Curmudgeon Gamer
30 November 2007
ESRB Rating Distributions
I have a piece up today at Gamasutra about ESRB rating distributions. Turns out each console manufacturer has a reasonably distinct distribution of ESRB ratings on their platforms. There are some changes over time -- the Wii has fewer M-rated games than the GameCube -- but it is there.
Here are the Nintendo platforms, for example:
The one platform that was less successful also had a different distribution of games. Obviously, that's not causality, but it is amusing.
This piece came out of my playing with the new "filter by ESRB rating" option on the front page of GameStop's online store. I would never use it while shopping for myself, but it does give parents a very visible tool to filter out games they may want to avoid.
Here are the Nintendo platforms, for example:
The one platform that was less successful also had a different distribution of games. Obviously, that's not causality, but it is amusing.
This piece came out of my playing with the new "filter by ESRB rating" option on the front page of GameStop's online store. I would never use it while shopping for myself, but it does give parents a very visible tool to filter out games they may want to avoid.
--jvm at 10:02
Comment
[ 0 ]
05 November 2007
Why the Manhunt 2 situation stinks
Josh prodded me with this link and asked my opinion.
[ Update: Josh has posted his thoughts. Favorite line: "The problem with that is that the ESRB continues to act more like a political body than as a standards body." Bingo. ]
Here's what I think: I read the ESRB press release last week, and I think it's mostly crap.
The ESRB is digging a hole. Are they regulating what consumers see? If so, then Hot Coffee should never have been an issue, since it could not be activated from within the unaltered game. Are they regulating what's on the disc? If so, then Manhunt 2 should be re-rated, since the images and animations and sounds are all on the disc.
I think the real problem will eventually be whether they are regulating data or code. At that point, I think the current system fails. Suppose I release a program (dressed up as some "game") which takes a user-supplied set of data (say, a music CD, a la Monster Rancher series) as input for algorithms that generate what appear to be images of humans having sex? They aren't actually people, mind you, but the visual images would be called sexual by any reasonable adult. As the developer, I never create models explicitly. I never create animations explicitly. But my program definitely generates what appears to be a sexual image.
Now, will the ESRB regulate what "ships on the disc"? It's just code. Maybe not even textures. Will they regulate what the user sees? They can't know, because the user will supply the data.
The whole idea of regulating media is very thorny. Ideally the ESRB needed to stay as vague as possible about everything they do. History will show that their real error was trying to get specific in response to Hot Coffee. Now that they've written something down, they've got to live by it, and more of their energy will be devoted to making every future controversy square with the first. That system is destined to fail, because the respond to the original controversy was to create a system which regulates what's on the disc, regardless of how it's used.
I think it's possible for us to start having a real conversation about what comes after the ESRB fails.
[ Update: Josh has posted his thoughts. Favorite line: "The problem with that is that the ESRB continues to act more like a political body than as a standards body." Bingo. ]
Here's what I think: I read the ESRB press release last week, and I think it's mostly crap.
The ESRB is digging a hole. Are they regulating what consumers see? If so, then Hot Coffee should never have been an issue, since it could not be activated from within the unaltered game. Are they regulating what's on the disc? If so, then Manhunt 2 should be re-rated, since the images and animations and sounds are all on the disc.
I think the real problem will eventually be whether they are regulating data or code. At that point, I think the current system fails. Suppose I release a program (dressed up as some "game") which takes a user-supplied set of data (say, a music CD, a la Monster Rancher series) as input for algorithms that generate what appear to be images of humans having sex? They aren't actually people, mind you, but the visual images would be called sexual by any reasonable adult. As the developer, I never create models explicitly. I never create animations explicitly. But my program definitely generates what appears to be a sexual image.
Now, will the ESRB regulate what "ships on the disc"? It's just code. Maybe not even textures. Will they regulate what the user sees? They can't know, because the user will supply the data.
The whole idea of regulating media is very thorny. Ideally the ESRB needed to stay as vague as possible about everything they do. History will show that their real error was trying to get specific in response to Hot Coffee. Now that they've written something down, they've got to live by it, and more of their energy will be devoted to making every future controversy square with the first. That system is destined to fail, because the respond to the original controversy was to create a system which regulates what's on the disc, regardless of how it's used.
