Wow, you’re actually reading this….  Wait, don’t leave!  I know this subject has been discussed to death lately, and you’d probably rather be watching paint dry than listening to another self-important editor go off on the soap box.

But I really feel I’ve got something good here: I’ve got the way to resolve the ratings controversy without alienating any one of the following groups:

-          gamers

-          developers, publishers, retailers

-          parents

-          Democrats

-          Republicans

-          people that think censorship is lovely

-          people that think censorship is Satan

Hell, maybe even Jack Thompson won’t send me any hate mail if he reads this.  Okay, unlikely.  But who cares about that wacko, anyway?

Common myths about America, freedom of speech, and the ESRB

OK, so, technically, the U.S. does have a game ratings system, run by the ESRB. Each game is rated either E for Everyone, T for Teen, M for Mature (17+), or AO for Adults Only (18+).  Each rating even comes with a fairly objective description of all the potentially objectionable things about the game: Blood & Gore, Violence, Mature Sexual Content, and so forth.  This is not a myth.

It is also not a myth that the ESRB ratings do, in fact, carry some importance. Some retailers, especially lately, have begun to ask for ID when people try to buy M-rated games.  Many parents use a game’s rating to determine if it’s appropriate for their children.  Hell, some people even look at the ESRB descriptors to see if a game is likely to satisfy their thirst for the finer things in life, such as bloody exploding heads and F-bombs a-flying, and buy the game if so.

Now, what about the myths?

Myth #1: The ESRB ratings are a government-mandated law

They are not.  The ESRB is an organization created by the gaming industry, not the government.  There is zero federal legislation prohibiting the sale of any game to anyone of any age.  Some states (notably, California) have introduced laws to prohibit the sale of “violent” or “sexual” games to minors; this has nothing to do with the ESRB, and has been struck down numerous times due to its supposed unconstitutionality (First Amendment and all that).  In fact, this occurred in California just last week.

Myth #2: The AO rating stands for 18+, and that’s only a 1-year difference from M

This confuses people.  Technically, the description of AO is “Adults Only 18+,” which seems to imply that AO-rated games are ones the ESRB recommends to those eighteen or older:  I.e., if you’re 18 or older, you’ll be able to buy the game.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The true meaning of AO is: “Banned from mainstream distribution.”  This is an unwritten rule, but it is a hard and fast one, nonetheless.  You will never find an AO-rated game in EBgames or GameStop, you won’t even dream of finding one at Wal-Mart or Target, and you’ll be hard-pressed to find it even online, unless you go to the publisher directly.  Yes, that doesn’t technically prevent the game developer from making such a game, but it sure as hell makes it nearly impossible for them to justify doing so.  Why spend dollars on making a game only to not be able to sell it to 99% of its potential consumers?  It’s commercial suicide.

Therefore, anyone saying things like “oh, big deal, so San Andreas is AO – that’s only a year different from M” is totally missing the point.  It is a crippling blow, in fact, one that made the GTA publisher’s stock take a 7% dive in a half day. Believe me, it is a very big deal for investors and the company itself.

Think about it.  What’s the difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old?  The latter is legally an adult, that’s what.  Other than that, there’s virtually no difference in maturity.  So why do publishers fear AO like I fear the second coming of Tipper Gore?  Because M means “mature people only,” while AO means “no one.”  It is as close as the ESRB can come to effectively banning a game.

Myth #3: “I am a mature 12-year-old. I can handle Grand Theft Auto.  Therefore, teens should be able to buy GTA.”

This is a logical fallacy.  Yes, Johnny can be a very mature kid that can handle a racy game or film without a problem.  Meanwhile, Robert might be a totally insane 45-year-old that might go on a killing spree after playing the same game because he was so inspired by it--or vice versa.  There is no accounting for genetics, stupidity, bad parenting, luck, sociology, or karma.  The best we can do is to try to find some pattern in this madness, and go from there.

The point is, one example does not imply a pattern.  It is a fact that children are usually more impressionable than adults; it is a fact you can’t just show anything to anyone and have no negative repercussions; it is a fact that society has certain standards of propriety that are not debatable. Just because you or someone you know doesn’t fit the pattern – which is not only possible but admirable – doesn’t mean there is no pattern.

Myth #4: American Free Speech is free

The First Amendment, which is one of the pillars of our society and way of life, is not absolute, nor is it all-powerful. It entitles us to freedom of speech and expression, and it protects those that want to say things that are controversial, or depressing, or even amoral. And yet, there are hundreds of standards and laws that go directly against “you can say anything you want,” and we hardly even question them. For example, it is perfectly legal to give the finger to someone in a bar. On the other hand, it is illegal to give the finger to a police officer. It is legal to say “fuck” on the street or in an Internet article, but it is illegal to say it a broadcast TV program because air waves are controlled by the FCC.  There are many more examples; I could do this all day.

Really, Freedom of Speech is much like Freedom itself: neither is really free. You can do whatever you want… but you don’t get to kill or steal.  You can say whatever you want… but you don’t get to spread racist propaganda over the air (even though one would think no one actually owns the air).

Therefore, it’s a facile and incorrect argument to respond to any possible curbing of expression with “That breaks the First Amendment.”  Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn’t.  It’s a complex legal issue, not an absolute right.  This is not a criticism of the Constitution or of the Unites States of America.  I am simply saying what is, and probably near enough should be.

