Is the Entertainment Software Ratings Board doing its job correctly? Not by a long shot, according to Aaron Ruby, who co-wrote Smartbomb: The Quest for Art, Entertainment and Big Bucks in the Video Game Revolution with Heather Chaplin. In an excellent editorial on Next Generation, Ruby outlines a convincing case for why the ESRB's rating system is fundamentally flawed. For example, he points on the stunning fact that the ESRB doesn't actually play the games, which has become a major sticking point for censorship-happy legislators and anti-video game activists. Here's an excerpt from Ruby's column:

"I'm going to be completely reduced to a mess of carbon ash and caramelized
fat for saying this, I find it alarming that the ESRB does not bother to base
its ratings on the entire experience of playing a game, instead relying far too
much on submitted clips-not even complete gameplay run-throughs, mind you. Even
if you think the idea is unnecessary or even absurd, there's no getting around
that failing to do so lends an impression of incompleteness and an ad hoc
quality to the system that invites skepticism. It's like rating movies based on
storyboards."

If you think that Ruby is some fringe critic who has a grudge against gaming,
well, that couldn't be further from the truth. I interviewed Ruby earlier this
year about Smartbomb, and in addition to being a gamer himself, Ruby has a
wealth of knowledge about gaming after spending several years researching and
writing a book. Here's an excerpt from the href="http://www.twitchguru.com/2006/02/09/an_inside_look_at_the_video_game_indu
stry/">interview:

RW: Speaking of content, I've heard you're not fond of the game rating
system.

Ruby: I really don't have much respect for the ESRB. There is a serious problem
with the system when the people that are in charge of rating the games don't
actually play them. Playing a game and watching someone else play a game are two
totally different things. There are some things that can't be accurately
observed by watching. So the whole rating system approach is to observe the
content. But you have to ask yourself why video games are considered learning
tools. Is it the content or is it the design and the mechanics of the game? It's
not the content. Take Grand Theft Auto; I don't think the game teaches you how
to murder people. But Full Spectrum Warrior, which nobody ever criticized
because it doesn't have content that people deem offensive, shows you how to
shoot people and blow things up. So I think the uproar is part of a lack of
knowledge about games, and that's why the level of debate on the issue is so
low.

How low is the level of debate on video games? Check out my summary of a recent
Congressional hearing on
video games.