game-ism.com

game-ism.com header image 2
← In Defense of the Prince Oh, UGO. →

In Search of an R.

January 6th, 2009 · 21 Comments

One of the things that I was thinking about but not writing about during my month under the bus was some further thoughts about Fallout 3 and the lack of nudity in it I wrote about earlier.  A friend of mine threw the pointedly “why are you always talking about slavery and nudity?” Pervert card at me, and in preparing my defense/rebuttal I realized something about our ratings system and the games we play.

There are no adult games.

And no, for crying out loud, I’m not talking about teh pr0ns.

I just want an adult game.  I feel that we don’t truly have them.  We have games with Adult Themes.  We have games with a tiny smattering of nudity.  We have games with gore.  Lifelike violence.  Language.  But what we don’t have, is a title that can encompass all of these things (if it wants to).  We don’t have an “R” rated game.  I know there’s been a lot of pieces written about this subject matter before, what with folks asking why we have a different ratings system from films, and even folks defending our current ESRB system.  Even Penny Arcade did an ad series for them.  Hell, I’ve defended the ESRB on numerous occasions, because as long as it’s in place and we enforce its standards, we keep Congress from breathing down our necks and regulating us.  They’re our friends.

But.

I think we deserve better.  I come back to Ebert’s original stance of “Videogames are not art” a lot.  I try and get in his head and understand why he’d say it.  I once took the stand that videogames are art, and I still stand by that, but sometimes, I can see where Ebert’s coming from.  I think.

My main problem is that our “M” rating is not an R.  I think we’ve lulled ourselves into the idea that it is analogous, that T = PG/PG-13-ish.  E = G.  M = R.  Most of those equations are pretty accurate.  The Mature = Restricted one, though, is a bit off.  And that bit can mean quite a lot.

I’ve gone on at length about how much I miss the nudity, sex, and promiscuity in Fallout3.  It just doesn’t feel like a desperate enough world without it.  Who are we kidding, really, that we live in a world that has human slavery and cannibalism, but only one female prostitute who merely lays down with you?  I know that the Lead Designer, Emil, said that there’s a line he won’t cross (killing kids, and I agree with him), but I don’t think that the lack of nudity was a free willed decision.  I have a feeling it was an enforced one…

The ESRB ratings systems, despite the recent attempts at transparency, are mysterious creatures.  You pretty much have to guess what rating you’re going to get based on the ratings of the titles that came before you while you’re making your game.  You then submit it, and they give your game a rating.  You can resubmit it if you feel that you’ve over (or under?) stepped a line, but it is extremely costly, because it means you’re still continuing development during Beta which probably means you’re spending over a million dollars a month on development at that point.  Changing the rating could literally cost your title anywhere between $200k to another million.  So people like to get it right.  Gah, I’m rambling, sorry, back on track.

Getting it right means attempting to guess how full your “ratings bucket” is.

Guessing the E ratings “spillover cap” into T territory is pretty easy:  Is there any kind of life-like violence?  You’re T.  Even a punch to the face is pretty much T territory if your main characters are human.

The Spillover from T to M is also pretty easy to gauge:  Did you show a hint of nudity?  Excessive language?  Sexual Themes?  Blood and gore?  Did you shoot a police officer?  Any one of these will immediately flag you into the M territory.  So, again, still pretty easy to gauge here.

But where is the M to AO threshold?  A lot of people think it’s just graphic sex, but it isn’t.  You don’t have to be straight up pronography to earn the AO rating.  Condemned has gotten it for excessive gore and violence, and I heard that the Punisher game got it for that reason as well.  Both titles had to re-tool their games in order to ship with an M rating, because (and I could be mistaken here) none of the console publishers will allow you to print a disk with an AO ESRB rating on their systems.  It’s a death knell for any game unless you’re a PC hentai game, and if that’s your bag, you’re probably not ESRB rated anyway.

There’s actually “weight” to each of the things that pile up in your ratings bucket, it seems.  You can force an AO spillover for the tiniest thing.  Hot Coffee is an easy example, but I think that Fallout3 is skating on the brim of their bucket because they included cannibalism and human slavery.  The more depraved the act, it would seem, the larger the displacement in the bucket.  And as I said, you can simply have too much of one thing in there, even if that one thing is simply language.  You’d likely get an AO rating if you had a game that did nothing but shout four letter expletives like a tourette’s sufferer for six hours.

