Talk:Entertainment Software Rating Board/Archive 1

Iran planning to join ESRB
http://kotaku.com/5117630/iran-joining-the-esrb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not confirmed. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

More about ratings
This article to me appears to be more about the ratings than the actual organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessmaster3 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Censorship against Adults Only Rating
Several news articles reporting on the issues surrounding "Manhunt 2" have stated that none of the major game platforms will allow an Adults Only game to be released on their machines. Is this true? I serched the X-Box website extensively and could find no official policy, yet in several places on the internet mentions are made that an Adults Only game is "unpublishable".

If it is true, then the ESRB is not merely being used to allow parents to control content to protect their chidren. It means that the ESRB is being used to censor what type of games adults can play as well.

Can anyone who knows more about this issue please confirm or debunk this? Gdewar 14:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Console makers have control over what games are released for their consoles. I know that Sony and Nintendo have a policy of not allowing AO games to be released for their consoles. Microsoft may have a similar policy, but I'm not sure. AO games can be freely published for PCs because PC software does not need approval from a company. The ESRB itself has no official power over anything. --SodiumBenzoate 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

San Andreas changed to Adults Only
The source for anyone who is interested: --Wolfrider 23:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That is impossible. Everyone knows that there is no Adults Only version of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. I'd say that all GTA fans know that this game still sounded like an "M" rated game. I wish Adoults Only is no longer here and needs to be removed like Early Childhood. Anything Else (a.k.a.) David 3:54 17 April 2006
 * I don't think this is necessary. it's just a list of the ratings, not of games that have the ratings. --Thaddius 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Second, and it only briefly got the rating. The List of AO rated computer and video games already has a comprehensive list as to what games recieved the AO rating. Putting one controvercial example in this article is potentially presumptuous.  A better option might be to state that few games have recieved the AO rating, and put a link to the list of AO rated games. --Trafficone 19:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible bias in article
The part calling Joe Lieberman a "longtime censorship advocate" sounds a bit biased to me. And I don't even like the guy. --V. Prime
 * Because you're thinking of only the negative connotation. Lieberman has probobably called himself that on a few occasions. Gspawn 23:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Lieberman has, in fact, advocated censorship. It really doesn't matter if he would call himself that.  If you only allowed people to be described as they describe themselves, that in itself would bias Wikipedia.  Would it be too much too assume that you were making an ironic joke, trying to censor any mention of censorship? Gdewar 14:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we add images of the Rating Symbols or are they prohibited per copyright infringement? They'd really be useful for this article. -Frecklefoot


 * That's a good question. Maybe we should ask the ESRB if Wikipedia could use their images for educational purposes? (BTW, I like the article!) --Mrwojo (aka Praestat)

ESRB Rating equivalent to Movie rating
A recent edit says that EC is equivalent to G and E to PG. Is this really correct?? I always thought that as a movie rating, G meant everyone, not just kids! 66.245.0.149 22:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, E=G, and E10+=PG. KdogDS 02:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

But, "G" means for all ages, but the rating "E" is NOT for all ages, because if it means ages 6+, that means children under age 6 don't understand the instructions, or children under age 6 are too young to watch or play those video games because of the content. However, "E" is likened to the MPAA's "G" rating, according to the Mario video games on the Nintendo 64, or that don't have any content descriptions.


 * Neither is EC. EC is for children three and up. Just because it appeals to the largest age group doesn't mean it is for all ages.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 14:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree w/ the ratings being equivalent to movie ratings. Several M-rated games (notably Halo: Combat Evolved) do not seem to be as violent as many R-rated movies today. -Random Gamer

That is true. ESRB often rates games M that could be rated PG-13 movie-wise.(such as Halo) And it is said that M is equivalent to R. But it is also possible that Halo could be rated M for language, but I doubt it.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 14:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing them, this article is written to inform people what the ESRB is and the rating comparisons as they are written now are confusing and really aren't necessary. 156.34.223.109 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I know this topic is old, and it is removed, and you will probably never read this but. I think E=G if it didn't explain Bambi and Old Yeller and that Al Gore movie, all rated G all violent, mean, or complicated.

Even if ESRB does use the same illiterate phrasing, "May be suitable for persons over 17" etc are not a valid phrasing for the intent of the ratings. I suggest this should be changed. --Random|832 23:05, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

Does anyone else find the Americans' way of rating things just plain confusing? Let's take the GTA:San Andreas thing. In my country there has never been and there will likely never be such a racket over ambiguous ratings since every Grand Theft Auto-game has the same age-recommendation, 18. If something isn't quite as gory (or filled with prophanity and anatomical, drug etc. references) it's 15. Only from there down does it get a bit confusing (Kotor I was rated 11 and Kotor II 12 because the latter had (very) mild swearing) but only a bit and most games under the K-15 rating are more or less child-safe.


