Huh? ESRB Forces Valve to Change Left 4 Dead 2 Logo



+ Add a Comment


I personally think that a few more knawed off fingers aren't gonna make a difference. If a kid watches tv or listens to the radio (mainly rap) then they've already seen/heard worse than a hand with a few knawed off fingers due to a zombie apolypse. It's not even that graphic. I mean, if they really wanted to digust people they could've had some flies eating him, more decay, slimey coagulated (ap?) blood, maggots, etc. It looks quite clean for a zombie game imho.



Well only people who paid a lot of attention to the advertisements, maybe too much. On first look, and the look of someone who is actually interested, the advertisement looked fine. I didn't even notice the missing fingers for 2 reasons. The thumb was always missing, it was the thing about Left 4 Dead, the zombie on the poster had a missing thumb. And as for the two fingers, to me they look bent, they're way too well healed and clean looking to be on a zombie, more like someone who already lost is fingers, then was zombified by losing his thumb. ESRB can really just look at a poster or game box as a firstglance thing, because in todays world, i'm willing to bet 90% of the people who saw this article didn't read it fully, but glance and pick up on key points. Most people who look at that box would look and see, 2 upright fingers, 2 folded fingers and a missing thumb.

I don't like Microsoft, I associate with it.



I'm not at all suprised by the move, considering the difference between what you see in the game and what is pubished to the general pubic. Marketing an M rated game has to be a fine line, as what is advertised has to be tame enough for most audiencences to see (i.e. don't distrub everyone else who wouldn't consider the game), but attractive enough for the intended audiences.

I don't see this as a parental idiotcy issue either...



Heres a finger for ya.



Apparently displaying two fingers with the palm facing you is the same thing as flipping the bird in Britain so maybe they did it for the Brits? Anyway, it still is a ridiculous thing to be forcing stuff like this, I think that there were probably more provacative box art besides this that have a lower rating.



because the palm facing would look more like a peace sign from the British now dead beatle John oppssed to this?


I think your mistaken, man. Palm not showing means 'shove off' ...i don't think this brit is offering peace love and friendship in this pic.



could be a nice reason. other than that, maybe they were worried that SOMEONE out there would accdidentally 'shopp it so it would flip people off at the game stores.



This isn't the first time the ESRB has come down on marketing materials. I think last time it was the magazine ads for Hitman: Blood Money.


Saiyan Monkey

That's going too f***ing far! The ESRB should have absolutely no say, whatsoever, in the content of games and/or their respective marketing materials. The only power they should have is to rate the game! That's it, finito, or finite, or however it's spelled/said.

Now, I am aware that this would still, indirectly, give them power over the content of a game...'cause this happens already when the ESRB slaps a game with an Adults Only rating unless the developer removes the 'offending' content to get a lower rating. I'm aware of that, but that's not my point, it's simply a can't-be-helped side effect of giving anyone the power to apply ratings. My point is that giving the ESRB the power to tell Valve that it can't use certain marketing material is absolutely unconscionable, and unacceptable.

Though, I guess Valve is okay with it since they changed it...pansies...



Wrong.  When was the last time you went to the video game section of a Target or Walmart? It's a pre-teens favorite place in the store! If you ask me, the only thing the ESRB should be able to control would be the cover of the game - cuz it's going to be displayed right there at eye level for every single little kid to see. 

How about a massive pair of naked boobs gracing the face of the next Leisure Suit Larry? Or maybe some hardcore porn staring at your 8 year old daughter on some other product? (Not to assume that Target or Walmart would even carry such filth...)

I say let the ESRB have their say on the cover and throw a rating on it. That's it. The rest is up to the parents to control what goes on once the game is installed/played.




<quote>How about a massive pair of naked boobs gracing the face of the next Leisure Suit Larry?</quote>

What is with the massive fucking  deal with breasts?

Also, what is the big deal with missing fingers?