What’s the big deal?  Why should any of this matter?

Because films are getting away with much more than we are in the videogame industry.  I’ve heard people say that the interactive experience of video-games means that we can’t depict what film can, because the interactiveness is somehow…more compelling?  And this is a bad thing?  TV depicts more than Radio did.  Film shows much more than TV does.  Why can’t we at least have the same level of Film but with interaction?  Don’t we deserve as much as the next frontier in entertainment?  Why are we allowing our creative growth and our enjoyment of an entertainment medium to be stunted because we’re somehow worried about a fucking rating?  Why is too much violence adult only?  If someone is 17 (the only restriction for an M title), what does that one extra year do for them that they could suddenly experience the AO content in a mature fashion?

I think we’re being cheated of some experiences.  We’re being denied art.  Our own self-policing system is protecting who here, exactly, when we reach the M level?  To illustrate what I mean, here is just a short list of R rated films which could most certainly never be made into a true video-game interactive experience (say like Heavy Rain or Indigo Prophesy):

  • Angel Heart
  • Se7en
  • 300
  • 8mm
  • The Accused

But!  You say 300 has been licensed into a videogame!  Yes, it has been licensed, but it doesn’t contain all of the content of the film, I’d wager.  I haven’t played it, but I can see by its rating description (Blood and Gore, Language, Suggestive Themes, Violence) that it’s no doubt missing the following content from the film:

  • The Oracle’s erotic dance (nudity, sexual situations).
  • Queen Gorgo’s rape by Councilman Theron (uh, rape? Even by “consentual” definitions it is a depiction of sex, and is right out as far as M is concerned).
  • The orgy in Xerxes’ caravan (perverse sexual situations).
  • The homoeroticism of Xerxes’ offer to Leonidas (I suppose this one could be chalked up to “suggestive themes”).

While these things are superficial to gameplay, if we are going to attempt to defend our products as art we must also defend the narrative, which each of these items impacts greatly.  Pulling any one of these scenes changes the meaning of what unfolds within and around them.  Without the Oracle the priests are merely greedy and aren’t also utterly despicable cretins.  Without Gorgo’s rape, she sacrifices nothing to help her husband’s cause.  Without Xerxes’ perverse orgy, he is merely a potentially gay man with a piercing fetish and a power trip, and not the completely delusional wanker as depicted.  Without these scenes, the story is weaker, and the characters are weaker.

So what, perhaps?  It’s only an action movie, and a middlingly good one at that?  I chose the title 300 intentionally to prove my point, because it’s really nothing much more than an action movie (I’ll leave the relevance of the historical sacrifice and the impact it has on society today to the pundits to debate).  It’s certainly not Citizen Kane, nor is it even Casablanca.

But if we can’t even have a game with a narrative as simple and as overt as 300, what exactly are we playing now?

I think a great deal of the problem with the ratings is that the M rating is not in fact analogous to the R rating.  Ironically, while it supposedly “may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older,” it is really defined age-wise with NC-17, and yet M rated titles rarely live up to their R rated counterparts, which are sub NC-17 in the age restriction category.

The other problem with the ratings is that console manufacturers are afraid of the AO rating.  The fact that it has “adults” in it automatically creates an association with pornography, which isn’t why the rating was created (according to the website’s description of it, anyway).  While I would love to pretend that the console manufacturers would listen to an industry begging and petitioning them to allow the AO rating to be published, I don’t really hold any belief that they will.  Mainly because I think too many people still view video-games as children’s playthings, and that allowing “adult only” content to ship on their platform is akin to family-branded suicide.

So there’s really only two solutions that I can think of at hand.  One of them involves a change of the AO rating.  Ratings changes and adaptations aren’t unheard of.  The MPAA ratings have been evolving for decades now.  The ESRB could either create an inbetween rating, or simply re-name the AO rating.  Hell, rename all the ratings to reflect the Motion Picture Association’s rating system.  If it means that society at large adopts the console boxes as an acceptable all-around entertainment provider similar to their DVD player (which they put kids DVDs on during the day and R rated DVDs on at night), I’m all for it.

