Ex-ESRB rater shocks system

Former employee wants change, says secretive organization vetoes raters' assessments, needs competition; ESRB head calls claims inaccurate, misleading.

The Entertainment Software Rating Board has come under criticism from senators, parents, developers, and gamers alike for a wide-ranging list of reasons. Some criticize it for a lack of transparency, whereas others consider its methods insufficient, its judgments inaccurate, or just "absolutely bizarre."

However, now the critique is coming from a much closer source than normal. Former ESRB rater Jerry Bonner wrote an article in the latest issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly imploring the board to fix problems that he spotted during his six-month tenure there.

Bonner called for a number of changes, including some that should be familiar to the ESRB by now. He asked the ratings board to drop its insistence on secrecy. Bonner said everything at the organization was on the up-and-up in his time there, and the lack of transparency into how it goes about its business does little beyond creating an appearance of impropriety where none actually exists.

He also suggested that the board should require raters to play games. When the board hired full-time raters last year, it specifically said that it would allow raters to actually get hands-on with products, time permitting. However, Bonner said the only games that he and the five other raters played were "random" games (his use of quotes) from the ESRB's own archive, and were only used for busywork.

As for new approaches to improving the ESRB, Bonner said the organization should consider splitting the T for Teen Rating into T13 (for teens 13 and up) and T16 (for teens 16 and up). Furthermore, he suggested eradicating the AO for Adults Only rating entirely because it is a "lame duck" rating that console makers won't allow on their systems and retailers refuse to carry. Instead, he suggested that the M for Mature rating should carry a tag for players 18 and older, instead of the current designation for gamers 17 and older.

Not all of Bonner's comments were directed at the ESRB. He also called for another system to compete with the ESRB, with the reasoning that the competition and basic tenets of capitalism would push both systems to constantly improve and in the end benefit the consumers.

Two suggestions Bonner made were to address issues that weren't even publicly known to be problems. He said the ESRB is hung up on the idea of parity: that sequels should get the same ratings as their predecessors even though they have different content.

Continuing along the same line of thought, Bonner said that from time to time, the raters would come to an agreement on a game, only to have the ESRB overrule them. He said that ordinarily the changes made were minor tweaks to descriptors, but from time to time a T for Teen would become an M for Mature, or vice versa. On those occasions, he called the ESRB's actions "ridiculous" and "extremely frustrating."

"[W]hen this would happen, we were rarely given a sufficient explanation as to why the rating was tweaked," Bonner wrote.

ESRB president Patricia Vance responded to Bonner in the same issue of EGM, saying that the ex-rater's article "contains numerous misleading statements, factual inaccuracies, and misrepresentations with respect to key aspects of the rating system." After emphasizing Bonner's relatively brief stint with the board, Vance tackled the notion of raters' decisions being vetoed.

"In the rare case when an adjustment is made to a particular recommendation from our raters, it is done only [emphasis in original] when it is obvious that [one of] their findings contradicts previous ratings for similar content, does not reflect cultural norms that have been established through public-opinion research, or would cause consumers to question the reliability of [our] ratings information," Vance wrote.

However, she added that a game being part of a series has no bearing on the rating given. She also defended the ESRB's current practice of playing only a fraction of the games submitted for review, saying it is more effective to have the publishers provide clips of all relevant content in video form. As for the secrecy issues, Vance reiterated her stance that it is necessary to keep the identities of raters secret in order to avoid any possibility that their judgment might be tampered with by external sources.

[UPDATE]: Bonner contacted GameSpot after the publication of this story with a response to Vance's statements. He said he left the ESRB on good terms and was not fired by the organization, adding that while he has more he'd like to say on the subject, he can't due to non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements with no expiration date. He then borrowed a tagline from The X-Files to say that the truth is out there, but it will be up to others to bring it to light.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Did you enjoy this article?