What Walmart or other stores allow on their store shelves should be up to them IMO. I doubt, for example, that they would allow nudity on the cover of one of the games they sell even if the ESRB was fine with it. If the cover's content does not meet a store's standards then that store has the right to not carry it and if enough don't carry it then Valve might change it on their own will. So why should it be up to the ESRB, who were made to rate the content of games? Why should they be able to decide what is suitable to use for advertizing or what is to put in stores? That desision should be made between the stores and the publisher/developer IMO. What if the stores see nothing wrong with the game's cover, why should the ESRB get to decide that the stores can't carry it? It is up to each individual store what they allow in their store.

The ESRB rates the content of the games becasue it is not feazable for each store and parent to see all that content to made a desision on it. The ESRB does that for them then gives a basic indication of what is in the game. The cover (and advertizing in general) of a game is easy to see and judge, there is no need for the ESRB to rate, let allown decide what is appropriate for it.

Also, like the article said, it doesn't even made sense. Is severing 2 more fingers off a hand that already has 1 removed relly that much worse then the original hand that only had 1 finger removed? Besides, isn't the ingame content of this and many other games much worse then the cover of this game and the ESRB allowed it (didn't give it an AO rating which basically is a death sentense to a game).

I just see this as the ESRB trying to over step it's bound and try to get more power for itself.



Cause your a sheep.  More appropriately you are a tool.  To be used everytime a Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi or a Tipper Gore needs you.  The ESRB is nothing more than a lapdog for governmental censorship.  It was founded out of the exhortations of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joeseph Lieberman (two very very Marxist leaning if not outright communistic liberal leaders) and Tipper Gore a psychofantic hanger on to the political circuit. 

"How about a massive pair of naked boobs gracing the face of the next Leisure Suit Larry?... (Not to assume that Target or Walmart would even carry such filth...)" 

How about it?  last i looked bewbs were part of the human anatomy.  If you are a creationist then you know that God made mankind (includes women here by the way ) in his own image and as such those two nourishment related glands of the female anatomy are perfect in His eyes and should be in yours as well.  If you arent a creationist but are a christian same thing applies.  If your any other religion (save Islam and if you are a practitioner of the Religion of Peace, what utter horseshit by the way considering the events of 11 September and the Muslim worlds reaction to same, then I pity you for your inablity to come out of the 7th century) you already have knowledge of the sanctity of the human body as temple and if you are atheistic then a pair of boobs has no possible religous taboos for you.

As to the Hardcore pr0n you mentioned later on same arguments here.  If you are a parent and you dont want your child to see such things before you are ready for them to see it (If ever) then by all means excercise your rights as parents and keep the little tykes out of earshot or line of sight of such advertising. 

Turn off the TV make the little ones go OUTSIDE and socialize with other children their own age.  Dont take them to stores where such things are sold.  Advocate that the stores you visit NOT carry the items that are being advertise that offend you or make little johnny ask certain embarrasing questions.  Take an INTEREST in what the hell they are getting into ONLINE.  Answer their questions honestly and with candor.  dont allow the public education system to indoctrinate them to something you would rather them not know until YOU are ready to tell them.  Its YOUR EFFING responsibility.  And your right.  USE THOSE RIGHTS.  Make your voice know.  By extension you will be telling those Nanny State Power Grabbers to go to hell, and reaffirming the founding fathers trust in the ability of educated citizenry to make the decisions necessary to keep this country FREE. Not FREE as in no cost but FREE as in unfettered without restraint or burden by a third party.

We give too much power to the federal government already.  The ESRB is simply the extension of Hitler's SauerBrannig and Stalins Pogroms and Maos Cultural Revolutions.  Its Censorship plain and simple.  and you are advocating that we as citizens lay down roll over and let the federal government RAPE us with taxes and then SILENCE us with institutions such as this.

The ESRB THE MPRAA and other self proclaimed dogooder organizations which make money (oh yes they make money by the way or didnt you know that?  ESRB gets $800 bucks registration fee for development costs under 250k and $4,000 for development costs exceeding 250k for a vdieogame to tell the publsihers of that game what content it may have both on the cover and on the dvd)  through censorship need to have the citizens grab pitchforks and torches and head their way with the intent of stringing them up on a gibet for the sport of their own crows.  You think L4D and L4D2 are evil and offensive?  Jefferson would think that the ESRB was offensive.  But to me the Worst offender in this whole mess ETNPNYS is idiots like you who are allowed to continue breathing and consuming resources and prattling on about how its the publishers fault and willingly giving away MY FUCKING RIGHTS.  GTFO.




