Video Game Ratings: Are ESRB’s Current Ratings Enough?
Have you ever played a video game and ever thought that the game was way to violent for the rating it was given or missed some of the descriptors that were in the game but not on the box? Well this paper goes over many of the related topics.
According to Patricia Vance, President of ESRB, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) was founded in 1994 with the goal of giving parents and consumers information about the games for purchasing decisions. This rating system has been universally adopted because all games have a rating that is, for the most part, agreed on. These ratings are divided into 6 different ratings that include the ages that ESRB finds acceptable to play and they also include over 30 different content descriptors and a detailed summary of why the game got the rating it did that is available online, (Vance).
The ratings are as follows:
- EC(Early Childhood; ages three and older)
- E(Everyone; ages six and older)
- E10+(Everyone 10 and Older; ages 10 and up)
- T(Teen; ages 13 and older)
- M(Mature; ages 17 and older)
- AO(Adult Only; ages 18 and older) (Vance)
Others say that the ESRB is not strict enough when rating video games. According to Amanda Fung, of the Crain’s New York Business, ESRB gives extremely violent video games softer ratings so they will sell better in stores. For example an rated AO game gets an M rating so it will get more profit. James Steyer said that “ESRB is funded by the industry so the more money a games make by being sold the more money ESRB makes (Fung).
Some opponents of the ESRB ratings say they are to strict as it is. According to Timothy F. Winter an article from the U.S. News & World Report, violent video games should be allowed to be sold to minors because they believe it is a right protected by the 1st Amendment. However, supporters of the California ban on video games say that banning the selling or renting of violent video games protects children. Opponents say that the law violates free speech protections. The Parents Television Council has found more than 3,000 studies linking a child’s consumption of violent video media, yet they’ve found less than two dozen that concluded differently, (Winter).
Amanda Fung says that Target refused to sell Manhunt 2 being that it was an M game. ESRB gives extremely violent video game ratings that allow them to be sold in stores.(stores sell M rated games but do not sell AO rated games) According to James Steyer, Chief Executive of Common Sense Media “The ESRB is funded by the industry.” Common Sense Media is a non-profit organization that rates all types of media products. They say that Manhunt 2 is too violent for an “M” rating. The rating was changed to an Adult Only rating after being re-evaluated by ESRB. The creators of the game took out the most pertinent content because it was being taken off the the shelves of large retail stores for having an Adult Only rating. This changed the rating eventually went back to an M rating. (Fung)
There was a study held at Harvard University and led by Associate Professor Kimberly Thompson of the Kids Risk Project6 at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH). The study results showed that 81% of games looked at had undocumented content. Most of the undocumented content should have been clearly marked on the box. The most undocumented content was “substance abuse.” The main researchers at HSPH were Karen Tepichin, Kevin Haninger, and Kimberly Thompson. The team of researchers were looking to evaluate the ESRB system. The group looked at a random sample of 25% of all “M” rated games. The content of the games were compared to the ESRB descriptors. They found that ESRB was assigning some content to some games but not others. The head researcher Thompson later stated in reference to the study that,” It is time for the industry to provide complete, consistent, and clear information about what is really in games so that parents can make more informed decisions when selecting games for and with their children.” The main reason ESRB misses most of this content is because they only require part of the game to be sent in for ratings. So they do not play the whole game (Thompson)
Because there might be some connections between violent child behavior and violent video games, the rating boards should be on top of the ratings and make them true without any exceptions. According to Mr. John H. Ostdick of the Dallas Morning News Dr. Walsh has been in child psychology for 25 years. For most of his career he has focused on media violence. Dr. Walsh sent out a survey about media use by kids. The results show that the average kid spent 25 hours a week using some type of media. Parents commented on the surveys and also said that kids ages 8-12 played games the most. After this survey he questioned if there was a connection between violent games and violent behavior. Dr. Walsh later commented on the surveys and said that ”when kids watch violent TV they are just observers, when they play violent games they are participants. From a psychological point of view, that is, of course, a more engaging standpoint” (Ostdick).
If you ever play a video game that is to violent for the given rating let somebody know, have the game checked out. So if there is a connection between violent behavior in children and the violent video games that they play, we can fix or at least slow it down. |