The act of rating a video game is always a touchy issue, but now that the ESRB has an effective system in place and heavy support from the retailers, it's easier than ever to keep children away from Mature-rated games. That's a nice win, but as we've seen in the Manhunt debacle, the ESRB can also keep games off the shelves completely by giving them an AO rating.
But it's not just the ESRB. When Peter Moore told us Microsoft's feelings on AO-rated games, it's hard not to feel cheated: when a company draws the line about what they think you can and can't see, it's limiting for art. Factor 5 president Julian Eggebrecht took the ESRB to task over the situation at the GCDC in Leipzig.
"I would be happy if in games we could talk about homosexuality, but we're not even at the point where we can admit that humans have heterosexual relationships, and that is a real problem," he said, "and it tends to show that games are not being seen, even by our own ratings boards, as an art form."
This is a problem with any ratings system, as seen in films such as This Film is Not Yet Rated, which shows just how arbitrary film ratings can be. Game developers confront the same issue, since an AO rating is the kiss of death on consoles and on retail shelves. That means exploration of topics like sex or realistic violence lie out of reach of developers. This sort of artificial limitation as to what content and what subjects can be explored induces a very real creative black hole, where certain subjects are taboo. If games are growing to grow up, we need to get past this barrier.
But attacking the ESRB alone isn't the answer. The console manufacturers also have to step up and be held responsible. If they blacklist any game with a rating above Mature, a rating that already excludes anyone under the age of 17 from buying the game, then they're just as guilty. When you consider that sexual content shown in PG-13 movies or on prime-time television may net a game an AO rating, something is wrong. It's almost like an admission that the M rating isn't enough; if the system works and children are being kept away from the 17+ rated games, why does a minimal amount of sex catapult the game to a rating that is an effective ban? What was in Manhunt 2 that made raters think that people need one more year of development before they could see it? Does anyone want to bet you've seen worse on CSI?
When the ESA touts how many adults are buying games and how broad the audience is, and then the ESRB and the console makers turn around and say some content isn't safe for ANYONE who games, it's an admission that they still see games as something for children, an art form that should be shielded from certain aspects of life. None of this will change unless the people who have control over the content allow us to grow up. Until then, gaming will remain an immature art form.