Thank you for the angry, lengthy prose and religious rant.

I agree with you on most fronts (mainly I disagree with the part about me being a sheep); it is the parent's responsibility to do the filtering. Unfortunately the word "responsible" isn't tagged onto every use of the label "parent," and that's why we need superfluous organizations to place restrictions on things in the public eye. 

I apologize for using "boobs" as a simple example; the word itself obviously stirs passion. The problem with BOOBS however, is that not everybody is mature enough to view BOOBS the same way that National Geographic does; publishers and marketing execs constantly use BOOBS to sell things - to stir the lustful desires that they want to tap into. 

I guess rather than being a sheep, I see the value of shepherds: the sheep are too dumb to know any better and, if left to their own devices, would unconsciously spell the demise of their own kind. 

And don't be so critical of people stomping on your rights; nobody's telling you that you can't buy the game. The issue here is whether people should be exposed to filth out of the corner of their eye as they walk through a store. Perhaps we should just let the stores make the decision themselves - that way all of the filth will just wind up in a curtained area in hobby shops being worked by that guy from the Simpsons. Do you think that future will be good for the gaming industry? You would then probably rant to Target about how they should not be able to prevent you from buying the game you want where it's most convenient for you. ...And then we've again lost focus of the entire issue. It's not about YOUR RIGHT TO SEE FILTH. Nobody is telling you that you can't see it! They're just saying that they don't want to be RESPONSIBLE for you seeing it. If you want to sell a game under their guidelines, you must play by their rules. That's it. Else, go buy it in a hobby shop. 




Yes, Angry.  Angry because fools like you are allowed to continue regurgitating the elitist crap fed to you by those who would poison this great nations well of ideas.  In your own words:

"I guess rather than being a sheep, I see the value of shepherds: the sheep are too dumb to know any better and, if left to their own devices, would unconsciously spell the demise of their own kind.  "

Lets look at that sentence its very telling about your nature.  "I see the value of the sheppard"  The implication here is that you or someone you accept as the sheppard becomes the sheppard.  As long as you are the sheppard or are the ram in the flock you are satisfied.  I pity you for that elitist outlook on life.

"the sheep are too dumb to know any better..." 

What I hear when you espoused that bilge is this:  "Oh those poor ignorant individuals cant be trusted to do the right thing for themselves. Lets put together a panel of people (government born or created from some psychofants within a particular industry) who think exactly like me and restrict those poor sheep (people) from harming themselves.

My opinion is that you either need to A) take a look at what you actually wrote before you hit the post comment button, or B) if you actually believe that steaming pile of horseshit that you puked all over the comment section then you need to move to a country where they have sheppards of the kind you espouse, perhaps somewhere warm? Venezuela or Cuba perhaps?  Warm weather not to your taste?  How about The Balkans, or Tibet? They have real honest to God Thought Sheppards in those places.  Give those places a try.  Then when you have had enough shepparding I invite you to come back to the place where responsible adults are truly free of tyranny, right here in the good ole U.S of A. But if you DO come back remember how bad it was in those other places and when someone offers to take care of your rights for you think of those places and how they took care of their flock

"if left to their own devices, would unconciously spell the demise of their own kind."  Same arguments here.  but I will simply point out that no matter which way you believe the universe was formed the sheep has been around a bit longer than humans on this particular ball of mud, without us they were content, and without us would go on just as nature has intended them to go on. 

Now lets step back a pace, and look at the last sentence in the first paragraph. of your rebuttal specifically the last clause of that sentence:

"and that's why we need superfluous organizations to place restrictions on things in the public eye."

