In a recent Electronic Gaming Monthly article Jerry Bonner explains how he believe the ESRB can be improved from his six months of being employed (and leaving on his own terms).
He had a few key points:
- Transparency: Stop hiding ESRB and its employees, it’s not the FBI. Give people some information about how you do your work and you’ll get a bit more respect from us gamers (so we don’t think it’s all dark magic)
- Play Games: Reviewers who rate games should play them, not simply watch submitted video (from the publisher) about the game.
- Update Rating: The AO rating needs to go, all it does is ban games from the market, why have a rating for that? Break it up into T(een)13, T(een)16 and Mature audiences for 18+ and that covers it al.
- No Veto: Raters opinions matter, why do they overrule them without explaination? If you’re hiring raters to rate games let their opinion count for more than an “electoral vote.”
He called for some cleanup in how they “parity” games (game sequels should have the same rating, in most cases, as originals) saying that games should be rated “stand alone” and not based on prior games.
Since his article in EGM, things have gone fairly “viral” in our small industry. Everybody has picked up on the article, so has the ESRB. Their response was pretty much defending themselves by name calling and judging the author, Mr. Bonner saying his article “contains numerous misleading statements, factual inaccuracies, and misrepresentations with respect to key aspects of the rating system.”
Really, after reading the article for myself, he was concerned about the ESRB as a governing body of gaming and really wanted to call out the holes in their system in order to clean up the rating board before the government steps in and takes control.
He never really stated the ESRB was all wrong, as a matter of fact he was proud of what they accomplished, as it could be seen in his writing but as a concerned citizen and gamer he wanted to experiences there to shed some light on areas that could use some work.
Let us face it, everyone can use some work in some areas be it weight problems, addictions, temper, socialization and plenty of other areas including that of “taking criticism.” Nobody is perfect but we all would love to reach a higher state of perfection; the only way to grow as a person is to learn from your mistakes, take the advice of those around you, and explore new possibilities. Jerry really wants the ESRB to explore new ways of fixing old issues.
The rating system, as he pointed out, does have some flaws. It’s been cleaned up before and its getting old and crusty and can use some work to bring it to the 21st century. The AO has been one I’ve had issues with myself, not exactly understanding ‘why’ we have to have a rating that bans games to begin with. Just ban them.
The difference in Adults Only and Mature is one year of life…from the age of 17 to 18. Please, what individual is going to go through a life altering state from 17 to 18? One year prior you’re not allowed to see excessive blood and sex (what’s an NC17 rated movies minimum age limit?) but a year later and it’s all okay.
The ESRB seems a bit brash in how it responded to the problem, but that’s what companies do when they really have no serious way of responding or want to spend the time. It’s easier to belittle the author and discredit them than face judgment yourself, especially when they’re getting a lot of attention. This is how lawyers act, and you know the ESRB has a few lawyers hanging around looking for work!
Jerry went on to finish his thoughts and respond to their comments on GameStooge on Saturday. As normal, he responded in a calm no-nonsense tone which is exactly what got him the attention to begin with.
I’m not sure why the entire issue went so viral so fast, perhaps it’s because nobody understands the ESRB as they don’t tell us anything about how games get rated. ESRB, FBI, it’s all the same really, we have no idea what goes on in the building so we start to make conspiracies about their actions. When one person comes out and gives us a look at the “real ESRB” we start to get excited, a bit confused and start to also ask some questions and, believe it or not, agree with the author in question.
Perhaps, if the ESRB did as Bonner suggested and become a bit more transparent to everything, we’d all see that the ESRB is nothing more than a company trying to get things done with low headcount, minimal resources and a tad bit of respect.
Honestly, I felt better about the ESRB before the article because I didn’t think they looked so sweet coming out with the reaction they had. Perhaps the need to re-think their PR department?
I want to thank Jerry Bonner for giving us as much information as he did without having to break any non-disclosure agreements which he is under. And, for being a friend and letting me read up on the article before it went to press!
(Originally posted at Tech Diversions. Images courtesy of CheatCC.)