 * No, I think using letters instead of numbers for ratings are better. It is easier to understand numbers but, to me, using numbers representing ages seems "dumbed down". With letters, it forces parents to read and understand what each rating means. Chipmunk01 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

MPAA's X rating can not be compared to AO. The X rating just means that the product was self-applied. See Rated X for more details. It is unclear whether or not NC-17 can be likened to M. Any thoughts? -Anabus maximus 17:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised. AO is supposed to be equivalent to NC-17 but in most cases isn't used that way. ESRB should rate games with extreme violence AO for violence, so in some cases it could be said that M is equivalent.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 14:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If AO is supposed to be equivalent to NC-17, why are some extremely violent games, such as the punisher rated M? The MPAA has rated a film NC-17 for violence before, and I think ESRB should do the same with AO.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 15:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Procedure for getting rated by ESRB?
Is that complete? Doesn't the ESRB have some means of ensuring that they get the parts they really need to see, like reading the script or something? 166.109.0.203 17:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently not. Many modern games don't even have anything comperable to a "script", like a movie does. Most dialog and such is contained within the design document, which most developers rigidly control and don't usually "lend" out to other parties.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 18:38, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Kids to Adult logo
I was going to upload this, but someone beat me to it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Comparing
I'm from Europe. This are the American ratings compared to the European ratings.

EC - +3 E - +6 E10 - +8 T - +12 M - +16 AO - +18

Funnily enough, in Europe, video-game ratings are exactly the same as movie ratings.


 * It depends if the game rating authority in your jurisdiction is different from the movie rating one. For example here in NZ we use a shared AUS+NZ games rating board, but because of Australia's tough limitations on what games are allowed in their country the board only issues ratings up to about 13+, so anything higher (R16/R18) has to be rated by our national movie board and has a movie sticker slapped on it instead. GarrettTalk 03:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Damn, the OFLC is STRICT. That R13+ rating is totally Retarded! So a movie a 5 year old can get into in America without parents would be like a Gross misdameanor for a 12 year old to see it? Wow. Worse than Germany or England. I think PEGI is better than the ESRB. --Z.Spy 06:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

PEGI deffinitely gives games the ratings they deserve, unlike ESRB, but I wouldn't say PEGI is better.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 14:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous Descriptions
I find a lot of the description for the ratings comes across as rather ambiguous. "Content that may be suitable for ages X and over" can also imply that the content might not be suitable for ages [X] and over, which is the opposite of what the ratings are supposed to mean.

I suggest changing this to "content suitable only for persons of age [X] and above", which would get the point across in a less ambiguous way. Does anyone else agree? -82.7.125.142 20:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, the phrasing should be kept consistent between all the ratings. -21:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not neutral.that is your opinon!E10+ rated games can't even say the word shit or have blood or shooting with real guns.You can say may not be suitable for under that age, but you are violating one of the five pillars.If you redit that i will request for page protection --Z.Spy 21:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, but that's no reason to consider request protection. I understand that the ratings are only guidline, and that ultimately it's up to the customers to decide how to follow them, but I though the descriptions were actually not clear. I also admit I made a mistake by changing them to what I did, but I see you've changed them again, to something that's clearer as well as conforming to NPOV, so that's no longer an issue. -82.7.125.142 22:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, no problem I think we've made a good compromise. --Z.Spy 03:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My question is why does the ESRB use content descriptores? Say a game with no violence, language, etc. comes with massively disturbing images? What will ESRB do then? Rate it E? Sure no one would by this boring game, but still! ESRB should just do what the MPAA does and put what really describes the gameplay! On a game like Gears of War, ESRB writes "Blood and Gore Intense Violence". My reasponse is WHAT? I would put "Excessive realistic bloody violence and gore". Someone tell me which one honestly describes Gears of War.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

K-A 6-?
while i cannot find any of my old boxes that say this, i swore that some boxes said ages six to ninety something.

can anyone verify this?


 * When the ratings first came out in 1994, at the top in the black band it said the rating (KIDS TO ADULTS). Underneath that in the large white area was the symbol (K-A). Finally, the bottom black band had the age recommendation (AGES 6+). Nowadays in the black band it says "CONTENT RATED BY ESRB".

Do you live in Canada? My "Super Nintendo Super Set" has on the back: Suitable for ages six to adult. In french, it says "...ages 6 to 66!" This isn't related to the ESRB, though. PGriffin 16:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section
Would you all like to add a trivia section?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! TRIVIA SECTIONS ARE BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!! IF WE HVE ONE THE ARTICLE HAS AN EXTREMELY LOW CHANCE OF EVER GETTING GA OR FA STATUS!!!!!!!!! TRIVIA SECTIONS ARE LOOKED DOWN UPON! KdogDS 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please calm down, what I meant when I made that request was to add a history section discussing the origins of the board, how the rating symbols, standards and content descriptors changed over the years...things like that. Meyow04 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it, I lubbs trivia :D. The first game rated E10+ was Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat. ;D -Halen of HPNC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.169.37 (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rating Pending
The statement currently in the article is misleading:

Product has been submitted to the ESRB and is awaiting final rating. This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.