Sign In to Upvote

189 comments
Dandaman37377
Dandaman37377

There are so many M games that shoud be T. TES IV, Halo 1,2,3,ODST, Demon's Souls, Fallout 1, 2, Hitman 2, TimeSplitters, Bad Company 2, if I continued this list it would fill up too much space. What will be M next? inFAMOUS 2? Brink? The Force Unleashed 2?

delorean529
delorean529

"As I see it, games are only dangerous to people with your frame of mind; those who have difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality." You hit the jackpot! Video Games don't create psycho nut-jobs that go on college campuses and mass murder! They only provoke their already mental attitude. Let 7yr olds play M-games unless they have angry mental problems!

arikela
arikela

The insistence on secrecy for the reason of keeping raters' identities secret is moronic. Providing transcripts without names would be an incredibly easy way to disclose review information and inject some transparency without risking identification. I think the ESRB also focuses too heavily on labelling games and not enough on informing consumers about their content. It would be nice to know whether a game received a highly restricted rating because of violence, or whether it was sexual themes, or so on.

Ambusher86
Ambusher86

Jeez. you guys are morons. Look at super smash bros melee. It got the T rating but it did not have any T rated content and caused the E10 rating to be created. So the esrb are too harsh.

Proust
Proust

Bonner, poor guy must have really gotten it in school, makes some good suggestions. In particular, there could be no excuse for an 'insistence on secrecy'. Just tell us what 'mature' content is in the game and let the player or parent decide who is going to play it. Age recommendations aren't even needed. What do I care what someone else thinks is appropriate for my children.

ghost867
ghost867

Ugh, they do NOT need this bad press. This sucks.....

shaungnurse
shaungnurse

i think that they should just keep the same ratings and the way they do it but rate everything on a scale of 1 to 10 like if its a kid game dont even put the blood scale on the back but if its a game like gears of war put like a 7-8 out of 10 gore would be at least a 9 though lol it would help lots of parents decide what level of blood or gore they want to allow their kids to see

HuusAsking
HuusAsking

--- Other than that, let's see some enforcement of the ratings. No more selling M rated games in stores without proper ID. There's obviously nothing you can do about parents being stupid and buying things for their children without checking the content, though. --- mjc0961: The thing is, several states HAVE tried to do just that. But each time, they've been struck down by the courts since there is no concrete evidence to prove violent/sexual games leads to deviant behavior. And without conclusive proof, it's considered unlawful censorship--against the 1st Amendment.

snarple_basic
snarple_basic

Personally I dont think there is a problem. I think the ESRB does a great job at rating games. Its impossible for them to play every game to the fullest, so yes its fair to ask that game companies supply a video of all the most violent, sexual, and mature content in the game. I think this is the best way of reviewing the game that doesn't slow down the video game industry. Also even if they played GTA SA all the way through they would have never found any hot coffee and the rating would have been the same. There is no way of being able to rate all the content thats on the disc, source code cant be rated easily. They took there rating system from the movie industry and that makes sense to me. His idea with breaking T into T13 & T16 is o.k. but I dont see much difference from his concept of T16 compared to M. I think everyone needs to leave the ESRB alone and understand there doing things the best they can.

Nesrie
Nesrie

The first step is admitting there is a problem... which the ESRB...

BewilderedRonin
BewilderedRonin

Yeah, really. Why can't they play every aspect of each and every game? I mean, c'mon! Sure, there's handfull of 60-100+hour RPGs that come out every month, and a bunch of handheld, console, and PC titles that often range anywhere from 20-40+ hours of gameplay that are released every week. So, like, let's say 4 games get released a week at 15 hours of gameplay each. That's only 60+ hours a week of playing video games, right? What a bunch of tards. /sarcasm There's a reason why they don't actually play every game. That's a LOT of time playing video games. Considering that, I'm sure, multiple members vote on a conclusion, all the members would have to completely play that game. Possibly multiple times. Even game reviewers don't fully play every game before reviewing it. Now imagine a reviewer having to fully play each and every game that comes out. As for transparency, the MPAA isn't transparent about exactly how they devise their ratings, and you don't hear people constantly freaking out about that. Also, the MPAA's rating system is just as screwy. Remember the 3 seconds that suddenly made Grindhouse rated R instead of NC-17? Yeah, that made a TON of sense.

Ninja99
Ninja99

BatrozX wrote: Hmm..nice, T13 and T16, the ESRB is finally doing what I wanted them to do. Of course I am on their side, video games are far more dangerous than movies on what they can do psychologically to someone, and since when you play a game what your doing in that game is practically the same if you were doing it in real life. "Practically the same?" Please describe in detail the ways in which running over a pedestrian in a Grand Theft Auto game by holding the X button and manipulating the left analog stick equate to physically performing such an action in real life. Explain how mastering Gran Turismo qualifies one to be a professional driver. Illustrate, if you will, the practical applications of the piloting prowess gained by earning all the gold medals in Ace Combat. As I see it, games are only dangerous to people with your frame of mind; those who have difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality.

