The ESRB's Advertising Review Council (ARC) regularly monitors game ads and trailers to make sure that they adhere to industry-adopted Principles and Guidelines for Responsible Advertising Practices ( http://www.esrb.org/ratings/principles_guidlines.jsp), which were established in 2000. Since 2005, ARC guidelines have required that trailers for M-rated games on publisher websites be displayed behind an age gate to help restrict viewing to those visitors who are 17 and older. Game publishers are also required to use best efforts with respect to ensuring the presence of age gates on third party websites that display their M-rated game trailers. If a third party site insists on carrying a trailer for an M-rated game without placing it behind an age gate, our guidelines require the publisher to request that such trailer be removed and/or provide an edited version of the trailer to be used in its place.
However, the mere presence of an age gate does not permit a publisher to simply put whatever content it wishes into the trailer. All trailers must still conform to ARC's Principles and Guidelines, which prohibit the display of excessively violent content or any content likely to cause serious offense to the average consumer. When ESRB notifies a publisher that the content in a trailer is in violation of these ARC requirements, or that there is an age gate issue on a third party site, that publisher then must notify third party sites to rectify the problem. The notices issued recently by game publishers to third party websites are simply that - steps in a chain of publisher compliance with ARC guidelines and the ESRB enforcement system that have been occurring since their establishment seven years ago.
- ESRB president Patricia Vance
Okay, so there's not much in the way of specific details relating to this individual case, but what have we got?
Well we start with an explanation that M-rated game trailers have to be hidden behind an age gate (Those "How old are you?" forms you'll often find before online trailers) in order to be acceptable for viewing online. That's only right, and it's obvious how a lack of such a measure would be a definite problem for a trailer like Dark Sector's. The thing is though, according to Gaming Today, there was an age gate on the trailer.
So we now have to move on to the secondary explanation that the trailer in some way exceeds the level of violent content acceptable. Checking through the ESRB's guidlines on such matters, it is true that graphic depictions of weapon-use and gore are frowned upon, and both of those do feature fairly frequently in the Dark Sector video. However it's also true that "These Guidelines are not intended to restrict or impede creative and/or innovative advertising. Rather, the following areas merely highlight certain types of content that publishers should avoid when creating advertisements.". And quite rightly so. A catagorical ban on violent content in trailers for violent games (or films for that matter) is essentially a ban on advertising those products, as well as a discouragement of making them in the first place.
And of course, while the gory weapon-use in the trailer is fairly obvious, we have to ask ourselves whether it's really any worse than the content of the dozens of other action game trailers out there, and if so, does the level of violence the trailer depicts really justify a recall? After all, the ESRB's guidelines even allow age-gated trailers to be be run for AO-rated games. With this in mind, it is perplexing indeed that the level of violence in Dark Sector's trailer was deemed extreme enough to need this sort of action. And what's even more confusing is that essentially the exact same trailer is still available on Dark Sector's official site, with a status of Rating Pending at that.
This whole situation is still very strange, and the response from the ESRB is too vague to really clear things up. That's perhaps unsurprising, given that Destructoid and Gaming Today both recieved what appears to be the same standard reply in relation to the issue, and it's worth pointing out that that reply didn't come directly from Patricia Vance herself, but is in fact a statement from her chosen by a press relations guy at the ESRB. In light of this, we'd really like to find out more, and fully intend to.
If cases like this are allowed to go by without the specifics being questioned, eventually no-one will know where they stand and messy precedents will be set for the future. Ratings and related processes have to be carried out openly and with public understanding, or the whole thing can get dangerously secretive. To this end, we're working on contacting the ESRB for a more thorough explanation.
With the trailer disappearing so soon after the start of the Manhunt 2 debate, after being cleared for use since last year, it's understandable that a lot of people are assuming some sort of muscle-flexing on the part of the ESRB right now. If that's the case, then we've got a major problem on our hands and a definite reason to be wearing snowshoes, given the slippery nature of the slope we now stand on. If not, then it'll be better for everyone involved that the real reasons behind this come to light as soon as possible. Here's hoping there's a good explanation.
Wow. You guys are making a bitch-fit about a fucking game trailer. Chill out.
Also, FIRST!
Whole situation is very confusing indeed and it disturbs me that the ESRB are not being frank and forthcoming in their address of this matter, if what they're doing is completely by the book.
Taj: Don't be so stupid. If you don't get what we're doing by NOW, then you seriously need to learn how to think in more than terms of single digits.
Taj, you seem like a fairly intelligent chap. Surely you can see that this isn't about "a fucking game trailer," but about the industry as a whole, its responsibilites to consumers, and consumers' responsibilites to themselves.
Also, cut that FIRST shit out. Nobody cares.
Here I was, trying to be diplomatic. Leave it Stermblbee to be blunt and caustic. Yippe ki yay!
Way to generalize, ESRB! I'm really not surprised that they feel they need to make Manhunt 2 and these Dark Sector trailers examples for others follow. It seems lately the ESRB has been under a lot of political pressure. We all know that money and politics are the main driving force behind rating systems. They have to try and keep everyone happy. And by "everyone" I mean nobody! What a bunch of jerk-faces!
