Full disclosure: I work for the industry.

My biggest concern about your criticisms is that nearly all of them are equally applicable to the venerable movie rating system. Movie studios fight for R-ratings just as hard as game companies fight for M-ratings, and for exactly the same reasons. How is "Restricted" any more expressive or less-confusing than "Mature"? If a game appears on the cover of "Game Informer," why does that qualify as marketing to under 18, but if a movie appears on the cover of "Premiere," it isn't?

If the ESRB's rating system is broken, then so are the MPAA's.

I will grant you that games grant an inherent challenge for content reviewers, due to their non-linear nature, and the length of the play experience. However, "Hot Coffee" is an unfair example to raise, since the content in question could, in no way, be accessed through regular gameplay. Your case would be stronger if you provided an example of a game where there was content accessed through gameplay -- or otherwise stumbled on by accident -- that should have changed the rating.

I do agree with you on one point: I think that the ratings board should be more willing to give AO ratings for extreme violence. But, this same problem exists with movies. In the United States, our standards for adult-only violence are strangely out of step with our standards for adult-only sexual content. In that respect, I think it's our culture that's broken, and not the ESRB's rating system.

Just a small note...the problem with the Hot Coffee issue was this: when you buy a game, at least according to the EULA, you do not actually buy the specific copy of the game that goes home with you...you buy a license to use the -code- of the game. Since Hot Coffee's code was included with the code of the game that was released by Rockstar (this was proven - it was found on the PS2 discs, which were clearly not capable of being modded), then...regardless of how many hoops a user had to jump through in order to access the code...technically, the code was a part of the product, and thereby the product should have been rated AO, given the guidelines for rating videogames. Anyway, that's really neither here nor there.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the ratings updated, but I think it's going to be difficult to come up with a system that accurately pegs a game's degree of appropriateness, and probably impossible to create a system that effectively prevents totally clueless consumers from making poor choices every now and again. Some people find violence offensive, some people find sex offensive. As one person on a forum put it, when GTA: San Andreas was pulled from shelves:

"I like how beating an old woman up with a dildo, stealing her money, running from the police, creating a huge road crash, burning said road crash with a flame thrower, then stealing a harrier jet and killing the FBI force that is tracking you down is considered less 'morally bad' than a sex scene. With your girlfriend."

Touche, my friend. So, as to what deserves an M rating and what deserves an AO rating...it's so subjective that it would be difficult to get very specific.

In the meantime, a lot of the responsibility, in my mind, rests with the user. And while it's true (as mentioned) that 'depiction of blood, violence, adult content' are pretty vague phrases that cover a wide spectrum of games and do a poor job of describing wildly varying degrees of mature content, I find it difficult to believe that a parent who is truly interested in determining the appropriateness of a certain title wouldn't be able to do so...since most games are broadly covered with many, many screenshots and reviews available readily from places like IGN.

Additionally...I'm not sure that companies fighting the AO rating are necessarily doing so in order to be misleading or to market their titles to kids. As you said, AO-rated games aren't picked up by some of the biggest distributors, like Wal-Mart...and so it's a business decision more than anything. Is it a decision being made at the cost of guidelines designed to be helpful to parents? ...Well, I'm not sure. I mean, you have to be 17 years old to buy an 'M' rated game, and 18 years old to buy an 'AO' rated game, if I remember correctly. Is that making the distinction between an 'M' game and an 'AO' game really all that useful?

Long story short: I agree that the rating system is sort of borked, but I'm not sure how anyone will be able to come up with a truly accurate system.

Malkyne states s/he is in the industry, which industry is that? I presume it is the movie industry, although here in SoCal, just about everybody knows somebody..., or they have a project of their own that is in development. In other words, they are stuck on page 3, and have not pitched their idea yet, to anyone. I don't say this to be mean, or to slam anybody. I am merely trying to point out, however ineptly, that there can be a need for precision, when discussing these matters.

IMHO, the problem with the current rating systems: TV, cinema, home/arcade video/computer games, etc., are always representing a moving target. Instead of just making a good film, the filmmaker and his/her production team have to worry about what they have to do, or undo, to get a specific rating to reach their target audience. Chop :05 seconds here, put a shadow their, a little ADR, and your good to go, on the theatrical release. But, what about foreign distribution in Europe and Asia, where each market has its own unique criteria? For that matter, what do you need to fix, for "edited for cable" and "edited for over air broadcast?" Do you shoot and score those ultra sexy scenes for the foreign distribution, or for inclusion on the DVD? Do you stay with the extreme close-up, of a very violent and gory demise of a character? Knowing that you will cutaway in the theatrical release, but it will not chopped from the DVD. Then there is the hassle of trying to coordinate the content, with cross-promotional activity and merchandising. Whatever, the industry term is.

