house personnel's playing or consumer comments that the game's content is more extreme than the publisher stated in its application. The identities of the ESRB raters are kept confidential and selected randomly from a pool of full-time ESRB employees who live in the New York City area. According to an ESRB introductory brochure from 1994: "The raters represent a wide range of backgrounds, races, and ages and have no ties to the interactive entertainment industry. Raters include retired school principals, parents, professionals, and other individuals from all walks of life." In essence allowing people who aren't regular video game players, to review games as if they were the customer and receiving their first glance at the game. They are then required to take testing before becoming ESRB raters.[7] [edit] Background and history
As videogaming progressed into the 16-bit era, graphics and sound capabilities were dramatically increased. Blood and gore was much clearer and vibrant than 8-bit games. For example blood in an 8-bit game may look blocky and pixelated while in 16-bit it can be a fluid graphic that can easily be identified. After the release of games such as Mortal Kombat, Doom, Night Trap and Lethal Enforcers, there was much controversy over video game content. Hearings on video game violence and the corruption of society, headed by Joe Lieberman and Herb Kohl were held in late 1992 to 1993. The result of the hearings was that the entertainment software industry was given one year to form a working rating system or the federal government would intervene and create its own system. Around this time, the Videogame Rating Council (VRC) was formed by Sega of America to rate mostly its own games. In 1993, the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA) was formed. Also in 1993, the 3DO Company formed their own rating system for games released on the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer called the 3DO Rating System. In 1994, the Recreational Software Advisory Council (RSAC) was formed by the Software Publishers Association. However, because of some criticisms[citation needed] of the both the VRC and the 3DO Rating System were phased out in 1994 and RSAC in 1999. On July 29, 1994 the proposal from the IDSA for a rating system, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) was presented in Congress[citation needed] and approved[citation needed]. In September 1994, the ESRB was established and became the de facto rater of video games in the United States.[8] At this time, many companies who produced computer games such as LucasArts, Sierra On-Line and 3D Realms continued to follow the RSAC system as they were members of the SPA. Eventually, all companies, including 3DO, agreed to follow the ESRB ratings. Initially, there were five different ratings: Early Childhood, Kids to Adults, Teen, Mature and Adults Only. Shortly thereafter, the Informational and Edutainment descriptors were added. In 1996, the rating icons were altered so that it would be more clear who rated the product (this can be seen in the image of the Mature icon above). On January 1, 1998, the Kids to Adults rating was replaced with Everyone. Also in 1998, the Entertainment Software Rating Board Interactive (ESRBi) was formed which rated websites and online games. In late 1999, in order to make the rating symbols more legible, the pixelated rating icons were replaced with black and white icons. Beginning in early 2001, and continuing for the next couple of years, several of the content descriptors were retired and replaced. Content descriptors with "Animated" or "Realistic" in them had those portions removed. Also, the "Skills" descriptors used for the Early Childhood rating were removed as well. A short time later, the Gaming descriptor was changed to Gambling, which itself was split into Real and Simulated Gambling in the following years. In mid 2003, the ESRBi was closed down. On June 26, 2003, the content descriptors were made larger and more legible and newer, more thorough descriptors for violence (Cartoon, Fantasy, Intense) were added as well as a descriptor for Mature Humor. Also, the Mature and Adults Only icons had a 17+ and 18+ added to their title band in order to clearly signify the age appropriateness. On March 2, 2005, after conferring with academicians and child development experts; the Everyone 10+ rating was introduced.[9] Originally, raters were hired on a part-time basis; as of April 2007, the ESRB employs raters full-time.[10] [edit] Criticism and controversy[edit] Violence and the AO ratingESRB has often been accused of not rating games harshly enough for violence and other related themes. Games such as Harvester, Manhunt, Rise of the Triad and Soldier of Fortune have shown gruesome violence, yet received the M rating. Many critics have claimed that these games deserve the AO rating[11] and were given the M for commercial reasons.[12] Rise of the Triad in particular, received the highest violence descriptor: "Wanton and gratuitous violence" from the RSAC, which was mitigated by being rated M by the ESRB. However, in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Ontario, their respective provincial governments classified Soldier of Fortune and Manhunt as motion pictures, and gave them "Restricted" ratings, restricting their sale to adults only.[13] The ESRB has only given out the AO rating solely for violence twice: once for The Punisher[14] and the second time for Manhunt 2.[15] However, both games were edited before release in order to qualify for the M category. Another game, Thrill Kill, received an AO rating with content descriptors for Animated Violence and Animated Blood and Gore. It was never released after the original publisher, Virgin Entertainment, was purchased by Electronic Arts who was more concerned about the adult content.