Orcist: Sorry, but after a week of repeating "It's not about Manhunt, it's not about Manhunt," I'll be damned if I'm going to have to repeat "It's not about a trailer," as well. People need to stop treating ten years of these bullshit attacks on gaming as a long series of isolated incidents.
They're not isolated. For the last time:
It's not about Manhunt.
It's not about a trailer.
I can smell the revolution in the air
Everyone grab onto something because this slope is getting more and more slippery by the day. I'm sure this is just a knee-jerk reaction from the ESRB in light of the Manhunt 2 business, but it sets a dangerous precedent. I think we all need to speak up here and let them know that none of us appreciate the ESRB's encroachment these days. Besides, if these guidelines have been in place for so long, why are they pulling these trailers now after so many months?
All I want right now is for the ESRB to be a little more straight. I'm getting conflicted and confused as to their actions of late. Maybe they're playing it safe to make sure they remain in control of ratings, I don't know. But they're making themselves look terrible right now.
[i]It's not about Manhunt.
It's not about a trailer.[/i]
Damn right it isn’t. Man...everyone bashes Sony for their continuous stream of PR disasters, but at least they have some employees that are willing to admit that they’ve made some mistakes along the way (see Phil Harrison, Jack Tretton) in venues such as PlayStation.Blog. These ratings/censorship boards (ESRB, ESA, BBFC, etc.) just seem to refuse to give anyone a straight answer, simply justifying everything by pointing to their vague guidelines. What a crock.
thank god. it's about time somebody decides what I can and cannot watch.
Um, how did I screw up the BBCode? Let’s try that again, but with some minor code adjustments:
It's not about Manhunt.
It's not about a trailer.
Damn right it isn’t. Man...everyone bashes Sony for their continuous stream of PR disasters, but at least the company has some employees who are willing to admit that they’ve made some mistakes along the way (see Phil Harrison, Jack Tretton) in venues such as PlayStation.Blog. These ratings/censorship boards (ESRB, ESA, BBFC, etc.) just seem to refuse to give anyone a straight answer, simply justifying everything their flippant ways by pointing to their vague guidelines. What a crock.
Dang it! Ignore the word “everything” in the penultimate sentence.
"I can smell the revolution in the air"
Is that what that was? Here I thought I had gas...
Like David suggests in this post, I'm EXTREMELY wary of a lack of dialogue between any sort of regulatory body and the people who (try to) enjoy the content in regulation.
If there's not some sort of transparency within the ESRB then their actions will continue to go unchecked by the people who don't just want to roll over and say: "Yeah you're right. It's not unwarranted censorship. It's social responsibility. It's not first amendment violations, it's protection from offending the average consumer."
Frankly I'm a little afraid. And I'm glad some people are too.
And for those who want to sweep things like this under the rug, claiming a big fuss is being made over nothing... you're just the kind of people the ESRB doesn't have to worry about when they swing their broad arm of "justice".
I wish large organizations would stop bullshitting in their responses. Say it straight.
i'm with jim, all these wishy-washy responses to decent questions is scary. no one at the esrb is willing/allowed to have a decent discussion about this, probably out of fear or because of outside pressure. outside pressure is what is really scary, because we need to know what is really going on. otherwise, this slippery slope will be a vertical drop quicker than anyone can anchor to the wall.
keep pressing them jim, use the industry to start pushing back to make sure the system stays in check. the ESRB is a good idea, but they shouldn't be allowed to abuse their job, or be allowed to be used as a puppet by someone with an agenda. luckily we are a greater number than those in power, but we have to use this to our advantage.
I will say that I'm getting this game out of principal now. Man if they're causing this much of a fuss about the weapons and the graphics on the dead bodies it must be good. Shouldn't the trailer showcase the most vile, nasty, and bloody stuff in the game? I mean think about if you were going to buy this game for your twelve year old son or something wouldn't you like to see the worst of the game before you decide whether or not to buy it for him?
"keep pressing them jim and David"
Man's busting ass. I ain't the only one on the case here.
Absolutely,. I have no problem whatsoever with the existence of the ESRB, ELSPA and the BBFC in princple as long as things are done fairly, openly, and consistently, and I'll happily work with anyone in any of those organisations who wants things done right.
But dialogue is vital if these institutions are going to keep the respect of the industries they deal with and the consumers of the products in question. These things just cannot be done in secret for a huge amount of very serious reasons.
So, is this the "slippery slope" everyone keeps talking about?
[Hotlinked image removed due to sausage]
Man, without those age gates, children would be able to view violent trailers like crazy. Luckily, there's absolutely NO WAY a kid under 17 would lie about their birth date on a website.
Christiangamer: That's a very good point actually. A rated trailer can go a very long way as a warning as much a teaser. I'm in no way promoting violence in videogames here, and I'm fully aware that a lot of gamers, old and young, really don't like it. Content descriptions are a really good idea, but they can only go so far. An age-gated trailer can go a long way in informing people of what they're getting into.
