Talk:ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

Wikipedia is not censored. The front page needs an image. You know what must be done. ~ Anonymous; 24.174.111.197 (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but we do have restrictive fair-use policies. I don't believe we've had a fair-use image on the main page in some time now. I think there was a board decision on the issue. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How about a simple ESRB image, or the Oblivion logo. Something to that effect would really reduce the notable absence of any image. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Hpfreak26 (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that both the ESRB logo and Oblivion's cover and associated logo are copyrighted works. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I do feel that it would have been good to have an image, although of course respect to policy takes precedence. It feels empty without one.Sigma83 (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout Image:JackThompsonAttorney.jpg? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be kind of tangential: JT isn't mentioned in the lead text, and he forms sort of a postscript to the incident. You know, "I also condemn this." Personally, I don't find the absence of an image all that displeasing. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the wikipedia logoJackchen123 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say no since AFIK Wikipedia was not in any way involved in the games' rerating. The image needes to be something that is relevent to the article. --76.69.166.253 (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How about making it a "reveal/hide" widget? Then people can choose wether they will see "artificial nudity" or not. --193.69.22.10 (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many quotes

There are "too many" quotations "interspersed with the text", making this article "difficult to read". Using "loads of" quotes also "calls into question" whether this is really a "neutral article" or if it just recites what "people say about themselves".--Nydas^(Talk) 22:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I feel I should make two points. 1. You're welcome to improve the article if you are able to, this is Wikipedia. 2. Maybe the thought hadn't crossed your mind yet, but since this article deals with the re-rating of Bethesda Softworks' The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion by ESRB, it might be relevant to include the respective statements issued by either side. I agree that there is some room for improvement, but I think there is no need to question the neutrality of this article. All the quoted phrases seem well sourced. Andreas Willow (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing isn't the problem, it's the way they're selected and worded that's the problem. The quotes used in this article (and the rest of the wording as well) make it seem like ESRB are a bunch of bumbling bureaucrats over-reacting. For example, repeatedly quotifying the phrase 'pertinent content' makes it seem more outlandish than it actually is.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They are a bunch of bumbling beurocrats. Seriously though, I agree less quotation marks could be used, but overall I think the article is NPOV. Bridies (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured article traffic stats (a quick look)

A look at the page hits on each Wednesday of February 2008 as well as the ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion article which was featured on Wednesday March 5, 2008 using this Wikipedia article traffic statistics tool.

• Featured article hits:

• Ronald Reagan -avg - 10k/day (est.)

Featured article on Feb 6, 2008 --> 92k hits

• Irish phonology -avg - 100/day (est.)

Featured article on Feb 13, 2008 --> 28.5k hits

• Tech_Tower -avg - 50/day (est.)

Featured article on Feb 20, 2008 --> 26.7k hits

• Axis naval activity in Australian waters -avg - 70?/day (really estimated)

Featured article on Feb 27, 2008 --> 55.4k hits

• ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion -avg - 300/day (est.)

Featured article on Mar 5, 2008 --> 81.9k hits

My Observations:

1. Let me say that the "estimated" daily average is just a guess on my part by visually inspecting the month-long output of the graph generated by the statistics tool.
2. Of the 5 articles looked at, the "ESRB re-. . ." article generates the 2nd most (Reagan is first) in average daily hits.
3. Although the "ESRB re-. . ." article came in second amongst the five (in number of hits generated) on featured article day, it did start out about 10k in the hole as compared to the general interest already present for the Reagan article. Thus, the increase from 300/day to ~82k hits on featured article day is roughly equal to the increased interest generated by Reagan article a month prior.
4. The interest generated in the "ESRB re-. . ." article, was much greater than the interest generated by 3 other articles (about which I noticed no complaints, but I'm certainly not a regular at WP:FAC). I don't think that editor views (due to the controversy generated) would affect the results to the extent that this large difference is observed, but I'm sure that point is debatable (although, see #2).
5. (edited to add) These numbers could be compared to the main page, which gets a little over 5 million hits/day on Wednesdays, during the month of February 2008 (link). 19:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
   