Myth #5: The ESRB is (or should be) allowed to rate based on taste

Roger Ebert, the famous film critic, has a well-known tendency to be vocally turned off by graphic violence in horror films, which many others enjoy; for example, the film Cabin Fever made him particularly repulsed despite getting a decent reception otherwise.  On the other hand, he seems to love sexually explicit (in an artful way) films like the NC-17-rated The Dreamers. These are opinions he’s entitled to, and gets paid a lot of cash to provide, but notice that when he states his dislike for a film he thinks is morally corrupt due to excessive violence – see Hitcher, which he gave zero stars – he doesn’t say “this film should be banned.”  He says “I do not recommend this film.”

That is because Ebert’s job is “critic,” not “censor.” His opinion is valuable to many, but I’m sure you don’t want him telling you what you can or cannot watch.  In the same way, it is perfectly reasonable for a mature gamer to lament the advent of such morally corrupt games as GTA: Vice City or N.A.R.C. However, it is not reasonable to convert this repulsion into the drive to make the ESRB outright ban (rate AO) games a particular person finds morally objectionable. This does not mean I approve of sick, disturbing games that reward you for doing amoral things. It only means I approve of the developer’s right to publish them and have them rated fairly and objectively based on physical content, not personal taste.  I am against N.A.R.C. the game, but I am against banning it, too.

If you want to punish a game for its content, vote with your wallet.  If you want to affect others to agree with your taste, write a review.  And if you don’t want your child playing this game, either pay attention to the little guy, or institute a law making the game available only to adults – which brings us to the main point of the article.

The solution

It’s obvious that, in America, it’s not sufficient to just say “parents should control what their children buy.”  If it were, we wouldn’t be in this mess, and I wouldn’t be writing this long-ass article.  Therefore, we must have some sort of law banning (at the expense of a fine against the retailer) the sale of violent/mature/etc. games to minors (17 or younger). Now, you’re thinking, “Wait a minute! That sounds suspiciously like the law just signed in Calfornia!”

Yes, but no. The law Mr. Schwarzenegger signed does not sufficiently define “violent.” Under its stipulations, a bloodless World War II shooter is “violent” and therefore cannot be sold to minors. This is not only unfair, but also vague, making the ESRB irrelevant and confusing everyone to no end.  Notice, also, that I’m not blaming the California lawmakers for being evil censors.  It’s just that they, as older people, simply don’t know games.  They don’t play them, don’t watch people play them for more than five minutes at a time, and they generally are just clueless as to what is actually going on here.

The ESRB, for all its flaws, does know games. Because of that, it does generally (San Andreas notwithstanding) rate games fairly objectively.  Yes, sometimes it rates a bloody but wholly inoffensive game like Serious Sam II Mature due to Blood & Gore – I mean, who really cares if some three-horned pig-zombie explodes in a mist of pink blood? – but it is still pretty good in the precision of its ratings, all things considered.

So, my proposal is simple.  Keep all the ratings E through T as they are.  Eliminate AO, as it’s simply a ban which curbs free expression and makes serious developers scared to put what they want into their games – the recent pointless editing of Fahrenheit into Indigo Prophecy, for example.  Make all AO-rated games simply rated M.  And here’s the kicker:  Make M stand for 18+, instead of 17+. This might seem extreme, but read on.

The final piece of the puzzle is the Dreaded Game Sale Law™.  I’m forced to say there has to be one that bans the sale of M-rated games to those under 18.  I know the urge to rail against this is strong for some, but think about it.

The parents are happy – they know their kids can’t buy violent/sexual/drug-abusive games without their knowledge.  The adults (including young adults) are happy – as soon as they turn eighteen, they are free to buy or not buy whatever they want, even if it (GASP!) shows pixelated full-frontal nudity.  The game developers are ecstatic; they no longer have to be afraid to cross “that line” between M and AO.  The politicians are happy – they get more money from fines, and they have another bullet point that’s “good for family values” to use in their reelection campaigns.  Permissive parents that trust their kids are happy, too; the most they have to do is go to the store to buy the game for their kids (perhaps with the kids’ own summer job money).  Game publishers might balk at the lost sales of Mature game to preteens, but (a) boo-hoo, and (b) they can finally stop being afraid of government censorship, and there’s a whole new market for AO-rated games that opens up.

Finally, there is no freakin’ way to blame a video game maker on some grisly murder:  If a kid did it, then it’s the store’s fault for selling it to him, not the game maker’s; if an adult did it, then he’s an adult and doesn’t get to blame his entertainment for his actions.  (Remember the Manson Family and the Beatles’ White Album?)

Most importantly, the First Amendment is alive and well, and we don’t have to put up with this Indigo Prophecy censorship junk!

About the only people who might have a huge problem with this fit into two groups.  (1) There are those who are under 17 and can now no longer buy games like Half-Life and GTA.  Well, tough, you shouldn’t have been buying them in the first place; if your parents trust you, they’ll buy it for you.  Besides, this is becoming the status quo already.  (2) And then, there are the 17-year-olds who, before my new law, were able to buy an M-rated game, but now are forced to wait until they’re 18.  Okay, guys, I feel your pain.  You don’t deserve it; it’s true.  But, seriously, can’t you wait one more year until you’re officially an adult?  And, if you give your parents the money, do you seriously think they won’t just order the damn thing online or something?  Come on.  You’re almost an adult.  You can handle it.

Sadly, I don’t think this will happen anytime soon.  However, some signs are encouraging; for instance, Hillary Clinton’s planned federal bill intends to work together with the ESRB, which is a very important stipulation of my proposal.  Nevertheless, I still doubt the government can work together with the game lobby and the ESRB, and I just don’t think current politicians understand games sufficiently to make the right call.  But, their time is coming to an end.  We are the next generation; we do understand games; and we own the future.  Not Jack Thompson.