In their December edition,Brio Magazine, a publication ofFocus on the Family, ran a little blurb about the ESRB. In short, author Bob Smithousar isn’t impressed.
Briois primarily a girl’s magazine, ages 10-14 or so, and the fact that they’ve taken an, albeit small, interest in the inner-workings of the ESRB could indicate an increase in girl gaming. More importantly, however, are the possible political implications of FoF-led Crusade against the ESRB.
One tiny magazine’s berating the ESRB isn’t that compelling in and of itself, but in light ofPeaceaholics recent protestofBully, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a unified, conservative Christian stance on all things violent, sexual, and pixelated.
Make the jump for more speculation and the original article.
What’s even more interesting isFocus on the Family’s significant political weight. As time goes on, we’re going to see moreBully-type cases appear, and more and more pressure is going to be put on the ESRB to get it right. And you know what? I couldn’t be happier.
Conservatism aside, I think a bit of pressure on the ESRB and game retailers will be a positive thing. After all, other forms of media/art that are sexual and violent (movies, music, etc.) aren’t sold to minors, and video games, for all their merits, shouldn’t either.
What I hope is that, in response to these groups, the ESRB will up the ante and becometheauthority concerning what gets sold, and to whom. I want the ESRB to beef itself up and become infallible – so long as the ratings appeal to common sense.
In my ideal world, the ESRB would give fair and undisputed ratings and retailers would be responsible and now sell graphic games to 4-year-olds. Secure in that knowledge, producers and developers could really push the envelope concerning what’s acceptible in video games, ushering a new wave of violence, drugs, sex, and rock n’ roll, all in HD glory. This freedom would be a big push to makingvideo games a bonafide art form, with all the controversial issues and material that implies.
Like I said, this is all speculation and wishful thinking, but it’s not inconceivable.
Here’s theoriginal articleinBrio:
Whose job is it to rate video games, and how do they decide which ones get an E, T or M rating?That’s the responsibility of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), which, believe it or not, labels most games without even playing them. No kidding. Instead of wading through dozens of interactive levels, the 35 part-time reviewers at the ESRB base their ratings on information provided by the game’s manufacturer, including a 15- to 60-minute video.
If you ask me, that’s sort of like turning in a book report for a novel you haven’t read. The president of the ESRB says there are simply too many games released each year, and her staff doesn’t have time to play them. Use a similar excuse on your English teacher, and she’ll flunk you.
As you might expect, the shortcuts aren’t working. A Harvard study found glaring inconsistencies in the board’s ratings. And as for the question of what material earns a particular label, no one knows. The ESRB refuses to make that information public. So while the current system may be better than nothing, overall it gets a failing grade.