For your consideration, R. Baley (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're trying to imply that the wave of complaints isn't very important because the number of page views is high. If so, I disagree; many of the complaints are legitimate. Anyway, the inflated total is probably because of the nudie pic that was on the front page, anyway, implying a lower percentage of viewers who came to read the article (and possibly comment upon it). Tempshill (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (if you like):

It doesn't matter. It's still about a video game, which is obviously only of interest to immature teenagers, or so the media would like to tell us. Clearly, no one liked the article at all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The question, though, is if clicks is the best way of gauging an article's appropriateness. This is not porn or exploitation splatter, but does anyone doubt that either of these two examples on the main page (both are FAs) wouldn't break visitor records? "As long as they spell my name right" is a wonderful policy for achieving widespread fame, but it does have drawbacks for encyclopedias.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible origen of mod

I think I remember hearing somewher thatthe mod was originaly some thing that was used to keep shirts from interfering with some armor, and somebody figured out how to activate it without the armorEmma Hordika (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Emma Hordika

A bit I removed that may have a place somewhere

"the presence in the PC version of the game of a locked-out art file that, if accessed by using an apparently unauthorized third party tool,"—the Oblivion Topless Mod, an independent modification available over the Internet,—"allows the user to play the game with topless versions of female characters.""

User:Krator (t c) 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've dequotified it and dropped some clarifying terminology. Is it better? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)\

References

The intro is the problem

I'll copy and paste from Wikipedia:Featured article review/ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/archive1 my note on why so many people come out of the gate wanting this article deleted or merged with the Oblivion article:

I think the biggest flaw of the article is that for people not familiar with the ESRB or with video games, the two lead paragraphs (a) don't call out why this event is of any interest, and (b) are super dull (IMO), comprising a narrative instead of telling the reader why it's important. The reason this event riles up some video gamers is that the makers of the game got penalized because of a mod, which raises questions of fairness. Is it fair to rate a game based on content that is not reachable? (This nicely simple question is, unfortunately, almost mooted by the "hanging corpse" art, which, as far as I can tell from the article, is available in the game as normal content, so in the case of Oblivion it's not solely about unreachable content.) I'll try to take a crack at this in the coming week or two but my time is limited unfortunately.

If the intro were simply improved to be 1 paragraph that actually calls out this basic question and why this event is of interest to gamers, then the calls for deletion would stop. As for whether it's FA quality, I agree the writing isn't superlative, and there aren't enough non-gaming sources; but a reboot of the intro would at least establish notability. Tempshill (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the lead as it stands now:

On May 3 2006, the North American Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) changed the rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, a video game for Windows PCs and the Xbox 360, from Teen (13 and over) to Mature (17 and over). In their press release on the decision, the ESRB called attention to the presence, in the published edition of Oblivion, of game content not considered in the ESRB review. The content included more detailed depictions of blood and gore, as well as more sexually explicit content, than had been previously considered by the rating board. The sexually explicit content was an art file, made accessible by a third party modification called the Oblivion Topless Mod, that rendered the game with topless female characters.

In response to the new content, the ESRB conducted a new review of Oblivion, showing to its reviewers the content originally submitted by the game's publisher along with the newly disclosed content. The new review resulted in an M rating. The ESRB reported that Bethesda Softworks, the game's developer and publisher, would promptly notify all retailers of the change, issue stickers for retailers and distributors to affix on the product, display the new rating in all following product shipments and marketing, and create a downloadable patch rendering the topless skin inaccessible. Bethesda complied with the request, but issued a press release declaring their disagreement with the ESRB's rationale. Although certain retailers began to check for ID before selling Oblivion as a result of the change, and the change elicited criticism for the ESRB, the events passed by with little notice from the public at large. Other commentators remarked on the injustice of punishing a company for the actions of its clients, and one called the event a "pseudo-sequel" to the Hot Coffee minigame controversy.

