There's a big hoopla right now about Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, and now the ESRB is getting blamed for being toothless.
It's true, they are. They really don't have the resources to accurately rate a game. The ESRB grew out of the valid need to rate games by age group. It works for movies, why not games?
That doesn't mean a 16 year old doesn't want to see an R-Rated movie, and he likely will find a way to get in. It's the same with games.
The ESRB is non-profit, and still really finding its way. It's a nominal service that is supposed to address an important issue - making sure mature materials are not as easily accessed by minors. The ESRB needs a lot more funding, and in the end it will have to come from game developers themselves.
I've worked in the industry for a few years now, I can say that the ESRB makes it very easy for game developers to sneak questionable content past them.
The whole row over San Andreas doesn't really qualify, since the code in question was disabled, and so not intended or accessible for viewing by the public. But if you can hack into the code, you can find all sorts of remnants that are otherwise inaccessible.
This is just the one of the first high profile incidents with remnant code. There will be many to follow, from all sorts of games that have been out for years - now that it's seen as a newsworthy topic. Much will depend on the end result of this one case.
I've filled out many ESRB submission documents, and they read like tax forms. It's all very iffy wording and if-this-but-not-that-and-goto-line 42.
You tell THEM which age bracket you qualify for. Then they can agree or disagree.
You pop a tape in the VCR, record a few hours of gameplay footage, (not necessarily the racy or gory stuff) and send it with the forms to the ESRB. A few weeks later, you get your stamp of approval.
This is not an accurate way to rate games. Developers should send the game to the ESRB, and their own staff of testers should play through.
With a game like GTA San Andreas, it could take a few weeks (or more) of play (and that's eight hours a day) to complete the game and all its mini quests and unlockables. That's the only way to know what content is in a game.
To do this, the ESRB would have to charge developers a lot more than they do now for evaluations. With games costing what they do to produce, (millions) spending a few thousand dollars per game for an accurate rating seems nominal.
It's true, they are. They really don't have the resources to accurately rate a game. The ESRB grew out of the valid need to rate games by age group. It works for movies, why not games?
That doesn't mean a 16 year old doesn't want to see an R-Rated movie, and he likely will find a way to get in. It's the same with games.
The ESRB is non-profit, and still really finding its way. It's a nominal service that is supposed to address an important issue - making sure mature materials are not as easily accessed by minors. The ESRB needs a lot more funding, and in the end it will have to come from game developers themselves.
I've worked in the industry for a few years now, I can say that the ESRB makes it very easy for game developers to sneak questionable content past them.
The whole row over San Andreas doesn't really qualify, since the code in question was disabled, and so not intended or accessible for viewing by the public. But if you can hack into the code, you can find all sorts of remnants that are otherwise inaccessible.
This is just the one of the first high profile incidents with remnant code. There will be many to follow, from all sorts of games that have been out for years - now that it's seen as a newsworthy topic. Much will depend on the end result of this one case.
I've filled out many ESRB submission documents, and they read like tax forms. It's all very iffy wording and if-this-but-not-that-and-goto-line 42.
You tell THEM which age bracket you qualify for. Then they can agree or disagree.
You pop a tape in the VCR, record a few hours of gameplay footage, (not necessarily the racy or gory stuff) and send it with the forms to the ESRB. A few weeks later, you get your stamp of approval.
This is not an accurate way to rate games. Developers should send the game to the ESRB, and their own staff of testers should play through.
With a game like GTA San Andreas, it could take a few weeks (or more) of play (and that's eight hours a day) to complete the game and all its mini quests and unlockables. That's the only way to know what content is in a game.
To do this, the ESRB would have to charge developers a lot more than they do now for evaluations. With games costing what they do to produce, (millions) spending a few thousand dollars per game for an accurate rating seems nominal.
Here's an update on this issue.
So now they've rerated in AO because of content that's not actually in the game? I'm guessing that will cut into future sales, and probably get the people who put it in there into a lot of trouble with their superiors.
ReplyDeleteCulpability will be a bit tricky.
ReplyDeleteIt's likely the programmers told the producers that the code was still present, but disabled.
Disabled remnant code is pretty much the same as removed code, from the end-user's standpoint.
Simply disabling the code is less likely to break something and lead to a crash bug.