I've definately seen this on released games. I'm not sure if the rating was not ready on ship date, and would be included in the second "printing" of the game, or if the rating was ready by ship date, but was just not ready when the game boxes were printed, which would also be fixed on the second "printing" of the game. Tacvek 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

M and AO need to be updated
The pictures of the M and AO are a little out of date, nowadays where it says "Mature" and "Adults Only" it says "Mature 17+" and "Adults Only 18+" but, I suppose the current pictures do justice anyway. ( : 131.202.140.175 15:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

EC (early Childhood) and AO (adults Only)
I'm not sure about this. The developers and the creators from the games never made a game which it is Early Childhood and Adults Only ratings. I just wish these two needs to be discontinued and permanently removed. Only E (Everyone), E10+ (Everyone 10 and older), T (Teen) and M (Mature), except EC (early Childhood) and AO (Adults Only). No one has bought a game which it is either EC (Early Childhood) or AO (Adults Only). Even if the married persons would buy the game that contains EC for kids, many single adults still refuse to buy childish games, as the GameInformer informed me that they gave an agonizing scores like 1 score out of 10 ratings. These only 2 ratings need to be removed, because I never bought any games which it has these 2 mediocre ratings. Only M (Mature) are the only ones who are part of the Adults Only rating. If you have any questions, let me know. Anything Else (a.k.a.) David 4:06 17 April 2006


 * It is still considered a rating, even if there are not that many games with it. And plus, this is more of an info page, not an offical ESRB thing. And I can think of some EC and AO games, but let's not get into that. Go tell ESRB if you want it removed. Seriously, we can't do anything about it. --PokeOnic (Talk) 03:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. They are still official ratings, even if no games ever received the actual ratings and should be left in. For example, there would still be an NC-17 rating for movies, even if no movies were ever made with the rating. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 15:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe GameInformer knows anything about it, but I'll stick by asking ESRB right away. I know you guys can't do anything about it, except GameInformer. I know they have news from all over the issues of GameInformer magazine. You should let me know if you know anything about them. Anything Else (a.k.a.) David 3:37 21 April 2006


 * It is certainly not true that no one has ever made or purchased an EC or AO game. Some guy 07:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you ever looked at the ESRB website? There are 241 products rated EC and there are 23 AO products. A lot of the EC products are well known brand names like Disney and others. Chipmunk01 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, trust me. If the publishers continue to make kids games, they are in the world of bankruptcy. I want ESRB to discontinue Early Childhood ratings and Adults Only ratings. You tell ESRB or GameInformer or many gamer fans will be disappointed. Best Gamer


 * I'm sure. (Sarcasm) 156.34.235.225 00:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for EC and AO to be discontinued. What if an EC or AO game comes out in the future? Do they just bring them back? It would be much easier to just leave them.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 14:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are EC games and AO games (many of 'em) please look here for a list of EC rated games and here for a list of AO games. 76.187.190.10 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw this from Sega Pico article:


 * All software rated was rated EC - Early Childhood by the ESRB.


 * Of 241 titles, there are porably 28 games for Sega Pico.
 * Junkcops (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Explanation for the removed section
I removed the following text:

''On the other hand, some U.S. gamers believe that the ESRB is harsher than its foreign equivalents, thus believing that the PEGI, CERO, and OFLC are more lenient. The harshness or lenience of a rating system depends on cultural and societal differences. For example, Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne is rated M by the ESRB, rated 12+ by PEGI, but rated "All Ages" by CERO. Another example, Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal is rated T by the ESRB, but rated 3+ (equivalent to E) by PEGI.''

''Sometimes, the ESRB is also proven to be more lenient than other ratings systems as well. For example, GoldenEye 007, Hexen II and other T rated first person action games have received 18 and older ratings by the USK. PEGI has given 16+/15+ ratings to most of the Battlefield games and the game Enter the Matrix, which all received T ratings from the ESRB.''

I felt that the first paragraph seemed to be more of a common sense thing (mentioning cultural and societal differences) and it also appeared to be "attacking" the ESRB making it look like it's "conservative" and "bad". No other video game rating system articles have criticism and comparisons with other countries. It doesn't really belong. What do you think? Marmaladekitty 20:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a comparison section with other rating systems. Common sense is obvious to most people, but these ratings are meant to be understood by anyone who purchases these games. The ESRB's consistency with other systems is no doubt affected by cultural, social, and other differences. These should be listed. The fact that people feel there is a bias should be included as well. After all, this system and others are meant to be guides, though I'm not sure if there is a system that has become legally binding. --KaiSeun 01:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at these ratings, KaiSeun:

Night Trap BBFC: 15 ESRB: M

Snatcher ELSPA: 18+ ESRB: T

Quake 4 BBFC: 18 ESRB: M PEGI: 18+ USK: 18+

Hexen BBFC: 12 ESRB: M USK: 18+

Syberia ESRB: T PEGI: 3+ USK: All ages

Doom 3 BBFC: 18 ESRB: M PEGI: 18+ USK: 18+

Call of Duty BBFC: 15 ESRB: T PEGI: 16+ USK: 18+

Rise of the Triad BBFC: 12 ESRB: M

Phantasmagoria BBFC: 18 ESRB: M OFLC: Banned USK: 18+

Singles BBFC: 18 ESRB: AO PEGI: 16+/15+ USK: 12+

Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude BBFC: 18 ESRB: AO PEGI: 18+ USK: 18+

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City BBFC: 18 ESRB: M OFLC: MA15+ PEGI: 18+ USK: 18+

Voyeur BBFC: 18 ESRB: M OFLC: Banned USK: 16+

There isn't a bias of any sort. No rating system is perfect. I think the person who originally added that info. was probably mad that they were underage to buy a game they wanted. (half joking) Has anyone actually heard of that game? I gave some random examples which both support and refute the statements that the ESRB is "too sensitive" when thay are actually both sensitive and liberal. The same things may be said about the other ratings systems as well. So, I agree that the statements are out of place, I've ever heard of any critics saying that. Larsus 17:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Penny Arcade ad campaign in the works
Please see Penny-arcade, where I've added this news. Michael Krahulik ("Gabe") of Penny Arcade has announced an upcoming ad campaign for the ESRB which he is doing artwork for.

I feel this would be notable for inclusion in this article. Opinions? Kasreyn 01:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, I don't think the Tiger Woods, Derek Jeter and other ad campaigns have been mentioned in the article either. It's best to leave those out, anyone who's interested can easily find those things on the internet. 156.34.209.58 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Citation
Citation no.3 does not list games which have been rated AO for violent content only. As this is purported to be one of the major counter-criticisms to the assertion that the ESRB is tolerant of violent, but not sexual content, this either needs to be corrected or removed from this secion.

Thank you. Hospice bouquet 18:17, 14 July 2006


 * I added that information and citations. I think you misread it, the "3" is beside a sentence which mentions that "many adult oriented products, including erotica have actually received M ratings". Thanks for your advice though, I'll list the titles I know of instead of the companies, it will make more sense and be more informative. Meyow03 23:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Rated RP Example
Splinter Cell: Double Agent is rated M according to the wikipedia article. We need another rated RP game. KdogDS 18:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC) This is kinda constantly changing, so we need to be on top of this 24/7 basically. 76.21.68.82 05:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong
But I don't think the ESRB rated X-Change anything at all, what with it being a porn game. Master Deusoma 18:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If that's what it was, it would be rated AO. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 19:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's rated. Search at their website for all AO rated titles or those published by Peach Princess. Zap35 14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Melee
Super Smash Bros. Melee was created before the rating E10+ was created, and is very likely that it would have gotten the E10+ rating if it existed, so I don't think it is a good example for a T rated game, and could be replaced. --03:30, 21 November 2006, 70.129.247.128


 * I'll remove it. YaYa56 17:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. really wasn't that violent. It could've been rated E. Living proof that ESRB is too picky to be paid to rate games poorly.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 13:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
I feel the section about how the ESRB rating standards are more strict than in other countries should be reworded so that it mentions and compares boards such as OFLC, USK, BBFC, PEGI, ELSPA and CERO...not just CERO. It should also mention that different countries have differing community standards! Barbie45 21:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm addressing this right now. SnowyWindow 14:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Work in progress tag?
Is there a "work in progress" tag? What I mean is I want to replace the tag in the History section with one that explains that the section is being continuously updated and new info. is welcome. Pennsylvania 6-5000 14:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