I think it's possible for us to start having a real conversation about what comes after the ESRB fails.
--jvm at 19:47
Comment
[ 7 ]
16 October 2007
Interview with ESRB's Vance
I recently had an opportunity to interview Patricia Vance, president of the ESRB. Originally, I wanted to anonymously interview one of their raters, but after some consideration they declined that option. They did offer to pass similar questions on to Ms. Vance, so I reworked my stuff and they answered.
I was pleased with the result, and I think it achieves a bit of what I'd pitched to the ESRB to start with: transparency. We still don't know who the raters are, but we at least know more about the process. I think that's potentially an important step toward addressing any flaws in the system.
A few tidbits for the lazy: They have six full-time raters, five are new this year, and they can rate 150 games in the busiest month before the holidays. They are all from New York and vary in gender, background, and experience with children. Cartoon violence can be tricky to rate, as well as religion and sexuality. Raters do not get to pick the games they rate, but the system appears to be one of random assignments.
I was pleased with the result, and I think it achieves a bit of what I'd pitched to the ESRB to start with: transparency. We still don't know who the raters are, but we at least know more about the process. I think that's potentially an important step toward addressing any flaws in the system.
A few tidbits for the lazy: They have six full-time raters, five are new this year, and they can rate 150 games in the busiest month before the holidays. They are all from New York and vary in gender, background, and experience with children. Cartoon violence can be tricky to rate, as well as religion and sexuality. Raters do not get to pick the games they rate, but the system appears to be one of random assignments.
--jvm at 13:05
Comment
[ 2 ]
21 September 2007
Distinction without difference
Kris Graft has a Tokyo Game Show impressions/interview piece up at Next-Gen.biz about Ninja Gaiden 2. You might want to check an earlier post about NG2. Anyway, here's the quote I wanted to highlight:
It sounds like they're saying that their intention to make a game that extends the Extreme Combat genre is a defense, while the effect will be to make a game that has horrific imagery. Imagery like this description Graft relates:
What's the difference between a game that sets out specifically to let you brutally dismember a person and a game that claims it's about making fun combat and along the way rewards brutal dismemberment?
For the record, I have experimented with sadistic acts in games which allowed me to do it. There is a parking garage on the second island in GTA3 which is near your second hideout, and I recall spending time with Bob experimenting with the NPC crowds and explosives. For example, you could kill a bystander, watch the NPCs run up to help him/her, and then toss a molotov cocktail in amongst them, and more people would come over to help those victims, and so forth. Eventually, the game would punish you if you let your wanted rating get too high. Even then you could try to extract rewards, though. If you waited until the FBI cars showed up, you could escape in one of them, and keep it in your garage as a prize, provided you were skillful and lucky.
(Disclaimer: I have written and continue to write for Next-Gen.biz.)
"[Violence is] one method that you can use to really bring a player into a game and make it more satisfying... It's one portion of making this game the best action game on the market, but it's not like we have a specific goal to [make this the most violent game ever]."I don't buy it. If you're making a game and you're thinking "in this game, we want the player to behead and dismember his enemies limb by limb" then it is technically true that you may not want to make the most violent game ever. But the effect will be the same.
It sounds like they're saying that their intention to make a game that extends the Extreme Combat genre is a defense, while the effect will be to make a game that has horrific imagery. Imagery like this description Graft relates:
Chopping off an enemy's arms won't necessarily kill him, for example, but will leave him with no way to wield a weapon. Chopping off an enemy's legs will drop the torso to the ground, immobilizing him, but he'll pull out a grenade and try to blow himself up along with you from his stationary position.Delightful.
What's the difference between a game that sets out specifically to let you brutally dismember a person and a game that claims it's about making fun combat and along the way rewards brutal dismemberment?