JFCalibur88
JFCalibur88

I agree with many of you. I have had an idea for the rating system for some time now. It would use both colors and checklist style. Obvious terms like violence, swearing, nudity, etc. And the colors for the general categories of E, T, and M. That way there would be a somewhat clearer understanding. I can see the young boy at the counter with his mom about to have her purchase an M-rated game. The mom may not necessarily know if the game will be all that bad. The kid could just start making excuses to his mom and say its not that bad. If the mom listens to the kid then so be it. The clerk and the ERSB have done their job. But if a checklist and color system were applied the parent may read the back carefully. She might think violence is okay in the game her kid plays but what if she sees things like DRUG USE NUDITY TORTURE Red flag terms like that may help her decide, as a parent, if her son should be playing this game. A color code and checklist would definitely benefit us. And for you guys out there that play M games and your only 12, we'll, you might be upset with this idea but that doesn't mean its full proof. Think about it...you'll get what you want anyway. Kids get alcohol if they look hard enough. ERSB won't change the world but at least it can help inform parents a little better...at least the parents that actually care about what their kids are playing.

Kravyn81
Kravyn81

You can't expect perfection from an organization that is voluntary to begin with so this guy needs to relax. Unless he wants to start up his own system that is government regulated and holds to a certain standard than he should just shut the hell up.

YukoAsho
YukoAsho

The problem is that if you have to play through every game, you end up with a crawling schedule and a huge backlog of games that need to be rated.

nintendoboy16
nintendoboy16

I don't know what to say here. Ths story is kind of confusing... :shock:

fntsycloud
fntsycloud

Very fitting of them to not play the games that they rate. To me that's the same as a tester saying 'well i saw someone go through that, so i consider it 'tested'' - you end up with a sh*t product when things like that happen, therefore we end up with the same quality ratings from a board full of tards.

white_light91
white_light91

I didn't realize there were so many problems with the ESRB. And you don't even play the games? What a bunch of tards.

Ghost70363
Ghost70363

I think that changes need to be made. Games are OVERRATED almost all the time. For instince Super Smash Bros. is T when there is no blood, killing, and very little violence in it.

sdkingsht
sdkingsht

hmm...an organization that rates games they never play. and they wonder why we could care less what they say?

Fake_Sketch
Fake_Sketch

@finaleve Id bet everyone in the world woul volunteer and theyd be no surprise with new gamesxd

finaleve
finaleve

the ESRB should seriously look into working on a voluntary systerm, where they send a copy of a game out to a couple volunteers with some forms attached, let them play out as much as they can, and send it back after a week. In this way, they can get a general idea of what they see the game as in terms of visuals and gameplay. It can be effective since there are millions of gamers out there that want to get a chance to play a game first before everyone else. And on the occasion that a new system is release, a select few reviewers who are at their best will have a meeting to rate all the new games on the new system before its release. ESRB should also work on a magazine, listing all their ratings, reviews, previews, and other various things...

derekscorp
derekscorp

The problem, necronaux, is that a lot of parents are idiots who don't care about what kind of content their kids see. Or, they make the mistake of saying "Well, it's just a game. It's not like letting little Junior watch an "R" rated movie. Trust me, I work at a place that sells games. I am about to describe a disturbingly common scene to you: Mr. Smith approaches the counter with little Johnny Smith, "M" rated game in hand. It is clear from the conversation and/or body language between the two that it is being purchased for little Johnny and not Mr. Smith. So I say "just to let you know, sir, this game is rated "M", for 17 years of age and up," thinking that perhaps Mr. Smith didn't notice the M, and that perhaps little Johnny has hoodwinked him. Mr. Smith then gives me a glazed-over look, shrugs his shoulders. and purchases the game anyway. I wish these parents would wake up and realize the negative impact this has on their kids. I'm not talking about people growing up to be serial killers or anything like that. The result of this phenomenon is far more subtle than that, but still dangerous to society as a whole.