'Mature'
The current ratings sections states that Doom was rated M. However, I don't think Doom was rated anything, however Doom 2 might have been. Doppelganger E  00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The various ports and re-releases of Doom were rated M by the ESRB, search for it at their website or, look at MobyGames' website for cover art. The Game Boy Advance version was rated T, though because of green blood. As for Doom II, according to the ESRB website (it may be wrong, though) only the Tapwave Zodiac Doom II and Game Boy Advance versions were rated M and T, respectfully. CheesePizza300 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I looked up Doom II at MobyGames and the cover art has Ms on them...or ID could have just slapped an M on it. : ) CheesePizza300 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I meant by the above comment ("...or ID could have just slapped an M on it.") was that some companies simply release a game without having it re-rated by the ESRB (in order to save money) for example, Dragon's Lair was released by ReadySoft with a K-A, now Digital Leisure re-released it with an E without having actually having it re-rated (all of their games are like this). Also, see Doom: Collector's Edition, the content descriptors are really out of date and there is no listing of the game on the ESRB website. ChocolateCookie4563 15:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Becaus of the fact that no matter how violent a game is it will not get AO, it makes T games seem extremely unviolent, when some can be pretty violent. I think this is a mistake and should be attended to immediately.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 14:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what "M" is for—extremely violent games. AO has only been used for porn games, but the same is true of the movie industry.  NC-17 and X (not an official MPAA rating) are reserved for movies with lots of sex.  How do you expect us to attended to?  Do you mean mention it in the article? &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 19:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is clearly stated in the Violence and the AO Rating section, that ESRB was planning to rate the punisher AO for violence, also Evil Dead was rated NC-17 for violence. And I don't expect you to attend to it or anyone on wikipedia for that matter. I think ESRB should attend to it. Not by mentioning it in the article, but by changing the stupid rule that games cannot be rated AO for violence.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 14:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, one of the newer games coming out "Manhunt 2" was delayed because of an AO rating for violence. I would guess that this is because of the Wii's interactivity. It gives the word gruesome a whole new meaning. --Dylanbforthree 21:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fees?
Are the fees for the rating process public knowledge? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 04:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They are now. Added. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 19:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oblivion
I added The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to the examples for mature games. Jack 17:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Most Zelda games are rated E
In this edit, claims that "Not even 3/4 of the Zelda games are rated E" and "Examples of games with this rating [E] are [...] few Zelda games".

Few? I count "most". These games are rated E:
 * 1) The Legend of Zelda
 * 2) Zelda II: The Adventure of Link
 * 3) The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
 * 4) The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening DX
 * 5) The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
 * 6) The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
 * 7) The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons
 * 8) The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages
 * 9) The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords
 * 10) The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
 * 11) The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures
 * 12) The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap

LoZ was rated E in preparation for its republication as part of Animal Crossing Population Growing (even though Nintendo never got around to releasing its unlock code). Z2 and ALTTP were rated E in preparation for their republication on Virtual Console.

As of March 2007, only one canonical Zelda game is rated T:
 * 1) The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

I'm reverting to "most Zelda games". --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And WikiManiac reverted my reversion without adding a specific edit summary. What is meant by this? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 04:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It means he's probably a vandal. He's got an WP:ANB notification on him that might result in a community ban. McKay 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

EC is appropriate for ages 3 and up and a question.
First remark: I'm am curious, what would be suitable for a one or two year old? I once knew a girl who installed games at age 3 or so, and played at 1.5 or so. I just want to know what would be appropriate for a child younger than 3.

Question: If I create an M or AO game idea at eleven, could I buy the game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.94.145 (talk • contribs)


 * We don't come up with the determinants, we just report on 'em. I'm sure a child younger than three could plausibly play an EC game (my son did).  But three is just an age they probably came up with as an average youngest age.  To answer your second question, the answer is "no."  I'd be very surprised if an 11 year-old could develop a decent game (these days).  Creating a decent game alone is a challenge for anyone these days.  It usually takes a team. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing I don't get is why the "General" or "Unrestricted" rating is actually Ages 6+, other countries put these games (and games rated EC in North America) in the "all ages" category or "ages 3+" category. Doesn't this make more sense? According to the ESRB, anyone under age 6 should not play video games unless they are rated EC? (specifically made for them?) :-s 156.34.214.115 19:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

TES IV: Oblivion
Does anyone else feel that this is a poor example to use for an M rated game, since it was originally rated T, and only later received the M rating due to nude content that could only be added through modding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberRaptor (talk • contribs)


 * Agreed. And a good example of the ESRB's messed-up thinking. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 19:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was re-rated primarily because there was more violence and blood than was shown in the videotaped footage...and seccondly the "nudity" which isn't supposed to be accessible in the game. 156.34.227.73 23:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

AO
I think that AO should be moved to the Original ratings section. It may be just me, but I have not seen the AO rating on a video game case since San Andreas and Indigo Prophecy: Director's Cut was released.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 13:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What? I don't understand your reasoning.  AO was not an original rating. It is one of the new/current ratings. Just because you haven't seen it used lately doesn't mean it is an "old" rating. If and when a game comes out that contains content that makes it AO suitable, you'll see it used again. It hasn't been retired, like the K-A rating has been.  Very few games earn the AO rating, so it's not surprising that you don't see it often.  But it is very much a current rating. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 14:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GA rating
I have found a few games with a GA (General Audiences) rating. 67.188.172.165 03:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a VRC rating. &mdash; Fгɛςкlɛƒoστ | Talk 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

General Audiences is what "G" stands for.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Question
What is the difference between Adults Only and Mature? They look the same to me!  PNiddy  Go!  0 16:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * AO isn't as much a rating as a threat that a game needs to be toned-down in order to be sold (generally in the sexual content department, since AO seems to be basically intended only for sex.) All of the console makers, as well as basically all stores, refuse to allow AO-rated games to be sold. It's crap, but that's how they operate. -Deuxsonic 18:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy on mods
"when it comes to ensuring that its rating assignments are reliable is to legally obligate every publisher of a game rated by the ESRB to disclose all pertinent content they produced and will ship with the game, including, as of July 2005, content that may not be playable (i.e. "locked out") but will exist in the code on the final game disc.", that's a quote from part of an e-mail I recently recieved from the esrb and I thought it would be good if that was added somewhere in the article, particuarly the rating process.*Original quote didn't make sense, the quote is now expanded*-Wayne016-