For the record, I have experimented with sadistic acts in games which allowed me to do it. There is a parking garage on the second island in GTA3 which is near your second hideout, and I recall spending time with Bob experimenting with the NPC crowds and explosives. For example, you could kill a bystander, watch the NPCs run up to help him/her, and then toss a molotov cocktail in amongst them, and more people would come over to help those victims, and so forth. Eventually, the game would punish you if you let your wanted rating get too high. Even then you could try to extract rewards, though. If you waited until the FBI cars showed up, you could escape in one of them, and keep it in your garage as a prize, provided you were skillful and lucky.
(Disclaimer: I have written and continue to write for Next-Gen.biz.)
--jvm at 12:01
Comment
[ 5 ]
10 September 2007
Braben misspeaks, we correct
David Braben comments on game ratings and says:
Having said that, from what I've heard of Manhunt 2 (I haven't had the chance to play it), it is not the sort of game the industry should be making, as it is inevitably going to attract controversy.No, no! You've only got half of it. You meant to say "attract money"! And that, my friends, is why ratings ultimately won't matter to consumers.
Labels: esrb
--jvm at 09:04
Comment
[ 1 ]
09 July 2007
Enough blame to go around
In a conference call to investors today Strauss Zelnick, Take Two Interactive's chairman, said (my emphasis):
The system that is broken here is the consolidated videogame retailer market. I know we're all tired of movie-to-game comparisons, but I think the one I have in mind is fitting. Bear with me. There will be nudity, if that matters to you.
It is my belief that smaller video rental shops can survive by offering the one thing that Blockbuster (et al) will not: dirty movies. The independent video stores in our old city all had naughty sections in the back -- tastefully separated from the mainstream movies by curtains. According to a grad school friend who used to work in one, they made a killing off of the dirty movies. (Aside: He was even encouraged to watch a variety of them so he could advise customers.)
Then all of those shops seemed to disappear and only Blockbuster remained. If you like getting your movies from behind the curtain and Blockbuster is your only option, then consolidation has limited your options. (Perhaps cheap broadband access and a river of porn on the internets killed the smaller video shops, but I have to think that Blockbuster did the most damage.)
The connection to games should be obvious. I look around and I see that in my current city the small independent game shops are gone. Instead I can now drive to a half-dozen GameStops in under 15 minutes, all with nearly identical stock. If you don't want to buy your games there you can go to Wal-mart, Target, Best Buy, or Circuit City. That's about the end of it. Or you can shop online.
Look, I understand that Sony and Nintendo refusing to license AO games in the U.S. is also a problem, but even if they weren't there, the big retailers who control most of the market would still balk at stocking an AO-rated Manhunt 2. I'd even guess that some of Sony and Nintendo's reluctance is based on the positions of the retailers. After all, lots of crazy stuff gets licensed and released in Japan and sometimes Europe.
As Josh has said recently, the ESRB should focus on informing consumers about what's in the game. The user-generated content issue notwithstanding, I think they're doing that. What happens after they assign a rating isn't really their problem.
The real problem is that Rockstar and Take Two are trying to squeeze a filthy, violent camel through the eye of a conservative corporate needle. The conservatism comes not from the ESRB but from the console manufacturers (who can be swayed, I believe) and the retailers. So yes, let's blame the retailers.
Can they be swayed too? Perhaps, but I'd rather we have a case like Manhunt 2 where Sony relents and permits a download of the game to PlayStation 3 owners and it sells like gangbusters. If the retailers smell enough profit, I'm sure they'll come around.
"We don't see ourselves in the AO business," Zelnick explained. "But if we find ourselves in the AO business, it would be because we have a title that we consider art and entertainment, that we consider is appropriately rated at AO, that we'd like to bring to market, and that I and Ben [Feder, CEO] are prepared to stand behind.Let me disagree completely.
"In that instance, one has to ask oneself what's the purpose of a rating if it in fact means that a title cannot be released? But I don't think that that issue falls at the door of retailers. Retailers are acting responsibly, frankly, and I think a retailer has a right to say, 'This is what I'm prepared to put on my shelves.' It's not correct to be critical of the retailers at all.
"Because this is a voluntary ratings system in the US, we have to be critical of ourselves if we've allowed a system to develop that prevents us from bringing a title to market that we want to bring to market. That's something that we have to address."