How is a responsible parent supposed to wade in to all this chaos, and determine what is appropriate for little Janie and Johnny? Bran and Brenda's parents across the street, may have entirely different criteria in mind, as to what they will expose their kiddos to. What to do? Industry - arcade/film/home gaming/pc gaming, need to get out of the business of telling parents what is appropriate for kids at whatever age. They have a product to sell. Government and politicians are not any better, because they too have a product to sell. Themselves. They have to be seen to be doing something..., anything..., however destructive the results of their efforts ultimately are.

What is needed is a single standard, for rating all media available for sale in the United State: print, photography, film, TV, cable, internet, radio, and video, whatever.

Each rated criteria is judged against a standard, such as in a dog show, given a factor of 0 to 9. i.e.: rating the level of nudity in an image, movie or video game. A zero would mean non-existent, as in a movie set in the Artic, and everyone is bundled up 17 layers of parkas. A 9 might represent full frontal nudity on men and women alike, in a pose down for Mr and Ms Nude Fitness. Even though nobody has any clothing on, this program is not going to score high on the sexuality meter. Whereas a scorching hot, explicit pornographic movie, could peg high the needle on the sexuality meter, even though the characters never remove half their clothing. Or, a sexy situation could be described in a novel or magazine, without any illustrations at all, to accompany the text.

So a set of criteria is determined upon, rating the various types of subject matter that can generally be termed detrimental or objectionable, to some segment of the adult population. Each category of material would have a 0 to 9 rating, as determined by a fixed scale, describing each step in the continuum. Allowing the producer of a product to calculate what the ultimate rating would be, before that product is submitted for rating. Say that given product had three rating components that jumped out of the weeds, to register on the scale. The overall rating of the product could be a smooth average of the three indexed categories.

Little Jr isn't getting into that movie, without a parent or guardian holding his hand. But, say the objectionable material had to do with fantasy violence and gore. If Jr's parents don't have a problem with Jr watching that kind of material, this type of rating system would Jr's parents what they need to know, in order to make an informed decision. By standardizing the criteria, across all forms of media and content, the responsible parent is not left scratching their head, trying to decipher yet another acronym, which is haphazardly applied.

I'm a long time gamer and parent of 3 children. The ESRB rating does exactly what it needs to do to provide an at a glance notification of a software title's type of objectionable content. If my oldest child wanted a T rated game, it sets off a flag so that I can check it in the store to see if it's agreeable to me. Once the game is home, I check it out to see if there's something I don't want my kid exposed to.

I don't want or need more forced regulation to restrict or dictate what level of (realistic, cartoon or fantasy)violence/sex I'm allowed to expose me or my children to. To me, this is such a simple parenting issue that I'm dumbfounded why other people have such a problem grasping it. If my child has friends that step over my boundaries for him, then he doesn't get to hang out there anymore. Expending effort as a parent is what's needed here, not more regulation.

I agree with deemon328.

However, that would require people to actually expend a little effort in raising their kids. It seems like some (many?) people want things handed to them with no effort put forth on their part even when it comes to raising kids (school, sitter, tv, and video games = raising a kid, right?).

I forgot to include that I also agree with Malkyne's closing statement and rupturduck's idea that if people want meaningful ratings, they really need to be uniform across industries.

There is something wrong with a culture where Hostel, Saw 2, and similar films are open to 17 year olds (younger with parent consent or a half-hearted ruse (most theaters just don't care)) while a movie with a sex scene that shows much is restricted to 18 year olds. Add in that those films are popular enough to generate sequels and it's pretty clear that we have some cultural issues separate from rating things.

You guys are saying it is broken. Is it really. Think about it. All the games really in question are mature. And any M game you should be reviewing yourself. Yes there are a few games that should have got the AO rating that didnt. Good example BMX XXX it was supposed the have dave mirra's name on it and he even pulled out on it. the game is by far worse then san andersos, you literly can grind on body parts. The only problem is that very few games that are rated T that should be Rated M which is very few. My problem is that many game makes see no reason to keep the T listing and go all out for M. Look at the newest Rainbow Six: Vegas. The sad part if they just cut a few things it would be T. Did you know that most strategy and war games are T, that goes for most war based shooters like Call of Duty. Blood doesnt need to be in a game to make it good, and certainly not swearing. Even the people at rockstar know they did a bad thing and regret it. They have said they will never make a GTA as bad as San Anderous.
Oh and one big thing there is a differnce for the movie industry and gameing one. Stores dont have to follow the guildlines for the games. They can sell a mature game to a 2 yearold. And dont start telling me i dont know what i am talking about. I am a huge huge gamer. I have played most games under the sun until recently because i find watching anime better than playing games. When someone asks me a wheter i have played a game i go list all you can think of i bet i have played or have seen it played. Yes this problem is bad but ironicly there isnt anything wrong about all M games getting grouped into one. The problem is that we need to tell the gaming industry stop adding those small tibits that make a game M and not T.