Here's another part of it I thought would help expand the article "Following a game’s public release, ESRB testers randomly review final product to ensure that all pertinent content was fully disclosed. In the event that material that would have affected the assignment of a rating or content descriptor is found to have not been previously disclosed during the rating process, the ESRB is empowered to compel corrective actions, including re-labeling product and recalling product, and impose a wide range of sanctions, including monetary fines." This is another quote from the e-mail I recieved. -Wayne016-


 * While interesting, I don't think such material complies with our guideline on Reliable Sources. Given that a personal email is not published, it fails the guideline's opening sentence: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." I'm not sure it matters, though; most of this information has been disclosed in published articles. See ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Other than the "[random] review" of final product material, I believe all this has been previously disclosed. This link is particularly helpful on that count. Feel free to add the information, providing it can be sourced to published sources. Geuiwogbil 01:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. One may sign one's posts with four tilde marks, like so: " ~ ". Geuiwogbil 02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What counts as nudity?
I have a question. The article says that 'Nudity' is 'Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity.' However, this seems a little vague. Does nudity only count if it is a human? For example, if the nude person is an alien or a 'furry' (anthropomorphic) creature, does it still count?81.159.148.173 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not wikipedia's description of nudity, but the ESRBs description of nudity. -- ( Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

POV on Entertainment Software Rating Board
This section seems to use weasel words and does not have a neutral point of view. see WP:NPOV -- ( Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to elaborate? I noticed there are many citations, and some sentences that balance it. 156.34.222.95 17:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Was there any talk about the strange fact that DRIV3R, and BLACK both received M ratings...
Despite not having the content to really purpose an M rating? 69.181.234.203 00:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC) dose any know that games rated by the esrb are not even played by the raters and dose any one realize that for the longest time the t rating was serving as pg and pg-13 so i thinkthat alot of games have toget a new e10 rating super smash bros melle for example why cant they make some games like halo t rated I mean come on the rating system is flawed and there is alot more  games that get m like splintercell and would be pg 13 if it were a movie  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.244.51 (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

M-rating vs sales
Not sure where this fits into the article but it's interesting: "Mature rated titles, comprising 10% of all US retail games examined, have both the highest average Metacritic scores and the highest average gross sales in the United States. This is despite not being offered for sale at some major retailers." Shawnc 00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

M-rating...15+?
Is it supposed to say "15+" for rated M? KdogDS 21:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's actually supposed to be 17+. I don't know why it was changed to 15. The ESRB website still has Mature listed as 17 and up. I'm changing it back to 17 until some clarification as to why the change was made.--DavePretty 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be Teen +15, sorta like Older Teen.

--User:Anonymous 19:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.32.11 (talk)

I don't believe outside of retailers like Best Buy, Game Stop, and as rentals, Blockbuster, that any retailer requires supervision by a parent or guardian for a person under 17 to purchase a game rated M. The way it reads next to mature rated games makes it sound like a requirement, not a suggestion by the ESRB. I'm not aware of any law specifically 'prohibiting' the sale of these games to persons under 17.

Fttmb (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)fttmb

IEMA
I removed this recent addition:


 * The retail trade association, IEMA – which represented the leading merchants in the category - was largely responsible for the acceptance and industry wide adoption of the self-regulatory ESRB ratings system, having endorsed it and subsequently requiring software publishers to rate all games in order to have their product sold on store shelves. At the urging of Senator Joe Lieberman, the IEMA also worked with the ESRB to place ratings education signage in all member stores (which accounting for approximately 90% of the sell-through at the time) across the US.

It lacks any source at all. It could be original research or opinion for all we know. If it gets a proper source it can go back in. Except for the lack of a source, it is fine. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * EMA itself states as fact the first bit about "industry wide adoption of the self-regulatory ESRB ratings". Of course, that generally isn't sufficient evidence for such a broad claim. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's probably true; we need to find out. As I commented on the RSAC talk page, an important part of this article should be why the ESRB tag won in the US over the other tags - RSAC was much less expensive for publishers to implement, and wasn't independent, so the publishers would pick their own ratings.  (Probably to the disadvantage of the integrity of the ratings, but to the advantage of the publishers.)  It stands to reason that it was a few big retailers who insisted on the ESRB; this would kill all the other rating systems; but we need it in the article.  Tempshill (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Bonner
How come this controversy isn't in the article? Bonner revelations of ESRB, ESRB response, JAF1970 (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Info on rating process