But unfortunately, I have a feeling that this is going to be a generation gap solution.  I suspect it will take one more generation growing up with games to solve this.  Gen X’ers will be in their 50s, and the Gen Ys will be in their 30s before this truly gets resolved, as it’s going to most likely take an eviction of an old mindset (that video-games are by and large for children) to open games up to a more unrestricted creative process that allows for content we’ve seen in movies for decades.

I’m curious what other people’s thoughts are on this.  Can we have an adult game?  Are we ready for some responsibly displayed sexual content in our games?  Do you think we’re already there?

Or do we still have some growing as an industry ahead of us?

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Email]

Tags: general

21 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Kaplar // Jan 6, 2009 at 1:48 am

    Cocks.

  • 2 Chris // Jan 6, 2009 at 1:52 am

    Much as it pains be to admit it; no, we’re not even close to there yet. With console manufacturers refusing to release any game with an “AO” rating, we’re still stuck with an industry that has been branded far too long as one for children only.

    I would agree that changing the ESRB’s rating system to that of the MPAA would help a lot. I would love to see a truly adult-themed game. And not in the “Custer’s Revenge” sense, either!

    Bioshock was a step in the right direction, with the morality of harvesting - but I want more. Moral dilemna. True consequence for descisions (a good example would be Oblivion - wherein, with the ‘Knights of the Nine’ expansion, all Infamy could be erased with a few alter visits).

    I’m well past puberty. I vote, I pay my taxes, and I prefer my entertainment to have an engaging storyline. Is that really too much to ask?

  • 3 Connor // Jan 6, 2009 at 1:54 am

    I agree wholeheartedly. I’ve always been frustrated with the fact that the AO rating exists for no purpose at all. If an AO game can’t be published on any platform, what’s the point? I think that’s more the fault of the publishers than the ESRB, but like you pointed out, the ESRB could certainly do something to help the problem.

  • 4 Malta Soron // Jan 6, 2009 at 4:02 am

    Personally I would have liked to be able to kill children in Fallout 3. One of the premises of the Fallout series is that you can do anything, but that everything has consequences, both through the Karma system and directly. In Fallout 1 and 2, if you kill a child, you get the Childkiller reputation, which means that you can’t talk to certain NPCs, you can’t do certain quests and bounty hunters will try to kill you. The games certainly don’t advocate childkilling. But if you want to roleplay a sick and twisted murderer, they allow you to do so.
    I agree that the generation gap is a major factor in the ratings. But I also think that people are overestimating the influence games (and other media) have on (mentally healthy) people. Doing something in-game won’t cause you to do the same thing in real life. That you detonated the bomb in Megaton doesn’t mean you’ll try to blow up a real city. I think games shouldn’t be limited by the false assumption that people will copy them IRL. On the contrary: if games claim to be realistically and life-like (like Fallout 3 does), they should allow you to do whatever you want, from collecting flowers to genocide.

  • 5 Emmanuel // Jan 6, 2009 at 6:19 am

    Good thoughts.
    Besides the rating problem and lack of interest in true adult games by most publishers and console manufacters, the other problem is that we have now 2 game markets: Wii and 360/PS3/PC

    The legions of casual games freezes all videogames in the”just for kids and fun” corners of our stores and minds. And keep most(not violence) adult themes(which are part of our real lifes) out of games.
    (Because of this games cant really be art or something like this, yet)
    It will be a long way to get out there.

  • 6 jmccance // Jan 6, 2009 at 8:20 am

    Good points, and they remind me of something that happened to me the other day. If you need a clear illustration of the “generation gap” problem, here’s one:

    I’m twenty-four, working in a shop with a twenty-three-year-old, “Kevin”*, and a manager somewhere in his forties, “Frank”*. Somehow we got on the topic of video games, which were bothering Frank. He didn’t have anything against them, he said, but he was really concerned about kids playing the violent ones where you can “shoot hookers” and “run people over”. Kevin and I brought up the ESRB, saying that kids shouldn’t be playing those sorts of games and there are mechanisms in place to try to keep them out of their hands.

