Um, the IDSA, or Interactive Digital Software Association I think, doesn't do the box ratings. That's the ESRB, or Entertainment Software Rating Board does that (so does RSAC, but no one cares about them anymore).

As if anyone cares :-)

ESRB is part of IDSA, isn't it? I should have made that clear, though.

I do believe so. They both make lives miserable for devs and publishers ;)

The ESRB website claims they are an "independent" entity. I have no idea what their relationship, if any, is to the IDSA. I just enjoy nit-picking and being didactic.

---

Quote:

I do believe so. They both make lives miserable for devs and publishers

---

The ESRB does a pretty solid job I think. I have no qualms with rating games, as long as the industry does it and not the government. In fact, game ratings are a good idea, at least in theory and probably in fact as well. Let developers develop M games without fear of having them gutted to avoid censorship, and let developers shoot for E games and T games for broader audiences, using the ratings to guide the content they produce.


Works for me....

Well, I wouldn't assume it's that way for every company (or even the majority), but the whole Giants issue just popped into my head. They avoided a Mature rating (which they felt would hurt their sales) by clothing the nude aquamarine Delphi. They didn't even have nipples, for christ's sake ;)

I can't say I have anything against games - I tend to agree with you, in that it's a good guideline. If I was a parent, I'd definitely be in favor of a good ratings system.

Well, the nipples are Exhibit A with regards to the fine distinctions I mentioned above. Can the original Giants design be said to have a topless female character? Yes. Therefore, the Mature rating was suggested, since the whole point of the M rating is to denote that some material may be found offensive. Being offended at Interplay's decision to clothe the character, as some people here were, smacks of emotion-based knee-jerk anti-prudishness to me. Mermaid boobies hold no allure for me, with nips or without, and it's hard for me to care either way.

Let's compare this with Conker's Bad Fur Day, which is clearly an adult game by any standard, both on its box and in its media campaign. Yet stories abound about parents surprised and outraged by its content. Or Soldier of Fortune, whose express purpose in existence was to explore the finer points of lavish gibbage. It's an issue of responsibility for us as an industry to clearly mark our products. Bob Mayer is right in that it's better to have a voluntary process for that-- at least its imperfections are our own.

KP
Standard Disclaimer Applies

---

Quote:

They avoided a Mature rating (which they felt would hurt their sales) by clothing the nude aquamarine Delphi. They didn't even have nipples, for christ's sake ;)

---

Well, Giants was also Mature in many other ways--it's violent and gory (green blood or red), has some kidna false language and semi-lewd humor, etc. Interplay's decision to turn the blood green and put a top on Delphi was definitely a knee-jerk reaction to get it a "T" rating, and I can understand why they'd want to do so.

Given that it doesn't alter the gameplay in any way, no big deal. But I find it funny that it was all in vein--they got an M rating anyway and might as well have left the game as the designers originally intended.

On another note--from the ESRB FAQ (DUH!! C'mon guys!):

What is the ESRB?

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is an independent rating system that was established in September 1994, by the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA), the trade association for the interactive entertainment software industry.

Ah, I read the FAQ, just not far enough :-). so sue me. You won't get any money.

>Ah, I read the FAQ, just not far enough :-). so sue me.

That's funny. It's the very first thing in the FAQ.

Come on, cut him some slack - he's an editor. (I'm really not sure what that means, but I'm sure it's funny to someone)

I didn't actually finish the first sentence. Kinda like when I edit one of Jason's articles...;-)

That's right. Because mine are so good, they don't need no stinkin' editing! ;-)

Um, well, that's not exactly the connotation I was hoping to impart. There's a reason you're the "hardware" editor.... :-) hehe