Sex and the ESRB

A rant should be nonsensical, right? I mean, it should be raw, aimless, and opinionated without providing any supporting facts. It should be emotionally charged, hard-hitting and without deep intellectual stimulation. When you’re finished digesting it, in fact, you might wonder what it is you’ve just read. Was it something about video games or something about hair gel? In the end, you’ll probably move onto your favorite porn site and forget all about this “rant.” I don’t mind.

But, since your mind is on porn anyway, consider the ESRB (Entertainment Software Ratings Board) and the AO (Adults Only) rating. If you’re reading this, chances are you’ve played your share of E, E10+, T, and M-rated games. You’ve played an M-rated gore-fest full of gratuitous blood, dismemberment, guns, foul language, and racial slurs. It makes sense that this is given an M rating, right? But what’s the difference between M and AO? Why wasn’t your game assigned an AO for all that blood and violence?

It’s simple: sex. Until very recently, the only obvious distinguishing factor between an M and an AO is sexual content. While I don’t advocate sexual content for its own sake, I find it disturbing that our society (as interpreted by the ESRB) finds violence, blood, gore, etc., acceptable for 17 year olds, but naked breasts off limits. This is a fundamental problem with the ESRB’s system. If you’re a game designer and you wanted to make (for example) a violence-free game that told the story of the Kama Sutra in full 1080p detail, you’d earn an AO rating.

So what? Who cares what rating you get, right? Just make whatever game you want, as you want it, and let the ESRB tag it however they see fit. In the end, it doesn’t make a difference, right? Tell that to Rockstar. It’s a little known fact that Nintendo and Sony have a standing policy to reject AO rated games. This is the problem Manhunt 2 ran into. By earning an AO rating (for violence, not sex), the ESRB was essentially telling Rockstar that they couldn’t sell their game. Sony and Nintendo wouldn’t approve it.

Look closely at the ratings and you’ll see an M-rating is for anyone 17 and up. An AO rating is for Adults only. Of course, in America, you’re considered an adult at 18. This implies that 17 year olds aren’t mature enough to view the sexually explicit content that would earn an AO rating. I can’t speak for every man and woman in America, but when I turned 18, I didn’t know much more than I knew when I was 17. And, when I was 17, it wasn’t as though I hadn’t seen a naked girl before.

Of course, this isn’t the ESRB’s fault. They just assign the rating. And, honestly, I’m a huge fan of the ESRB system. I find it much more thorough and helpful than the comparable movie rating system. But the ESRB can improve. With only a year between the age limit for M rated games and AO rated games, is it really fair – or useful -- to have an AO rating? Given the recent political microscope video games are held under, should the ESRB once again refine their rating system? Should they do away with the AO rating, make the M rating apply to anyone 18 or older, and show no rating distinction between adult-oriented violence and sexual content?

I vote yes.