Dr_Feelgood
Dr_Feelgood

First off, I can think of a number of franchises with different ratings. Some of the older GTA games have only a T rating, Conker on the GBC and N64 both got different ratings, as they were both very different games. COD4 was rated M while previous titles were only rated T. Oblivion was re-rated to M, while Morrowind was also only rated T. As for improvements, I think they should add color codings to the ratings. EC, E, and E10+ would have a green background, T would be orange, and M and AO (laugh) would be red. I also think that the AO rating should be used, but if it isn't, on more intense games that come close to the AO rating should require additional content information on the packaging to pass as a M rating. So games like Manhunt 2 and The Punisher (a game I still feel is too intense for current M standards, especially considering its tie in with the mainstream movie and comics) would require additional warning labels commenting on the adult content within the game. Example: WARNING: This game contains scenes of extreme brutality and intense graphic violence, including torture, and is not to be played by anyone under the age of 17.

necronaux
necronaux

It's obvious that the 'reviewers' rating the games are not playing the games themselves. What criteria does the ERSB use for these ratings anyway? How many swears get a game from T to M? If the blood is green it's T if it's red it's M? It's OK to kill CGI aliens (T), but not CGI people (M)? What I find more useful is the "listing" in the box next to the rating. Alcohol use, Drug Use, Extreme Violence... If the game mfgs just listed (check list format?) content, then I can decide myself what I want to play. And... parents will know exactly what they're buying for their kids, without the government or rating bords doing their parenting for them.

ColdfireTrilogy
ColdfireTrilogy

A.He said the ESRB is hung up on the idea of parity, that sequels get the same ratings as their predecessors even though they have different content. I can believe that .... very much so some games are night and day sequels yet can seemingly keep the same T rating while other games get an M with much less of the violence. B.However, she added that a title being part of a series has no bearing on the rating given. She also defended the ESRB's current practice of only playing a fraction of the games submitted for review, saying it is more effective to have the publishers provide clips of all relevant content in video form. As for the secrecy issues, Vance reiterated her stance that it is necessary to keep the identities of raters secret in order to avoid any possibility that that their judgment might be tampered with by external sources. Yes ..... um that doesn't work. If people were honest then there would be no reason for this, but to say the raters themselves are unbiased to the start and won't seek out people who will pay for their vote is absurd. The anonymity creates a false sense of "godism" that allows certain raters to do a crap job because for the most part the vote is in their hands, and it really does very little to actually remove tampering. C.contains numerous misleading statements, factual inaccuracies, and misrepresentations with respect to key aspects of the rating system. And we know that how???? Your whole stint is behind closed doors, how do we know whos telling the truth. Honestly I am more inclined to believe someone not standing to make millions as the President of said company than the president themselves. .... if your not gonna tell us the real info thend by god dont tell us that its false because thats a load of crap.

qiwihead
qiwihead

In all of the posts here, I haven't seen anyone bring up the fact that the reviewers don't actually play the games. To me, that's the craziest aspect of the ESRB's process. Trusting that the developers will show them all of the pertinent aspects of the game seems incredibly naive. It's also not fair to the devs, because if people disagree with a rating the ESRB can just say, "Well, we based our rating on what the dev showed us. They didn't show us that controversial part." It should not be up to the devs to decide what the ESRB needs to see, it's the rating board's responsibility to play the dang game and make their own judgement.

cheater87
cheater87

A few moths ago I emailed Nintendo an email to allow AO games and how adults should be allowed to play what we want. I have sent another one a few weeks ago, I have not gotten a response yet. I can't find Sony or Microsoft's emails so I can't email them about the issue.

LusikkaMage
LusikkaMage

Aren't game reviewers generally required to play through entire games? Maybe kill two birds with one stone and have groups that review also rate.

HeroofDark
HeroofDark

A few months back, I actually contacted the ESRB about the ratings issue: Do you feel that a new rating, one in between T and M would benefit the video game industry, as it would allow parents to easier differentiate between M games like Halo, which do not have a large amont of severe content and ones like the recently released Manhunt 2 or GTA, which have extreme amounts of severe content? Their response: In regards to your inquiry, while we have no immediate plans to add a rating category between T (Teen 13+) and M (Mature 17+), our content descriptors serve as a good indicator of where on the scale of each category a game might fall. For instance, in the case of Halo the raters determined that the M (Mature 17+) rating with content descriptors for Blood and Gore, Violence was most appropriate. In the case of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas the raters determined that the M (Mature 17+) rating with content descriptors for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs was most appropriate. Based on the content descriptors assigned by the raters to each of these games, it's likely that while both titles carry an M rating, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is the more extreme of the two.