You guys are doing it right man!! Way to make an example!!!!It is basically you guys pulling a Daily Show on the stupid rating board and getting them to realize that there shit is borked big time! Good Job!:)
If you really want to know what the ESRB is doing here. [b]NSFW[!/b]
I applaud the efforts of Jim and David twofold now. And I agree wholeheartedly that while what the ESRB is doing is not inherently EVIL, opening a bit more of dialogue would do a world of benefit for both parties.
Bleep, that avatar is fantastic.
[i]Jim Sterling : They're not isolated. For the last time:
It's not about Manhunt.
It's not about a trailer. [/i]
Get the bigger picture, people.. please..
This is getting more and more depressing by the day. I can't wait to do whatever I can to help you guys out.
Did you know that 17 year olds are unaware of the fact that if they subtract 1 year from the year that they were born, they can magically view 'restricted' content? It's amazing. What will these haxor geniuses think of next?
The ESRB should know what happens if they continue down this road. They'll invent Prozium, and then Christian Bale chops Taye Diggs' face off.
@ Rockvillian:
I went to go see Ultraviolet in the theaters simply because Equilibrium ruled so much, and it was from the same writer/director. BIG mistake. About five minutes in my girl and I looked at each other and said "We just wasted $16 bucks."
Well thanks!! coming from Ron or Puppet that would mean nothing to me but someone like DavidHoughton!!! thats a real compliment!!
Jim, I just finished listening to the podcast...I didn't know you guys loved me so much *weeping* I love you too, even if you have an odd way of showing it. Also: get your pronouns right, ass-hat! grrrr
I just don't understand why you're so pissed that a big company gave a vague response to a question about one of their faults. They've been doing that for years. For example, a woman was physically adicted to Diet Coke. Her physician sent an e-mail to the Coca-Cola company, and they responded, "Wholesome ingredents, excellent taste, how could you NOT get addicted?" It happens. And Jim, I understand what you're doing. But I don't see how the ESRB is slandering the industry by banning a possibly offensive advertisement. The first amendment says you can limit speech if it's disrupted, offensive, or obscene.
Now with spatial economy!
@mxyzptlk:
I also was extremely unimpressed. I think it was the jump from a balls out 1984-ish comment on future society and censorship to the doomed-hot-girl-with-swords-and-gun theme.
The psych evaluations and special cards that certify gamers as not being clinically insane or easily influenced will be issued shortly...
I'm sorry, you cant purchase Super Monkey Ball 12 according to your psych(o) card you're a clinically depressed fecalfeliac and we all know how much poo those monkeys like to toss. How about Barbie's Dreamhouse, or the Hannah Montana game, those don't offend anyone, although the shit content is quite high.
"EETMA?"
EETMA ASS, ESRB!
Heh, couldn't resist...
@TheTaj
Are you serious.........are you that clueless or what man??!
Some one please educate him please!!!!!!
Can these people please get the fuck out of my console? Thanks. -The mgmt
Taj: "Everyone does it" is not a legitimate excuse.
@TheTaj
I believe you said exactly the point here when you said " The first amendment says you can limit speech if it's disrupted, offensive, or obscene." the Key word he is Limit not remove all together. As in only in appropriate circumstances such as when an ADULT decides to buy a game
@Dhaos
Thanks for explaining it:)Now lets see if it takes:)
@Sharpless: In situations like these how could you possible get straight answers from people who I have no doubt know what bullshit their shitting? I have no doubt I could build a case AGAINST them for not only this, but other bannings and similar incidents where there is no justifiable reason for what they do. If anything they are just trying to catch some PR from the bashing of video games that has happened recently without knowing how much harm it will surely do. What our job is as gamers to do is by calling out that bullshit before anyone ignores the matter. I mean most of the American public ignores ten times the amount of shit that goes through each week and go about their lives because it has nothing to do with them. Or so they think. Like teenagers who don't vote because they don't care who runs our country.
So like I said before, we really need to take it up a notch and start bringing the heat down on the ignorant side of the industry and start preaching the truth. We need to be the taller man to look down upon the insignificant liars, charlatans, and dumbasses.
Having seen the video, it's obvious as with the Manhunt 2 situation that the ESRB are attempting to address their critics that they aren't being proactive enough in enforcing their guidelines. I've seen worse in the past and the whole idea behind age gates is laughable but if it satiates a few anal retentive douchebags then so be it.
BTW, as good as the game looks, I want the original idea for Dark Sector brought back: a FPS/Space combat MMOG.
Eesh, somebody needs to go up there and take down my picture post.
Looks like whoever's Super Mario 3 image I used didn't like being linked to.
Christ almighty.
Returning Dtoiders: login now to post a comment
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just Create an avatar now - it's fast and free: PLUS you also get your own gaming blog and begin posting stories and uploading videos in our open community area that may also appear on our home page. Sign up and we'll guide you through it, it's easy and 100% anonymous.