[16] The violence in Thrill Kill was a concern to the ESRB as it was sexualized, with sadomasochistic activities. Critics have claimed that the ESRB will only rate games AO if they have sexual content in them, no matter how much violence is present. Twenty-five products have been given the AO rating. One was given it for unsimulated online gambling. The rest were given it for sexual content and/or nudity. One game, Mass Effect featured as many as two mild sexual scenes and was still passed as an M, leading to controversy on Fox News Channel. Another, God of War, came with many different sex scenes, some of them interactive, and, unlike Mass Effect, it was not subject to controversies or protests. One of the games with "Strong Sexual Content" as a content descriptor also had "Realistic Blood & Gore", Riana Rouge, and another one had "Violence", Critical Point. Critical Point is an eroge, and Riana Rouge has Playboy Playmates in softcore sex scenes which leads some critics to believe that these games were rated AO because of sex, not violence. This criticism is shared with the movie rating systems. Lula 3D contains descriptors for "Blood", "Strong Language" and "Violence" in addition to sexually explicit material. Fahrenheit: Indigo Prophecy Director's Cut also received the AO rating. While the game contains content identical to the original North American version titled Indigo Prophecy ("Blood", "Strong Language", "Use of Drugs and Alcohol" and "Violence"), the only content which was added in the director's cut version was sex scenes with nudity, one of which was interactive. Much like Fahrenheit, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas originally received an M rating but was changed to an AO rating because interactive sex scenes could be accessed in the game. Some critics believed that the ESRB in-house personnel may have overreacted to the attention the game received from the federal government and that the mini-game (which contained no nudity) was not explicit enough to have been re-rated. It should be noted that many adult oriented products, including erotica, have actually received M ratings.[17] However, these products are not carried by major retailers (and many are usually grouped with adult products anyway) because of the sexual content. [edit] Hidden contentMain articles: Hot Coffee minigame controversy and ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion In 2005, members of the mod community discovered that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for Windows could be modified to unlock an incomplete sex mini-game known as "Hot Coffee", which Rockstar North had decided to leave out of the final game. California State Assemblyman Leland Yee used the situation to rebuke both Rockstar and the ESRB and argued that the ESRB was not doing its job properly. U.S. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joe Lieberman also expressed their disapproval. Rockstar initially claimed that the mini-game was created by the mod community and was not a part of the original game. However, their stance changed when it was discovered that a third-party cheat device could be used to unlock the "Hot Coffee" scenes in console versions of the game. Shortly after, Rockstar conceded that the sex mini-game was in all released versions of the game, albeit inaccessible without third-party modification.[18] The ESRB responded to the controversy by re-evaluating the game and changing its rating from M to AO, setting a precedent that games can be re-rated based on external factors such as third-party cheat devices. Although this made Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas the best selling game to receive an AO rating, Rockstar soon released a patch that disabled the modification on PC versions and re-released the game as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Second Edition. The new release disabled all access to the "Hot Coffee" mini-game and was given the game's original M rating by the ESRB as a result. In 2006, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion had its rating changed from T to M due to "more detailed depictions of blood and gore than were considered in the original rating, as well as a mod that, if accessed through a third-party modification to the PC version of the game, allows the user to play with topless versions of female characters." The game's publisher decided not to remaster or re-release the game to remove the hidden texture, stating that it believed the original rating was the most accurate assessment of what parents should expect from the game, since the texture was intended to be inaccessible to players. However, this texture was actually only used to provide a non-clipping texture for some armor types.[19][20][21] Rockstar Games' Manhunt 2 was postponed for three months in the United States as well as several other countries and continents due to uncensored relentless violence and gore. The game was given an initial AO rating by the ESRB and received a revised M rating after numerous edits. It was released on October 31, 2007. Less than a week after the release, it was discovered that it was possible to modify the PS2 and PSP versions of the game to erase the patches that censored the violent content. Rockstar Games has since claimed that even with the unauthorized patches that remove some of the screen blurring that many of the scenes were toned down from the original version submitted to the ESRB for rating. Following that, the ESRB chose not to change the game's rating after the drawn-out process of giving it the M rating. [edit] News leaksThe ESRB typically posts rating information for new titles on its website 30 days after the rating process is complete. This can cause the existence of a title to become public information before the game is officially announced. As a result, the ESRB has implemented a process by which publishers with concerns about this practice can request that information about the game not be posted to the ESRB's website until a specific date.[22] [edit] Blocking contentOn March 16, 2006, the ESRB gained, in an agreement with the video game software industry, the ability to restrict video game advertising "to consumers for whom the product is not rated as appropriate."[23] As a result, online retailers like Steam, Xbox Live Marketplace, PlayStation Network, and the Wii Shop Channel bar minors from downloading game demos or trailers for games rated Mature or Rating Pending.[24] [edit] See also
[edit] International rating systems
[edit] References
[edit] External links
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