The system that is broken here is the consolidated videogame retailer market. I know we're all tired of movie-to-game comparisons, but I think the one I have in mind is fitting. Bear with me. There will be nudity, if that matters to you.
It is my belief that smaller video rental shops can survive by offering the one thing that Blockbuster (et al) will not: dirty movies. The independent video stores in our old city all had naughty sections in the back -- tastefully separated from the mainstream movies by curtains. According to a grad school friend who used to work in one, they made a killing off of the dirty movies. (Aside: He was even encouraged to watch a variety of them so he could advise customers.)
Then all of those shops seemed to disappear and only Blockbuster remained. If you like getting your movies from behind the curtain and Blockbuster is your only option, then consolidation has limited your options. (Perhaps cheap broadband access and a river of porn on the internets killed the smaller video shops, but I have to think that Blockbuster did the most damage.)
The connection to games should be obvious. I look around and I see that in my current city the small independent game shops are gone. Instead I can now drive to a half-dozen GameStops in under 15 minutes, all with nearly identical stock. If you don't want to buy your games there you can go to Wal-mart, Target, Best Buy, or Circuit City. That's about the end of it. Or you can shop online.
Look, I understand that Sony and Nintendo refusing to license AO games in the U.S. is also a problem, but even if they weren't there, the big retailers who control most of the market would still balk at stocking an AO-rated Manhunt 2. I'd even guess that some of Sony and Nintendo's reluctance is based on the positions of the retailers. After all, lots of crazy stuff gets licensed and released in Japan and sometimes Europe.
As Josh has said recently, the ESRB should focus on informing consumers about what's in the game. The user-generated content issue notwithstanding, I think they're doing that. What happens after they assign a rating isn't really their problem.
The real problem is that Rockstar and Take Two are trying to squeeze a filthy, violent camel through the eye of a conservative corporate needle. The conservatism comes not from the ESRB but from the console manufacturers (who can be swayed, I believe) and the retailers. So yes, let's blame the retailers.
Can they be swayed too? Perhaps, but I'd rather we have a case like Manhunt 2 where Sony relents and permits a download of the game to PlayStation 3 owners and it sells like gangbusters. If the retailers smell enough profit, I'm sure they'll come around.
Labels: business, esrb, game stores, sex, violence
--jvm at 22:54
Comment
[ 1 ]
08 July 2007
Call the ESRB!
Today Josh has a new post on the racist Forza Motorsport 2 user-generated content issue. I'd pinged him the other day because I thought it fit with his warnings almost two years ago that ESRB ratings (or re-ratings) based on user modifications are ill-considered. I think the best quote comes from Todd Hollenshead of id Software from two years ago:
The ESRB needs a tag that says the game is subject to modification and such modifications could place the game outside the boundaries of its nominal rating. As Josh says, help the parents understand the situation.
For posterity, the original GameCloud page quoting Hollenshead is gone. You can find an Internet Archive version of it here.
If the ESRB is going to put a burden on publishers and developers that requires policing any end user created content that may contain pornographic material, then developers like id, Valve, Epic, and others who actively support the mod community may have to reconsider how open we make our games to changes. In such a case, the ESRB would effectively be requiring us to throw out the baby with the bath water as far as modified content goes. Either way, I think developers and publishers are entitled to understand the ratings process, and in such a high-profile case, understand why the rating was changed so that we may plan accordingly.That last sentence is doubly important because it is the same feeling many have after the recent Manhunt 2 flap -- what are the guidelines and how do we know where the boundaries are? (I think it's clear Rockstar knew the boundaries and intentionally crossed them in that case, which is why I'd ask them to lie in the bed they've made.) For user-generated content, there needs to be something more useful than the current "game experience may change online" tag which I'd guess the ESRB feels covers the Forza 2 marketplace.
The ESRB needs a tag that says the game is subject to modification and such modifications could place the game outside the boundaries of its nominal rating. As Josh says, help the parents understand the situation.
For posterity, the original GameCloud page quoting Hollenshead is gone. You can find an Internet Archive version of it here.