    “Sure, sure,” said Frank knowingly. “But you know that they’re getting them anyway. I mean, you know it’s not *adults* that are playing these games.”

    Kevin and I look at each other. “Er, yeah. We are.” Frank seemed completely convinced that despite being rated for adults, it were only being marketed and sold to children.** We had to explain to him that for our generation, games are often a focus for social gatherings. Whereas he and his friends might gather to watch a game or play some baseball (”Or hunt some wildebeest,” he added), Kevin and I might get together for a few rounds of Smash Bros or Halo.

    So I bet you’re right. Another couple decades will probably do a lot for video games respect as an adult medium, then, as more and more gamers (and game designers) fill up the whole gamut of demographics.

    * Fake names provided for ease of reference.
    ** Of course, lots of kids *are* playing these games, but that’s a different problem.

  • 7 Dastardly Josh // Jan 6, 2009 at 10:46 am

    I want my R rated game as well. I simply don’t think that the industry is mature enough to handle putting out a “Mature” adult game. The rating system definitely needs revision to parallel the tried and true MPAA standard even if they have to pay to use the say ratings system. That would make the games so much more transparent to ignorant parents.
    Side note, wasn’t there some sort of an uproar about R Rated movies and kids sneaking in to see them a ways back?

  • 8 TheGameCritique // Jan 6, 2009 at 11:58 am

    The problem isn’t with console manufactures not wanting AO games being printed on their discs. For Sony all they want is to keep pornographic games off their consoles. The rerated San Andreus was allowed to be printed on both X-box and PS2. The real issue is where they can be sold. Walmart, Gamestop, Target and others have flat out stated they do not sell these rated game in their stores. Walmart alone sells a huge percentage of games in US. I think its somewhere like 40%. If a game can’t get sold in these stores, it is dead.

  • 9 Happy New Year! (and, unsurprisingly, more Fallout 3) » Fun or Frustration // Jan 6, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    [...] and before I forget, be sure and check out this excellent article on game-ism, talking about the discrepancies in movie and game rating systems, and the reason that [...]

  • 10 Bob // Jan 6, 2009 at 8:11 pm

    You say you wish that the ESRB system was similar to the MPAA system. Does that mean you have confidence in the MPAA system?

    Personally, I have very little respect for either system.

  • 11 spitfire // Jan 6, 2009 at 9:15 pm

    I have more confidence in the MPAA system than I do the ESRB. It has a greater “buy-in” from consumer parents who understand the ratings system, and as demonstrated in the wiki link above, knows when it’s time to re-tool itself to meet the demands of the times.

    Neither of these things are present in the current ESRB ratings.

  • 12 Amauriel // Jan 6, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    I think that you are on the money with this, in a couple of ways.

    First, games are not perceived as art by the general public, definitely not in the way that films would be. It makes me sad, as I can appreciate some games much more than I can some films (that would be considered art).

    Second, the ratings system we have in place is not only not handled well and is not able to fit our games into the categories well, it is also misunderstood by a large portion of the general public. People don’t “get” what an “M” or “T” is. They are looking for a “PG” or “R”.

    Thirdly, the general public (over 30) still see games as what they were 20 years ago. People don’t own a Wii, they own a “Nintendo”. Every game system is called a PlayStation, in the same way that all adhesive medical strips are called Band-Aids. I work in a K-12 school and I am repeatedly amazed by the comments that I get when I say that I spent my evenings playing games by the teachers and staff. (Usually something either like “But those are for kids…you’re a grown woman!” or “Are you into shooting hookers?” or “No wonder you don’t have kids yet…you are too busy being one yourself!” I’m serious here.) Games are not something that people see as a hobby…it’s something they see as a toy.

  • 13 Skye // Jan 9, 2009 at 9:05 am

    A lot of good points and I know I have commented on this topic before from a political angle. I was sitting in the waiting room while my tires were being rotated the other day, playing my DS and there was a 24 hour news station on. (I think it was MSNBC) I was seriously disturbed by what they were reporting on and how they were reporting it. It was trivial shit that they were dramatizing and blowing out of proportion.