Hi, the above site has some info on ESRB ratings. I've used some info to correct an error in the article. I hope it can help in other ways as well. --Kjoonlee 02:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's in Korean, which is a problem since this is the English Wikipedia. Plus, I have no way of knowing whether pig-min.com is reliable or not.  I've restored the original information, until better information (in English) can be found. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relevant parts were actually in English. If you look closely at the original bits (misinformation, actually), you'll find it's just a quote from an unsouced blogger or someone. Pig-min takes an official spokesperson of the ESRB as its source. --Kjoonlee 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-English sources are specifically allowed as long as it's more detailed: WP:VUE. You might not be convinced about whether pig-min can be trusted; well, you can look at its list of interviews at http://www.pig-min.com/tt/category/Interview-English and see for yourself. Would people in the casual gaming industry give all these interviews if pig-min lied about anything? --Kjoonlee 18:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, it's mostly in Korean. The interviewee answers questions in English, but everything else is in Korean, including the questions asked.  Second, I can't verify the reliability of pig-min.com based on the number of interviews it claims to have done.  An interview can easily be fabricated.  Given, however, that I was unable to find any other source that listed concrete numbers, I'll let your source stand.  However, I still don't believe pig-min.com to be a reliable source.  Even if they have the best of intentions, journalists get things wrong all the time and the site looks rather hokey. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, language isn't a problem at all, since we don't have English sources with the same quality. Interviews are used for sources all the time, I should think. I think they would be more resistant to tampering than random forum posts, especially if the interviews were e-mail interviews quoted verbatim (which they were, at pig-min.) --Kjoonlee 00:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct that random forum posts are not reliable sources of information (and are discouraged on Wikipedia for good reason). I had no way I knowing the context of the interview.  The relevant parts of the article are in Korean, which I don't read.  Since the source you removed (this one) did use forum posts as its source, your source is preferable.  But if we get an all-English reliable source with hard numbers, that will be preferable to pig-min, which is mostly Korean. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that the previous refs did indeed use random forum posts as sources, and that relevant parts at pig-min were clearly in English, with Korean translations. IMHO it's very easy to notice if you just scroll down or search for 000. --Kjoonlee 00:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Mature - Somewhat thin description
''Contains content that is considered unsuitable for teenagers and others under the age of 17. Titles in this category may contain intense violence such as blood and gore, sexual references and/or strong language.'' I have an example that does not meet the description but which IS rated 'M' - the game Aliens vs. Predator! "Intense violence", "blood" - HARDLY. Trust me, I've played it quite far. :) "Gore" - average. *BUT* the rating M refers to the extremely scary character of the game. Playing as the marine will boost up the suspense so much that one may get NIGHTMARES from the thing. (Yes, this did happen with some people in the past). I would like to add a small phrase which also underlines the "extremely scary" genre. THAT is why the game is rated M - not so much for the gore, but rather for the extremely soft noise, then all of a sudden 10 times as loud when you got a Facehugger in your face... -andy 85.176.241.173 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent revert war
I don't see why the change being made by that ISP address is being reverted. The page shouldn't have a Mario or Zelda reference for every single rating category, it smacks of bias. Treima (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

T if it has Simulated gambling???
Super Mario 64 for the Nintendo DS has simulated gambling and is given a mere E rating! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.10 (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * May be it is hidden? The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with "simulated gambling" is that it's not even gambling anymore. At that point your just playing card for points (albeit with a $ next to the score). meinsla   talk  14:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What comes first?
I've seen some age ratings for a 'certain game', and one rating is 15+, another 16+ and then another one which is M (17+), so which rating would the 'certain game' have? "88.108.84.13 (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)" = aka. . .a person in wonder All 3 are for different countries. YVNP (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Censorship and possibly bad/dead sources
This article used to mention the fact that the ERSB gives harsher ratings than any other game rating board and far harsher ratings than the movie industry. Further more it uses sources which are a challenge to back up(espicially reference 14). YVNP (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Legal effects of ratings
The introduction section states that obtaining a rating from the ESRB is completely voluntary and one would assume the rating has no legal authority, but further down in the article, in the ratings' descriptions, it states games with an "Adults Only" rating are illegal for minors to purchase and even play. Seems odd for there to be legal ramifications stemming from an optional rating made by a private company, especially considering the cursory rating process. meinsla  talk  14:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Halo 3
Why is Halo 3 rated M too? It dosent have any Gore, Only cuss words are D*** and a** and hell. No sexual content and the monsters just arent that scary. They need it to be rated T Nascarkylebuschj12 (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll dispatch an envoy to Bungie posthaste!