Here's an edited version, with less "narrative" and more "impact":

On May 3 2006, the North American Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) changed the rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, a video game for Windows PCs and the Xbox 360, from Teen (13 and over) to Mature (17 and over), making the game illegal to sell to those younger than 17. The change came after the ESRB conducted a second review of the product, revealing explicit content not considered in the first review. The content included more detailed depictions of blood and gore, as well as more sexually explicit content, than had been previously considered by the rating board. The sexually explicit content was an art file, made accessible by a third party modification called the Oblivion Topless Mod, that rendered the game with topless female characters. Because the sexually explicit content was only accessible through a third-party modification of the game, and not viewable during regular gameplay, some commentators thought the affair unjust. They held that, by punishing a company for the actions of its customers, the event would discourage future game publishers from distributing modifiable games. The rating change also provoked criticism of the ESRB for its failure to reveal the content on the first review. Alongside the related Hot Coffee minigame controversy, the rating change was cited as evidence of a general failure of self-regulation on the part of the games industry.

Is that better? Do suggest any textual improvements you can think of, or just amend the text as is. Thanks! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've shortened the first paragraph in the article. You're right about the excessive narrative, it's tedious in the extreme.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The wording is still somewhat flawed. The key aspect here was that although it was a mod, the mod simply enabled content which was already there and this was why the ESRB consider it unacceptable. This is quite different from modding a game to add content which is not already there and there are many nude mods for games (e.g. HL2) which are not a problem because these involved adding content (i.e. changing models and/or textures). Also, the mod issue is complicated by the fact that there were other reasons for the re-rating which had nothing to do with the mod, and we have no idea how much of a factor each issue was in the re-rating. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Can someone explain to me...?

Why is the company being held responsible when they did not make the topless mod?--76.173.255.40 (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Because "the [nude-breast texture] file was contained within the game disc itself", and because the ESRB also found that the game's portrayal of Lucien Lachance's corpse was more gruesome than early reviews had indicated. "What Bethesda had originally disclosed to us, as an example: In that section of the game, there is a hanging corpse. What they disclosed to us was a hanging corpse in the dark, pretty far away and without much detail. And yet, when you bring a torch up to the hanging corpse in the actual game, you can see that it's very mutilated with lots of blood and bones. That was a very different depiction, far more intense, far more extreme than what had been disclosed to us." Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You can thank modders for trying to make a really cliche political statement as well. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the .jpg file

I think the name itself is a spoiler for those who have not gone down the Dark Brotherhood quest line. Who knows that's what happens to that character in-game? 67.173.170.18 (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.74.37 (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why duplicate section in the article?

This section is pretty much quoted twice, once in the intro and once in the Background Sub-Section "ESRB re-review and rating change":

"In response to the new content, the ESRB conducted a new review of Oblivion, showing to its reviewers the content originally submitted by the game's publisher along with the newly disclosed content. The new review resulted in an M rating. The ESRB reported that Bethesda Softworks, the game's developer and publisher, would promptly notify all retailers of the change, issue stickers for retailers and distributors to affix on the product, display the new rating in all following product shipments and marketing, and create a downloadable patch rendering the topless skin inaccessible.[3]"

Should this be removed in one of the places, or at least reworded to stop the waste of people reading what they just read earlier? Jambobambo (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Public Impact

The article included the following passage.

As a concluding question, Zenke asked whether Vance thought the ESRB was doing, on the whole, an effective job. To it, Vance responded, "[Ultimately] I think the answer to the question is an unquestionable yes, I think it's a very effective system." This response was despite the obvious fact that mods are user-generated content, and, therefore, should – according to her statement, do – not fall under the purview of the ESRB.

These statements, as written, try to make it seem as though Vance was contradicted herself, when in fact, no such contradiction occurred. The actual interview made it clear that the mod itself was never in question. The only thing that was reviewed was the actual content that shipped on the disc. Article updated to match. 107.193.200.172 (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

    My apologies for double posts, working from netbook, tiny keyboard. 107.193.200.172 (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061208072149/http://www.gamesindustry.biz:80/content_page.php?aid=16600 to http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=16600

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)