Timstuff
Timstuff

mjc0961: "And it's not like developers are going to start making sex game after sex game just because they would be playable, either." Exactly. sexually-themed games historically have not even been popular. You could blame it on the fact that the big 3 won't allow them on consoles, but there were AO rated games on the 3DO, and they did not sell well even by that system's standards. If the big 3 are actually worried about a flood of porn games on their systems if they allowed AO rated games, they're being overly paranoid. The market has already determined that the interactive-porn market is extremely niche, so if there were AO rated console games, they would probably not be that different from the games that are out now, except that they'd be more graphic. They'd likely only be available online and in specialty shops, but in this day and age, I don't think most people would care. If someone absolutely must have the uncensored version of Manhunt 2, or they have a craving for digital interactive boobies, then they probably wouldn't have much trouble tracking it down.

hunter8man
hunter8man

I don't agree with getting rid of the AO rating, but what's the point when no one can stock them and consoles can't play them? If TV-MA usually stands for Mature Audiences, then a Mature rated game should stand for the same which usually is 18 and over. I personally like the addition of a 16 and up category.

ia_mc
ia_mc

I don't think the ESRB provides a useful or relevant service to the gaming community as it stands. It seems to exist above all else as a comfort device for the non-gaming public who has contact with games (parents shopping for young kids, basically).

Timstuff
Timstuff

FraserAlexander: The ESRB has no control over what console makers allow to be put on their systems. If one of the big three wants to put an AO-rated game on their system, they are perfectly able to. But the thing is, they don't allow it, because they think it will hurt their image. It's the console makers you should be pointing the censorship accusation finger at, not the ESRB. I don't get what this call to eliminate the AO rating hopes to accomplish. If the M-rating was like the R-rating, shouldn't there be something akin to NC-17 for games that straddle the pornography line (or even cross it altogether?) To advocate that there should be no rating higher than M is like saying "Debbie Does Dallas" should be treated no differently than "There Will Be Blood."

jaredcrazy3232
jaredcrazy3232

i can agree i often find the ESRB way more strict compared to the Canadian movie ratings, and I have found some weird ratings. the T13+ and the T16+ is a good idea, although abandoning the AO will mean that M becomes the AO and no retailers will sell M games.Although on the other side of things I do agree that it is a pointless rating as I have no ****ing clue where you even find AO games to begin with.

Timstuff
Timstuff

the_avatar5805: Like I said, our country bans nothing except for child pornography. For all of Germany's pompous claims of being socially liberated, they still made it ILLEGAL to sell or purchase certain games in their country. In America, it was never illegal to buy Manhunt 2. Nintendo and Sony simply refused to let it be published on their systems, because of their own policies. If Rockstar really wanted to preserve the "artistic integrity" of the game, they could have released it on the PC, which is an open platform. The United States of America has the most protection of the right to expression out of any country in the entire world, because it's the first amendment to our constitution. Even the other countries that come close to having our level of expressionistic freedoms are still known to put restraints on it when it suits their agenda.

FraserAlexander
FraserAlexander

They have too much power. An AO for a game is a death sentence...they should either have a maximum rating of 17+, or allow console/retail stores to sell AO (18+) one or the other. Nobody should be able to dictate what an adult exposes himself to, ever.

Hvac0120
Hvac0120

You know there's a BIG problem when the president of an organization will not admit that there IS a problem. [quote]Bonner said the organization should consider splitting the T for Teen Rating into T13 (for teens 13 and up) and T16 (for teens 16 and up). Furthermore, he suggested eradicating the AO for Adults Only rating entirely since it is a "lame duck" rating that console makers won't allow on their systems and retailers refuse to carry. Instead, he suggested the M for Mature rating carry a tag for players 18 and older, instead of the current designation for gamers 17 and older. [/quote] This is what I have been suggesting for a while now (since "Hot Coffee"). ESRB wants to keep from being looked down on by changing their ratings, but in the end consumers (& the general public & senators, ect.) will appreciate the efforts to enforce a change on the system. The movie ratings system needs work too. Maybe it's time that the movie ratings and game ratings organizations start talking and thinking of a cross-platform rating system for all multimedia.