 * Seriously, though, this isn't a discussion board. We only discuss issues to improve the article. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 00:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, Halo 3 has Blood and gore. You might not think that but shoot your friendlies and find out I mean it's just blood splatters and if you shoot them against the wall, there will be blood on the wall. Then you  got the alien blood which to me looks like Gatorade. Then there is violence Do I have to say anything there. Language, & last but not least partial nudity. They have that in Halo 3 because of Cortana I mean she is all a hologram but think about it she is partly nude. That would be all. Blood and Gore, strong violence, language, and partial nudity all that is M. Darkened wiki (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Its has blood, but as the op states no gore, blood splatters is not gore, learn what gore is idiot. --82.112.134.49 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

i Fixed it
I fixed mature17+ section Mcb1209 (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Happily ever after? What?
"Today, the ESRB gave back the Kids to Adults rating but still has Everyone, and also the ESRB ratings are happily ever after" What on earth does "happily ever after" mean?Abecedarius, Order of Journeymen 19:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abecedarius (talk • contribs)

When is ESRB rating required?
I couldn't find the information in the article, think it's relevant information and would like to see it added. But I don't know the answer. Jcdietz03 (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is M or T?
Ok, When I got Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion it was rated T (Teen) even the Info on the case and online says it was rated T. Now everything I see says its M. Why? Darkened wiki (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We actually have an entire article about it.ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion--76.66.180.220 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow.....thanks :) Darkened wiki (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No ESRB rating is legally restricted in North America
Look it up, this needs to be fixed!--Something12356789101 (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The entire section describing the ratings suffers from some very amateur, ill-informed writing. SlickVicar (talk) 4:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to be bold and fix it.76.226.137.205 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've taken the first step and removed the separate headers for the sections, but someone who knows tables (I don't) still needs to merge them into a single table, and they still need a good deal of rewriting which I don't have time for right now.76.226.137.205 (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Mature low and high end
I'm not sure if it's necessary to list low and high end games in the mature rating, as it's not done with the others. It also seems to be constantly changing. Both Halo and Call of Duty were once in the low end but now it sais they're high end. Total Anhililation and Fallout were once listed in the high end. It also used to say that the low end M games were only rated M because of the amount of blood. Since it's always changing, why not just list M games like with the other ratings? What's the point of giving examples of low and high end games in the category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthisourplanet (talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. It seems like it's just created by people's POV listing games in the low and high ends. So it's out for now. Cutecutecuteface2000 (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, please learn how to use talk pages, starting with starting new topics at the bottom. Thanks.--Marceki111 (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

M-Rated games examples
Halo is included in the examples of harsher M-Rated games, however the game was originally rated T and was changed last minute by the ESRB. I have a magazine ad with the original T rating in tact. There is also a message about this from the developers on Bungie's forum. I think it is an example of a more mild M rated title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.83.109 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, please learn how to use talk pages, starting with starting new topics at the bottom. Thanks. --Marceki111 (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI New Icons
http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/2/4580328/esrb-tweaks-rating-icons-digital-mobile-future-patricia-vance-interview

Might want to update them here... ViperSnake151  Talk  15:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

in AO rating
a number is written of how many games have received and kept the rating, as far as i see it the games that have received the rating are permanent due to the fact that those versions of the games are rated AO and does not discount the number since the newer versions or updates to the games are different versions of the games and are not related to the original versions that received the AO rating 66.189.173.57 (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

National Institute on Media and the Family
I'm concerned about the "National Institute on Media and the Family" part's neutrality. The org currently isn't explained, nor is any of the rather harsh countercriticism of their report included. czar ♔  04:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Violence and the AO rating section
Why this section has been deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board&diff=599935948#Violence_and_the_AO_rating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.221.231.27 (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's still there. Portions were moved into other sections as examples, and the rest was revised into the Ratings accuracy section. ViperSnake151   Talk  01:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Should an Alexa be included?
For some reason, I have a point for adding a Alexa rating for this article because ESRB is both a company and a dot-com company, but it keeps being undone as an edit because he thinks that it does not really matter, even though little updates can be useful as well. I do not understand it because, like Hulu, the ESRB do most of their work online. Is there a difference between the two websites? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think that I might have made a mistake to include that in the first place, let me know, for we want to have a well balanced WP:neutral point of view to avoid giving this article WP:undue weight. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The ESRB is not a dot-com company. They are a an association involved in the video game industry. The fact they have a website does not mean they are a dot-com company. By your logic, every other video game studio's article should use the dot-com company template because they also "do most of their work online", as they offer online multiplayer in their games. There is, aside from that Alexa rating, no significant difference between the templates other than semantics. Case in point, Hulu is a website and online service. The ESRB is not strictly a website or online service. In fact, "Dot-com company" has a specific connotation that the ESRB does not qualify under. The level of viewership of the ESRB website is just trivia


 * Also, what does NPOV have to do with this? ViperSnake151   Talk  13:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh. Now, I understand the full definition for a dot-com company. Sorry. I was confused. "The fact they have a website does not mean they are a dot-com company." True. "Also, what does NPOV have to do with this?" Whoops. I think that I do not understand the full definition for that. I am sorry, but I am just too confused about the definition for that. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If this be better for us, I could always and would be glad to take down the ranking and leave it here instead for the better. (I already did it just in a case.) I am sorry for my good faith edit. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)