I'm not in the least bit curious. Why should the ESRB be the ones to release that kind of information? If the content in question involves important plot points, do you really think the devs want the ESRB releasing that kind of info?
They released an explanation of the AO rating, I believe.
They both should. How can you judge the validity of the ratings if you have no way of knowing what their criteria are? If they're anything remotely like the MPAA they definitely can not be trusted. It seems like they are trying to be exactly like the MPAA.
That is just a bad idea. If you want to judge the rating system or the product, then look at the released products, not something that is a work in progress. If the ESRB started talking about the content that caused it to lose their rating, it’d just be misunderstood and often be considered as content in the game. In short, if I was shooting for a particular rating, and failed it for whatever reason, I’d be pretty ticked off if the ratings board started promoting the existence of undesired content in my game that never makes it into the release product. Basically, you’re saying that you want to get complete ratings on unreleased products, I think it’s enough work to get them on released products, I don’t see the logic behind this.
I mean, if you were investigating corruption or something, disclosing this evidence to investigators would make sense, but to just release information prior to completion of the ratings process by default is a bad move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnyMo
Do they not realize that the sudden lower rating and their media blackout on the reasoning throws incredible doubts towards their validity as a ratings board?
Only to those who have a great propensity for doubt. I mean, why would you be suspicious of a ratings change based on changes in a product, isn’t that what they’re supposed to do? Again, who cares how many changes the product went through or what ratings it had in the process, when it’s released and the ratings aren’t consistent, then bitch about it.
Careful, he was behind a California video game bill.
I noticed this after this post, and regretted saying that. You win.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxonian
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not legal for doctors to kill their patients through medical/pharmeceutical errors. That's called medical malpractice, and it results in phat lootz.
The ESRB is WAY more transparent than the MPAA. I don't see Yee bitching about Hostel 2 getting an R instead of an NC-17. Whay doesn't he demand a step by step explanation of that rating? Because it gets less headlines in the press?
That is just a bad idea. If you want to judge the rating system or the product, then look at the released products, not something that is a work in progress. If the ESRB started talking about the content that caused it to lose their rating, it’d just be misunderstood and often be considered as content in the game. In short, if I was shooting for a particular rating, and failed it for whatever reason, I’d be pretty ticked off if the ratings board started promoting the existence of undesired content in my game that never makes it into the release product. Basically, you’re saying that you want to get complete ratings on unreleased products, I think it’s enough work to get them on released products, I don’t see the logic behind this.
I mean, if you were investigating corruption or something, disclosing this evidence to investigators would make sense, but to just release information prior to completion of the ratings process by default is a bad move.
You're not making any sense. If I'm some kid's mom I want to know what the difference is between a T and an M. What do they consider to be intense violence as opposed to violence? Is it similar to where I would draw the line? How can I go based on past games if I never play them? I can only afford 3 games a year for my kid, how do you expect me to figure out what a rating means based on past content?
They need to explicitly say what it is they are looking for that constitutes a certain rating. If I say shit 10 times and have 3 decapitations it's a T, but if I say fuck twice and have no decapitations but I can kill cops does that make it an M? They use a checklist to help determine the rating, put it on the website and let me judge for myself.
What if I'm more conservative than the ratings board and I think a T game should have gotten an M? I'm not going to buy it for my kid, play through it and then decide whether the kid can play it. I would look on a website and see their checklist though. Why are they hiding this information? There is no logical reason that they need to hide it.
And saying that revealing the information would attribute things to the game that may not be in there is ludicrous. That's what it does now by not telling us the criteria. Just explain why the game got the rating. It should be incredibly easy to do.
I'm not in the least bit curious. Why should the ESRB be the ones to release that kind of information? If the content in question involves important plot points, do you really think the devs want the ESRB releasing that kind of info?
1) Until a game has been released, it isn't a public issue and if any information is to be released about said game, it should the decision of the developer. Not a group of people who reviewed it under the understanding that their process would be confidential.
2) When have the ESRB's ratings been questioned? As far as I know, the whole ESRB controversy started with the Hot Coffee scandal, and that wasn't questioning the ESRB's decisions. The controversy was because content available only through a modded version of the game wasn't possible for them to review. It was a question of punishment for companies that have inactive and unreviewable data in their games.
Some groups tried to make it into a question about the ESRB's review process, but that really wasn't the issue.
3)
Quote:
Parents simply can not trust an entity that is unwilling to disclose or give any meaningful rationale at how they come to their decisions.
How would any review process truly be tested? The end results. When you find a game that got an inappropriate rating for fully disclosed and reviewable content, then come back and bitch about it. Until then, STFU.