--jvm at 16:36
Comment
[ 0 ]
28 June 2007
Manhunt 2 rating, Rockstar presumptions
From a post on My Strategyinformer, found via Game | Life, you can read an email response purportedly from Rockstar about Manhunt 2. The bit that struck me:
Which, of course, is what they're getting at in the second sentence. They don't like the discrepancies between movies and games. (Or at least they're saying they dont' like it. See last paragraph.) But isn't developing a full-scale game a huge risk to take just in the service of challenging the game rating system? Why not do it with something small intended for Xbox Live Arcade, WiiWare, or the PlayStation Store? Maybe the idea is to use the weight of a full-scale game to shock people into changing the system, but it smells a bit more like inciting a riot than arguing your case in court.
I believe Ruffin speculated to me when he visited last week that Rockstar has a toned down version of the game waiting in the wings that they can just burn to a disc and produce if they don't get an M rating with the current version. Perhaps they've come to grips with the problems posed by the ESRB and the Jack Thompsons of the world and decided that it's better to use its enemies as guerrilla promotion than try to reason with them.
The game was developed as a horror experience, and to be an M rated title, aligning it with similar horror content created in other forms of media. Unlike many other people, we do not think video games should be singled out for special treatment from the authorities.That's inconsistent logic, I think. If the game is intended to be M rated, then you go by the guidelines for M rated games. As I've said before, it's not like Rockstar was unfamiliar with the system in which it lives. So it should know that you don't, for example, look at what R rated movies are doing and design your game to look like them. Movies are held to a different standard. That's just the reality of it.
Which, of course, is what they're getting at in the second sentence. They don't like the discrepancies between movies and games. (Or at least they're saying they dont' like it. See last paragraph.) But isn't developing a full-scale game a huge risk to take just in the service of challenging the game rating system? Why not do it with something small intended for Xbox Live Arcade, WiiWare, or the PlayStation Store? Maybe the idea is to use the weight of a full-scale game to shock people into changing the system, but it smells a bit more like inciting a riot than arguing your case in court.
I believe Ruffin speculated to me when he visited last week that Rockstar has a toned down version of the game waiting in the wings that they can just burn to a disc and produce if they don't get an M rating with the current version. Perhaps they've come to grips with the problems posed by the ESRB and the Jack Thompsons of the world and decided that it's better to use its enemies as guerrilla promotion than try to reason with them.
--jvm at 22:49
Comment
[ 0 ]
20 June 2007
Rockstar should welcome Manhunt 2's AO rating
I don't understand why Rockstar is dismayed that their upcoming game, Manhunt 2, is slated to get an AO rating. And, unlike Josh, I don't really care whether it is for violence or sexual content or a mixture of the two.
If Rockstar really wants to make a game that includes content that pushes it over a line that society has set (by proxy through the ESRB) then they should just accept that. Society self-censors all the time. Parents limit what their kids can see, to varying degrees. Communities set limits on where a bars -- with our without dancers -- can be run. Stores put magazines behind the counter or on the top shelf, out of reach of youngsters.
And now Rockstar has made a game that's been judged to have an AO rating. Them's the breaks. If you're really confident in the game on its own merits, then deal with it. If you really made something you think is remarkable, but deals with subject matter than society doesn't want some youngsters to have, then that's the world you live in. Perhaps your game will change some minds and future ratings will be made differently. Embrace that you're truly breaking new ground and show people that you're not just skirting the line to earn some extra money.
As for me, I'm not buying another Manhunt. These past few years I've had to face images of a three-year-old child with one leg blown off and men with heads covered entirely by the smooth scar flesh that grows after the original flesh has burned away. I don't need a game to remind me of what horrors humanity can inflict on its members.
Update: Having read the comments, let me try to distill my point a bit: The material in Manhunt 2 already limits the audience that society would find acceptable. The rating is intended to communicate that to potential buyers, and it sounds like that's precisely what will happen. It's not like Rockstar didn't understand the environment in which it was working.