    That brings up my main point. With the general stereotype that video games = kids that exists right now an adult game will get no traction just a lot of bad press and parasitic politicians holding it up as a prime example of the decline of western civilization and how “we must protect the children” from things of that nature.

    The media would pounce on a true “restricted” game and stir up so much unnecessary controversy that it would never reach the market. No video game developer or publisher would want that albatross hanging around their neck. The main stream video game audience is still pretty “young.” Around thirty years of age average. As a generation we are just finally getting into places of power and influence. I would argue that in 5-10 years we will start seeing more “restricted” games because the market will have aged and will demand it, and the tone of the press and the politicians will be different because they won’t be outsiders to gaming.

    Another point is that our own media needs to mature also. It has started already with games being reviewed in “respectable” news sources, but our own core media still comes off as juvenile. That doesn’t help the image of a maturing industry or gaming demographic.

    As for the ESRB rating system, what they really need is a better awareness campaign. I also agree that they need to be refined. I remember when Gremlins and Temple of Doom being the cause of the PG-13 rating. (Dated myself there) There was no question about what it meant. The public had a great awareness of the system. That awareness doesn’t really exist with general public right now.

    As an industry, video game developers and publishers have shackled themselves to this scale and have developed the perception that AO games are insta-death. There is no profit to be gained right now, just a lot of bad publicity. It would be like standing on a rifle range with a big target on your chest. It isn’t a defensible position for those companies so why should they do it. I hate to link it to profit margin, but until a case can be made for a “restricted” game where the profit (both financially and publicity-wise) outweights the cost the industry as a whole won’t move in that direction.

    If I could make a request, I would like to see your more detailed thoughts on Games = Art. I wrestle with that topic quite a bit.

  • 14 Jonathan Johnson // Jan 9, 2009 at 10:13 pm

    You know, this article made me appreciate Hideo Kojima a lot more. Yes his plots are extremely convoluted, but I feel it is as a necessity to draw forward human emotion. The metal gear solid saga had a lot to do about war, but most great war movies are R-rated. To do what he did with as little breathing room as he had, I think it was a superb job. I think it is unfortunate just how many good games/stories the current ratings system affects.

  • 15 Ben // Jan 13, 2009 at 3:03 am

    I’m aware that the subject is an expansive one but as far as I am concerned the “Can games be art?” question was answered “Yes” for me by Myst. There have been lots of other candidates but that one sticks out for me. No matter how many crappy action movies get churned out, no one would seriously contend that films can’t be art, so I feel that the games question is moot. Another good example is the many pages on this site devoted to interpretations of Portal!

  • 16 Anon // Feb 6, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    FYI, I’m fairly sure the restriction on the distribution of AO games comes mostly from the sellers. Major retailers like Best Buy or Gamestop won’t carry AO games.

  • 17 Steve // Jun 10, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    Its almost a self-perpetuating system. Since developers are so worried about accidentally spilling over into AO territory, they can’t fully explore everything they may want to. And one ratings bracket can’t fully describe anything. The Matrix was hardly an “R” film, compared with lots of PG13s that I’ve seen (no blood, hardly any language, no nudity…). Whereas another R film I just watched, A Clockwork Orange, contains something like 3 rape scenes and two sex scenes, several beatings and fights, all from the point of view of a depraved killer who enjoys the acts.

    Lots of action films may be rated “R” but are not “mature,” while true films that explore adult content in a mature fashion are also rated R. Action movie violence is gratuitous, and a lot of the time, I think its just made to sell tickets. Whereas mature films explore the areas without being gratuitous; A Clockwork Orange has the scenes for a reason.

    Filmmakers are allowed to explore these themes because its very difficult to spill out of the “R” bucket; they don’t risk not being sold, published, or shown. They don’t (anymore) risk bad press. Games, on the otherhand, are limited. They cannot explore the themes in a complete and mature fashion, and games that try to end up sacrificing to stay publishable in the “M” category. And because they are not allowed the depth of exploration, what they do contain seems immature, childish, or even gratuitous - because it isn’t allowed to exist in completion.