And why would parents care about a game that's rated M? It's not for kids. End of story.
They both should. How can you judge the validity of the ratings if you have no way of knowing what their criteria are? If they're anything remotely like the MPAA they definitely can not be trusted. It seems like they are trying to be exactly like the MPAA.
Absofuckinglutely. BOTH the MPAA and the ESRB should be on spot.
__________________
SteamGamerTag: T Rex Holding A Flamethrower
360: TRex Plus Fire
CA, Bay Area Dungeons and Dragons Community! Take a look!
You're not making any sense. If I'm some kid's mom I want to know what the difference is between a T and an M. What do they consider to be intense violence as opposed to violence? Is it similar to where I would draw the line? How can I go based on past games if I never play them? I can only afford 3 games a year for my kid, how do you expect me to figure out what a rating means based on past content?
You can go here and look at the ESRB’s ratings of past games (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp). What you’re demanding is nothing of the sort, you want to evaluate the ESRB based on content you never see, and what, a paraphrasing from the developer or the ESRB on how ‘bad’ it was and why the rating was deserved. This is just foolish, the information is there, in FAR more useful ways than you suggest, you just, for whatever reason, want what you don’t have. You’re honestly arguing that a kid’s mom is going to evaluate the ESRB with a prerelease game description? Crazy talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnperkins21
They need to explicitly say what it is they are looking for that constitutes a certain rating.
Hehe, you’d have an ESRB ratings system far more complicated than our legal system. There’s no way to do what you propose, not in our world, but again, the ESRB does a fine job of laying out the basics of their system and it seems the vast majority of developers outside of Rockstar’s offices seem to get it. As far as parents understanding the ESRB’s ratings, that information is well supplied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnperkins21
I would look on a website and see their checklist though. Why are they hiding this information? There is no logical reason that they need to hide it.
I don’t see them hiding anything, just being unable to break games down into formulas or checklists because they occupy the same world I live in. Tell you what, you take 5 games, break them down into a checklist of every type of content that someone can find offensive, then come back and tell me it was just simple and everyone agrees with it. What, you think parents are looking for stats like FUs per minute, like they have a 1.7 FUPM limit? They just want to know how close their personal ratings match up to the ESRBs, and that information is EASILY available for RELEASED products. I got to the ESRBs site by hitting the first google link for ‘ESRB rating criteria’, what, precisely, do you think they’re trying to hide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnperkins21
That's what it does now by not telling us the criteria. Just explain why the game got the rating. It should be incredibly easy to do.
I honestly don’t know how to explain to you the difference between a release game and a work in progress, it’s so simple and obvious I just can’t fathom how to get the point across to you. Why not demand that websites supply reviews for games before they’re released, so you can also evaluate the quality of the games you can’t buy and will never see. Silly.
I won't read too much into this, but curious as I am, I don't care why ESRB isn't talking.
I'll happily wait until it comes from Rockstar themselves as to what was removed.
I'll read too much into it. Yee has previously been shot down from passing anti-video game laws. The ESRB is deemed adequate so the government doesn't need to get involved. Yee believes that if he can get people to believe the the ESRB is inadequate, he can have the government get involved in regulating video games.
Films are edited and re-submitted to the MPAA for lower ratings all the time. The MPAA does not disclose their reasons. Why should the ESRB?
I'll echo this. The MPAA has been veiled in secrecy for years (unless you watched "This Film Is Not Yet Rated"). If something like this actually causes the ESRB to reveal things, I think the focus should be turned in the direction of the MPAA, as well.
I can't believe that some people are actually getting this upset about this issue. I thought it was ridiculous when I first heard about Yee's accusations.
Ok, let's look at this. The ESRB has never hidden much of anything in the past. They've never given a reason for suspicion. They've never really done anything wrong to my knowledge(correct me if I'm wrong, I very well may be).
The only reason that they're being thrown into suspicion now is because they're not releasing what is obviously confidential material. And because Yee is making a scene.
I don't know about you, but whenever I've read the rating on a videogame box, and played that game, it was usually a pretty accurate predictor of what was in the game. The ESRB's system is simple, and it works. There's no reason that this case would be any different.
The only reason this situation even holds merit is because the rating went from an AO to an M rating. If it was a game going from a T rating to an E rating, do you think anyone would care? Probably not. And because no one would care then, no one should be caring now. If Manhunt 2 comes out and it should have obviously been rated AO, or it's revealed that Rockstar didn't actually change anything (which I think that would be unlikely and entirely too risky for Rockstar; they don't want another Hot Coffee) then we might have a situation on our hands. Until then, this whole thing reeks of innocent until proven guilty, and there's very little proof that there's any guilt here.