If Rockstar really wants to make a game that includes content that pushes it over a line that society has set (by proxy through the ESRB) then they should just accept that. Society self-censors all the time. Parents limit what their kids can see, to varying degrees. Communities set limits on where a bars -- with our without dancers -- can be run. Stores put magazines behind the counter or on the top shelf, out of reach of youngsters.
And now Rockstar has made a game that's been judged to have an AO rating. Them's the breaks. If you're really confident in the game on its own merits, then deal with it. If you really made something you think is remarkable, but deals with subject matter than society doesn't want some youngsters to have, then that's the world you live in. Perhaps your game will change some minds and future ratings will be made differently. Embrace that you're truly breaking new ground and show people that you're not just skirting the line to earn some extra money.
As for me, I'm not buying another Manhunt. These past few years I've had to face images of a three-year-old child with one leg blown off and men with heads covered entirely by the smooth scar flesh that grows after the original flesh has burned away. I don't need a game to remind me of what horrors humanity can inflict on its members.
Update: Having read the comments, let me try to distill my point a bit: The material in Manhunt 2 already limits the audience that society would find acceptable. The rating is intended to communicate that to potential buyers, and it sounds like that's precisely what will happen. It's not like Rockstar didn't understand the environment in which it was working.
--jvm at 09:46
Comment
[ 13 ]
22 May 2007
ESRB statement on anti-tobacco groups
Has the ESRB received any pressure from anti-tobacco groups regarding the rating of games and the use of tobacco in videogames? Spokesman Eliot Mizrachi says that "[the] ESRB has not experienced 'pressure' with respect to this issue, and this may be due in part to precisely what you pointed out - that ESRB's content descriptors do a good job of identifying content that parents would be interested in knowing about given the rating category assigned." You might recall that the data I collected showed that games with a rating below M were more likely to note tobacco use or references.
--jvm at 20:40
Comment
[ 0 ]
15 May 2007
Tobacco and game ratings, take two
I did contact the ESRB about tobacco and game ratings, and I got a very helpful response. I'm still trying to get more details, but it's worth giving this different interpretation of the data I showed the other day. The games in the ESRB game ratings search engine which show a descriptor referring to tobacco can be grouped this way:
- 29 rated E
- 18 rated E10+
- 91 rated T
- 3 rated M
Do content descriptors list all of the different content found in a game?Two conclusions I think we can safely draw from this:
Content descriptors are not intended to be a listing of every type of content one might encounter in the course of playing a game. They are applied within the context of the rating category assigned to that game, and are there to provide consumers with additional information about elements in a game that may have triggered a particular rating and/or may be of interest or concern relative to the age appropriateness of the rating category assigned.
Since content descriptors are applied in the context of their respective rating category, the absence of a content descriptor may not necessarily mean the total absence of such content, and a given content descriptor may not always refer to precisely the same type or intensity of material depending on the rating category that accompanies it. For instance, Suggestive Themes in an E10+ game may refer to a flirtatious remark whereas in a Teen game it may refer to provocative clothing on a female character.
- There are several games with M ratings that include references to tobacco or that show tobacco use but do not carry a tobacco use/reference descriptor. So the two M rated games in the ESRB searchable database are simply the two which happen to be M rated and carry a tobacco descriptor.
- The tobacco descriptor is more appropriate for games which are rated below M, namely E through T, and accordingly that's where we find almost all games using a tobacco descriptor. That seems to indicate that the rating system is doing the right thing, namely pointing out tobacco use in precisely the situations where a parent would want to know about it. If a parent is letting a child play an M-rated game, then it is quite possible that tobacco use is of far less concern than the violence that probably earned the M rating.
Question 1: How many games that include any tobacco reference/use are rated M for other reasons?With more data we could certainly answer that question and it would give us a basis to compare ESRB rating of games with this statement about rating of movies:
From July 2004-July 2006, the percentage of films that included "even a fleeting glimpse of smoking" dropped from 60 percent to 52 percent, and 75 percent of those fetched an R rating for other factors, [MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman] said.Because I'm curious, I'd like to see if I can get an answer to this question:
Question 2: What contact has the ESRB had with the advocacy groups which have put pressure on the MPAA regarding tobacco use?I've asked the ESRB for an answer to Question 1 and I'll also try to pursue Question 2 as well. I'll let you know if I get any answers.