My biggest objection to this article is the claim that the gaming industry intentionally markets adult content to children. If Rockstar wanted to market Grand Theft Auto to children wouldn't they try to disguise the content a little better? The game is called GRAND THEFT AUTO, it has a picture of a gangster and a hooker on the box! Magazines like Game Informer and EGM do give games like GTA tons of coverage, meaning they disclose everything you ever wanted to know about the games they feature. Anyone that isn't aware of the content of GTA and other adult games is not paying attention. It's not the game companies that market this stuff to kids, it's our culture. When we glamorize violence it's no wonder that companies can make a huge profit selling ultra-violent games and that young kids are dying to own them like all the other cool kids on the block. The ratings system may be a little confusing and companies may fight to avoid an AO rating. So what? If kids are playing games that are meant for adults, it's because their parents allow it, for one reason or another. Getting informed about the content of most games is not rocket science. Usually it's a matter of reading the back of the box. In the case of a game like Grand Theft Auto, the title alone should give you a clue. Hmm, should I buy this for my 8 year old? I just can't tell, the rating is so confusing! Yes, some games are harder to call, they might actually require you to play them and maybe even decide what you believe as a parent! Calling the rating system "broken" is avoiding the real issues: we have a problem with violence and we fail to pay attention, get informed, and take responsibility for raising our kids.

I agree with others here in that there is a need for parents to be more active in the lives of their children, but games are not so easily reviewed by everyone. Not everyone plays console or computer games, in fact some of my friends haven't played since the days of Baulder's Gate and Star Craft, some others haven't played them at all. Those that don't play will not be at the skill level of their children and will not be able truely review the game, unless you have at least as much free time as your children and can watch them play the game the entire time. Remember there are alot of single parent families out there.

As for the publications on games, they do not cover all games, and unless you are an advid gamer there is little chance you will know very much, if anything at all, about these resources.

In addition, most games have the problem of length of game play. A movie will last 2-3 hours while a game can last anywhere from 6-60 hours depending on the game and one's ability level. This makes it even harder for parents to fully review a game. I understand that many games are very straight froward from the beginning about what they are like and it takes little game play to get an understanding of weather or not it is appropriate, but there are still a good number of games where as the plot progresses in the game the overall mood and graphic representations change, take Conker's Bad Fur Day for instance, an 'ahh' N64 game, that started out very cartoonish, but gradually became more and more deserving of its Mature rating as the game progresses. This can be misleading to a reviewing parent. In fact having the settings in the game change as one progresses through the game is a well known means of creating a sense of immersion for the player, making them feel drawn into the game and it's story line.

Gaming is much more complex then any other form of media since it must utlize many of the different forms of media that came before it. Therefore, for a novice to gaming, the task of being a fair judge, jury, and executioner is more then just a daunting task, it is nigh impossible, without the help of a reliable rating system that they can understand.

That reminds me last week, I was working at BestBuy (in Canada) and there was a 'lil boy (maybe 10 years old max.) and his mother in the PC version. He didn't know what game to take, GTA or Prince Of Persia.

So I come and ask if they want help. The boy said no, (He knew I would tell the truth on GTA to his mom) but the mother said that they really need help.

They don't know anything about computer and the boy was sure that if the game could fit on his Hard Drive, the game would work on his PC. But again the mom asked which game is the best. I told her that GTA was the worst game to take for his little boy. When I told her everything, she turned on his boy and asked: "Is it true, what he's saying" And all he said was "It's a cool game, I played it with my friend."

So she took the GTA game and was looking at me like a big liar.

The best part was that the game wasn'T compatible with the computer and they can't return it because of Copyright Protection Law. I like when customers take me for a fool when they don't know a thing about Computers and VideoGames.

rupturduck, by "industry," I was referring to the game development industry, not the movie industry -- and yes, it's my day job. I was disclosing that information since I felt that I should be honest about the obvious potential for my point of view to be biased. :)

The ESRB is broken (is is the MPAA with tis NC17 as unrated DVDs sold at wallyworld I wonder what if the fundie horde finds out abotu that...LOL)

Back to the ESRB the main reason its broken they do not see any problems with the AO rating when in fact its a porn moniker and doomed as it because of that we can not have true "R" games looking at Oblivion and Bioshock it seems if they had killable children they would have been branded AO.

Because games are gettign better at detail we need a new adult tear/level the kids tear/section got 10+ and a couple of learning levels, its high time M18 or M19 was added to the mature section clearfing that is this a true R game based around violence even NC17 based on violence would be good,also with the this new level in the ratings system one could place basic nudity into it it would no worse than a R movie however NC17 level nudity would be AO still.

If anyone has the time come over to gamepoliticsforums and help hash out how to make the ESRB better (note I aint the brightest bulb there but I am the most hyper :P)

I been goign over the tears and the descriptors at 30+ descriptors we can halve that 30+ is un needed 10-15 will be more than enough along with the age rating to make it clear what age range this game falls in.