{"id":73,"date":"2008-07-30T14:42:15","date_gmt":"2008-07-30T19:42:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/games\/2008\/07\/30\/what-might-a-pro-social-rating-system-look-like\/"},"modified":"2013-09-26T14:39:43","modified_gmt":"2013-09-26T19:39:43","slug":"what-might-a-pro-social-rating-system-look-like","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/games\/2008\/07\/30\/what-might-a-pro-social-rating-system-look-like\/","title":{"rendered":"What might a pro-social rating system look like?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This was the mostly-serious question I put to our games group last night at our monthly meeting. The question emerged from previous discussions we\u2019d had about how the meta-game-industry \u2013 critics, player feedback \u2013 influences game development. While the ESRB ratings are about as fuzzy as MPAA film ratings \u2013 and equally subject to manipulation \u2013 there\u2019s no doubt that they influence actual design decisions. One former developer talked about how his team worked to keep a shooter at a \u201cTeen\u201d rating, which meant, for example, that players should not be able to manipulate dead bodies. (Shooting them while alive, of course, is perfectly fine!).
\n\"Cheat<\/a>
\nWe struck on a range of possibilities: an ESRB-like rating system, better search categories in game databases, better game criticism, and of course self-critical game design. Although it opens the door to even more subjectivity, we were all interested in shifting the focus from a checklist of features (blood? gore? bad language?) to an evaluation of the gameplay experience. Whether the graphics feature blood or not, does the game encourage cooperation and mutual sacrifice?
\n
\nSome general ideas that emerged:<\/p>\n