avos_5
avos_5

i'm not sure what another rating company would do for the gaming world, given that most parents don't pay any attention to the rating system anyhow. granted, we all know that video games don't lead us to killing hordes of people or shooting up schools, but there should be something to be said about parents who don't even care what they let their kid see. That is the issue at hand, not what our rating system is at. another rating system would just lead to more confusion about the ratings, not help it. two ratings on a box? that would never happen, just like HDdvd's and BLURAY, i see this happening as "EXCLUSIVE" rights and whatnot, there won't be anything benefited through another company out there, we love exclusivity too much. then people will only buy games rated by esrb or the other, very few will be rated by both, a game company will choose which rating they like most, we wont win there. ESRB needs fixed, sure, but another company out there most likely wont help. we need to fix stupid parents first anyway

the_avatar5805
the_avatar5805

Timstuff, Prude refers to avoiding sex, hence my analogy being the porn industry, which the countries you mentioned dont mind. Those countries ban for violence, which we are a little more lax on. Get a dictionary plz :P

NeoStar9
NeoStar9

Vishant, yes stores in the US can and they are suppose to do that. Mainly to protect themselves in the end from lawsuits then for the greater good of the child I feel. If something has a clear rating on it isn't suppose to be sold to someone under that age. It's usually store policy and agreements and even in law in many areas I believe. If a parent buys the game for their kid it's out of the hands of the store since the ratings are suppose to be clearly visable for people to see them. The ESRB system is broken. There are to many games out there that are rated Teen but should be rated M on violence alone. Some M rated games should have the AO rating slapped on them due to the level of violence. Two different T rated games aren't equal and as such the ratings should be split. How can you rate something without playing it? Not even playing it all the way through? """"Vishant Quick question from a Brit, can stores in the US ask for proof of age b4 selling games? If they can, enforce laws that would compel stores to age check children before they get the games.""""""

Timstuff
Timstuff

the_avatar5805: You want to talk prudes? What was the last game to actually be banned in the US? The answer is NOTHING. And yet if you look at our friends over in Germany and Australia, they are probably the most ban-happy nations on earth. It's common practice in countries like Germany to forbid the release of a game they think is inappropriate. If you are so PO'd that the ESRB is preventing games from getting released, why don't you whine to Nintendo, Sony, and MS for not allowing AO rated games on their consoles. They are the ones who hold the keys, not the ESRB.

xgalacticax
xgalacticax

Boring, I cant be bothered reading the rest of it. heehee

sda3
sda3

Ahh, poor baby is mad that he got fired.....someone give him a bottle and put him to bed....

the_avatar5805
the_avatar5805

@Timstuff, the question is not about wally world carrying porn, it is more about, as MadMan mentioned, adults being able to have access to the content we want. The ESRB rates every game like it is going straight to a 12 year olds hand. They are a broken system that uses censorship bordering infringement of the first amendment. How, someone please tell me how, it is the fault of a company that mods are released altering the content in a game. Another good example would be "The Witcher," the US was the only country to receive a censored copy of the game, most of the crude language, true gore, and sexual content was edited out because that is the only way it could be published here. These things were not in the game to be gratuitous, but to keep the game true to the books it is based upon. So basically, instead of getting the truth, the ESRB is ensuring I could only purchase a lie. The US is the most prude industrialized nation in the world, and also the most contradicting, it is perfectly fine that the porn industry rakes in billions a year, and is even allowed to have stores devoted solely to selling its products, because we all know that all porn goes directly to adults and adults only... And yet we cant have a pair of breast or a butt in our video games because that is obviously going straight to 11 year old little Timmy... I am compelled to say it again: The responsibility lies with the parents. "Those who would give up a little liberty, to purchase security, deserve neither and will lose both." Ben Franklin

AGMalicious
AGMalicious

I agree with keeping the raters identities secret so people who disagree don't go after them in some way. But as for the ratings they really don't do their intended purpose because most parents even though old enough aren't mature enough to handle some Teen games when they are clearly old enough. They should stop basing future decisions on past rating options as well and make their ratings more modern seeing as just about everything on TV is violent and you see tons of kids watching it.

Bodboy466
Bodboy466

I'm reminded of the episode of the West Wing when a guy that worked at the White House for like a month wrote a book about how incompetent the people working there were. I actually read the article when I got the mag a little while ago and the guy sounded so simplistic and small-minded. I think there's a good reason he isn't working there anymore and why he had absolutely no status.