--jvm at 16:08
Comment
[ 0 ]
12 May 2007
Tobacco and game ratings
Update: After reading this over, I suggest going to this later post for follow-up comments, including information from the ESRB.
In response to public pressure, the MPAA will now consider tobacco use, particularly smoking, when assigning movie ratings. While they've stopped short of automatic R ratings for movies that show a person smoking, it does appear that they will bump a movie up in some cases if the use of smoking appears gratuitous.
I wondered what our dear old ESRB has been doing about tobacco use in games. Does smoking of tobacco get a game rated at least a T? Or maybe even M?
Apparently not.
To the ESRB's credit there are no EC (early childhood) games with any substance (alcohol, tobacco, or drugs) references. In fact, EC is so clean it doesn't include any violence (cartoon or otherwise), salty language, or gambling. Good to know.
Back to the point, this seems to highlight a difference between movie and game ratings. Glickman said that those movies with any smoking at all had generally received an R rating for other reasons. That doesn't seem to be the case for games. If I have time later, I may try to dig deeper into that disparity, but knowing there is a difference one can point to easily is interesting by itself.
Finally, I do wonder if the ESRB is getting pressure from the same interest groups, like the American Cancer Society, that have been lobbying the MPAA. Maybe I'll try to give them a call on Monday and ask for a statement.
For the record, I do not use tobacco in any form, nor does anyone in my immediate family or circle of friends.
In response to public pressure, the MPAA will now consider tobacco use, particularly smoking, when assigning movie ratings. While they've stopped short of automatic R ratings for movies that show a person smoking, it does appear that they will bump a movie up in some cases if the use of smoking appears gratuitous.
I wondered what our dear old ESRB has been doing about tobacco use in games. Does smoking of tobacco get a game rated at least a T? Or maybe even M?
Apparently not.
- 15 games with the descriptor "Use of Tobacco" (1 E, 4 E10+, 8 T, 2 M)
- 13 games with the descriptor "Tobacco Reference" (5 E, 3 E10+, 5 T)
- 27 games with the descriptor "Alcohol and Tobacco Reference" (6 E, 8 E10+, 13 T)
- 86 games with the descriptor "Use of Alcohol and Tobacco" (17 E, 3 E10+, 65 T, 1 M)
- 29 rated E
- 18 rated E10+
- 91 rated T
- 3 rated M
From July 2004-July 2006, the percentage of films that included "even a fleeting glimpse of smoking" dropped from 60 percent to 52 percent, and 75 percent of those fetched an R rating for other factors, [MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman] said.So 75% of movies with even a fleeting glimpse of smoking were given R ratings -- and thereby limited in theory to people who were 17 years of age or older. By comparison, only 3 out of 141, or 2.1%, of games with any mention or use of tobacco were given an M rating, the rating that most closely approximates the MPAA's R rating. It should be noted that those 141 games include some that are several years old, and rating standards have changed over time. (I've discussed such changes at least once before.) Still, the PlayStation 3 game Calling all Cars, released just this week, has the "Alcohol and Tobacco Reference" descriptor and is rated E.
To the ESRB's credit there are no EC (early childhood) games with any substance (alcohol, tobacco, or drugs) references. In fact, EC is so clean it doesn't include any violence (cartoon or otherwise), salty language, or gambling. Good to know.
Back to the point, this seems to highlight a difference between movie and game ratings. Glickman said that those movies with any smoking at all had generally received an R rating for other reasons. That doesn't seem to be the case for games. If I have time later, I may try to dig deeper into that disparity, but knowing there is a difference one can point to easily is interesting by itself.
Finally, I do wonder if the ESRB is getting pressure from the same interest groups, like the American Cancer Society, that have been lobbying the MPAA. Maybe I'll try to give them a call on Monday and ask for a statement.
For the record, I do not use tobacco in any form, nor does anyone in my immediate family or circle of friends.
--jvm at 03:46
Comment
[ 5 ]
Feedburner