  • 18 Steve // Jun 10, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    I was just using those two movies as examples, because they were what came to mind. If you dont like them or what I say about them, insert generic gratuitous action movie in for the matrix and some film that you find to contain some sort of meaning, in addition to grotesque or disturbing imagery.

    And about video games as art… there are two kinds, as I alluded to above. Just as there are movies for fun (B action movies, for example), there are games for fun. They may have some sort of message or theme or moral, but they were really just there to entertain. And there are films that are directly intended to send a strong message, that are immediately recognizable as being created for the purpose of being art, instead of entertaining and selling tickets. It is entirely possible for the latter to exist in games, though it doesn’t, very much, at the moment.

    Films deliver a story and a set of images and sounds to enhance that story. Games are just as capable. Perhaps the gameplay is linear, and the player merely causes the story to progress by completing missions (Call of Duty 1 was great in this respect. Good story, you just played key missions). Instead of augmenting with predetermined sound and image, the viewer actually pulls the trigger.

    Less linear games can develop a system that gets the message across, rather than the filmlike narrative or storyline. Like Fallout. Though you can do [most] things that you would like, the game creates consequences, and it is these consequences that further the “message” of the game, if you want to call it that. Maybe you can become an evil murderer and thief, building your riches from the woes of others and, in the end, being the most powerful force in the greater DC area. It is within the framework that the designers have allowed, so perhaps they meant to show how easily evil can dominate in a post-apocalyptic world. Or you can be the good guy, help everyone out, and obtain power that way - the influence of one kind soul in a barren, lawless wasteland is shown. The system that was designed conveys the “message” (I hesitate to use that word, perhaps “themes” is better?), rather than a narrative.

    [ about the word "message" - I dislike using it because they may not have intended some concrete moral to be conveyed, so it merely means whatever the designers wanted you to experience ]

    [ it also may be tough to apply artistic critique to current games without seeming silly; thats because I don't think theyve been allowed to mature as an art form yet. see above post ]

  • 19 Steve // Jun 10, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    games also have to have some sort of entertaining element to sell - but lots of movies sell that are bleak and depressing, because they are engaging. If a developer can capture and engage users without seeming childish, immature, or gratuitous, and use the engagement to enhance the delivery of his vision, then we can truly call games art.

  • 20 TheZombieMan // Jun 16, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    sadly no were no where close to adult games were probally gonna have developers holding back excessive violent and/or sexual content for a while probally until like you said a generation of hardcore gamers in the seats of the esrb now aoccupied by stuffy old white people

  • 21 Maddy // Jun 18, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    Maa, Spitfire, you’ve goaded me to go in depth with this article (in addition to “Where’s the original Sin?”). Please bear with me:

    Yes, it is as you say: The “old mindset” that you spoke of is preventing this fledgling (but legitimate) industry from maturing into an entertainment for all ages. And, yes, the word “Adult” still inspires the impression of excessive pornography and violence.

    But I think the problem that the ESRB has mainly lies with their naming system, as you implied. For movies, they have a plethora of ratings: G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, etc. The gaming industry, to my knowledge, only has three: E, T, and M (AO, as you said, is synonymous to death for the industry). Not only is that severely limiting, but it has also struck me as nonsensical for a while now. Again, this is due to the mindset that videogames are kids’ entertainment only—and this is, indeed, a serious problem. But I do not think that the ESRB is rendered powerless by it.

    Instead of inactivity, they should begin to introduce the fact that videogames can be played by anyone by giving themselves more ratings. They may not reverse the “old mindset,” but they can definitely warm it up to such an idea.

    The other issue I have is also something you mentioned. The cowardice the gaming industry has to defend both the art and the narrative is inexcusable. It is a senseless fear these game designers have (even if it is mostly financially-based). Videogames are a legitimate form of art that is made even better by the fact that is an interactive industry. Designers have a valid argument, and they should be willing to defend it with zeal. And they would find that they would be supported—the fan base that the industry has is large and ever-growing.

    In summary:
    1. You are right that the ESRB are allies, but they have to be willing to foster the growth of the industries they protect.
    2. The fight will have to be take up by both the writers/designers and their fans.

Leave a Comment