New video game rating system for political pundits and blowhards who think video games are the root of all evil. The idea came from seeing the ESRB leaflet that comes with the owner's manual when you buy new hardware. The leaflet explains the rating system and the descriptions what is included in the game. I was more bothered how often something bad happens in the news. The first thing that gets blamed is video games. I'm opposed at the arbitrary nature of the ESRB. For example the inclusion of the E+10 rating. The people in-charge of assigning ratings. Do not play any of the games and expect the publisher to show them the more questionable parts. This is more directed at the Fox News and the self-righteous of the world.

...So am I supposed to angry about something, or just have a sensible chuckle and carry on with my day?

I feel like there's too much effort involved for a chuckle.

So what's the European equivalent: May I suggest Problematic, Ethnocentric, Gynophobic, Intolerant- 18?

You're always supposed to be angry about something. If you aren't angry, you should be angry you aren't angry about something.

This is one of the weirder zombie threads I've seen. Putting that aside, rating systems are bad.

No they're not. They tell you what movies have the sex in it.

@therealturk said:

Well, I guess I could put on my snooty art school graduate hat and judge the subpar replication of the ESRB designs since they are making me feel mildly agitated.

There's too much negative space where the letters are. The length of the headers are inconsistent. The font styles, size (particularly the vertical scales) are also inconsistent. And the registered trademark logo should be a bit more prominent. Also, "Li" for "Litigious" but not "La" for "Lazy"?

Who ever this "E.Zepeda" person is, they fail to grasp the concept of "attention to detail."

@tds418: In my experience they amount to little more than an at a glance summary of the intensity of content.

I'd expect parents concerned as to what they might be subjecting their children to likely see them as a benefit.

@kunakai Right, no doubt that's the intended use, but the problems stem from the values that are baked into the rating systems. The documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is a fairly damning documentary that exposes a lot of issues with the MPAA's movie ratings, and I think a lot of the issues discussed there cross over into games ratings as well.

Super Bunnyhop did a very good video looking at video game age ratings around the world. Very interesting look at how various cultures view the age appropriateness of different types of content.

I've always said there is no reason for a PG-13 rating. G, PG, R, X forever!

@tds418: I'm honestly not likely to watch either of the documentaries mentioned by you or exile.

As someone who doesn't watch much in the way of television/movies I was hoping to hear your opinion as to what specifically is bad about them? It just seemed an ambiguous statement (something I'm sure you could agree with given your follow up)

@kunakai: More or less they have baked in values that are bad because of the kinds of people who do the rating, even if the nominal reasons are not so bad.

Who's engaged in the sex and violence can greatly affect the rating, so that a game that shows police violence against "bad guys" might be rated with more lenience than one where salves might be revolting against an overseer because of racism and unconscious bias.

Male nudity is often rated more harshly than female nudity, sex between people of the same sex more harshly than heterosexual sex etc..

Likewise stuff from big publishers and mainstream sources is rated more leniently than stuff from smaller indie teams or producers from marginalized backgrounds.

Basically ratings are subjective and laden with old fashioned values and even subconscious bigotry, but pretending to be objective and cover broader criteria. Neither the MPA nor the ESRB would admit this and it's not in their official ratings guide, but it's baked into the process and it's very problematic.

@bigsocrates: So the issue is more regarding the agencies defining the ratings opposed to ratings in and of themselves?

Subjective biases seem inherant in almost any venture humans undertake (being from the UK I've always found it strange that the US has differing state laws). I mean, the issues we're discussing permiate all of society at almost every facit in every nation to some degree. Even if such systems weren't in place the cultural composition of the content creators would still exhibit the same biases.

Not to say criticism isn't warranted and required to progress. I'm just not so sure subjective views/opinions can be eradicated from a judgement call. (I feel like my brother getting bothered about me discussing anything and everything around my nephews could be considered as subjective. Though maybe I'm wrong, the two certainly aren't equivalent)

@kunakai: The agencies are bad and don't help, but the entire concept of ratings has a lot of this stuff kind of baked in because subjective bias exist throughout society and it is, in fact, impossible to be truly objective. That being said doing away with the number and just having a description like "Blood and pervasive violence" or whatever might at least provide a slightly more objective criterion. Barring that some kind of numerical system based on objective criteria might be fairer.

Getting beyond the specific issue of the ratings, a lot of the problem is just boiling down the complexities of "offensive content" into a number or one of a few ratings. It will naturally reinforce biases. It might be easier for some parents, but that comes at the cost of suppressing certain types of speech, especially because most physical stores won't carry AO games and console makers won't even allow them to publish on the platform.

I'm not inherently against ratings because I do think that having a simple readable value has some value, but the system as it exists is broken.

It's kind of like why some game review sites did away with scores. They don't think you can boil the complexity down into a 'rating.' Well if you can't boil 'quality' down into a number why do we think it's possible to do that for 'adultness,' especially when it's an area where we know even more powerful biases are at work?