First a grammar lesson (I hate to stoop to that level here but it is necessary bear with me) Definitions.  Superflous:  serving no useful purpose; having no excuse for being; how is it that we have a need for that which you already have agreed is NOT Needed?!!!     Perhaps you meant something else but I will in fact agree that orginazations like the ESRB and the MPAA and the RIAA are indeed superflous.  We do not need them and since they by fiat place restrictions on material that is to be put in to the public eye they are (whether operated by the government or by an industry makes no difference) indeed censors and at that point they are stomping on my rights and your rights and every other citizens right to access and contribute to the marketplace of ideas.  By doing that they have earned my derision scorn and enmity and it is no more than justice that they have earned those things.  Would you follow that path of treachery?

"The problem with BOOBS however, is that not everybody is mature enough to..."

Halt!  Hold it right there.  My problem with that sentence fragment is the phrase "not everybody is mature enough to..." What criteria are you using to decide those who are mature and those who are not?  How do you arrive at the conclusion that you just leapt to?  Given the set of all people.  It is your hypothesis that there exists a subset of that set that are not mature enough to... Exactly how do you define that subset?  Since they are your words and you obviously meant them, you have placed an arbitrarily large subset of people in to the sheep category without even examining whether they are in fact sheep!!    

"It's not about YOUR RIGHT TO SEE FILTH."

I do not have the RIGHT to see filth.  I have a guaranteed right (via a social contract documented in The Constitution of The United States of America) endowed by my creator to draw from the well of ideas and contribute to it.  I do not have the right to filter it for ANYONE other than those who are my DIRECT responsibilty.  My wife and I have the DUTY to filter it for our children until they become responsible adutls themselves.  However, NO ONE ELSE has the right to filter it for MY children.  You do not have the right to filter it for my children or me nor does anyone else.  We call that censorship and it is contrary to our endowed rights to access the well of ideas.  Neither do you or anyone else, including me, have the right to put a cap over the well of ideas.  There are many many outlets to the well but the caps and filters of the well apply to all outlets once they have been fashioned. 

"publishers and marketing execs constantly use BOOBS to sell things - to stir the lustful desires that they want to tap into. " 

I got news for ya sunshine  Thats been going on since before written history.  You can no more stop that as you can stop people from fighting wars.  Get used to it accept it as a necessary result of doing business cause its been going on since the garden.  But whatever you do DO NOT try to fetter it as it is one of the costs of liberty that we must deal with.  vulgar it may be unpleasant too but it is necessary to allow that because if we do not allow that then at some point some one is going to look at the way you live or act and decry that it is filth.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

"If you want to sell a game under their guidelines, you must play by their rules."

We all must play by the same set of rules.  Not one set of rules for those with money and another for those without.  We have a set of rules already in place.  Its call...wait for it...The United States Constitution.  That document is the documentation of a two hundred plus year old Social Contract that has served us well and faithfully.  But, and this has been my point throughout, We have an ideal embodied in the First Amendment.  It covers all of what we have been speaking to so that NO ONE should be turned away from the well of ideas either to draw from or to contribute to.  Responsible adults will know instinctivley how to avoid those ideas which are unpleasant to them.  They will also know exactly what to filter from their children.  You dont need to do it for them and some faceless panel of psychophants surely should be prevented from filtering anthing for anyone!

We come to the point where we all will have to make the choice that Patrick Henry was willing to make:  "I know not what course of action others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.  Are you for individual liberty?  If so you must be totally committed to that proposition.  Rember this.  The reason the chicken could cross the road and the opossum could not was not part of their nature but the fact that the opossum was not totally committed!! If you dont want to be the opossum and be run over by the Mack Truck of Tyranny then its very plain and very simple: in the war for individual rights (and do not mistake this for anything other than a furious war) those who would blindly follow the sheppard will pay the price.  I for one would rather be the wolf in the fold as to be the sheep who is shorn.  At least if I am hung as a wolf I will have the satisfaction of having eaten a few sheep along the way and will still be wearing my coat!



I think you are mistaking me for attacking you. Unfortunately for the ongoing nature of this conversation, this is not the case. You have displayed evidence that you also are a responsible individual and parent. It's our type that I don't have a problem with - but I will refer to my previous comment where I stated that "Unfortunately the word 'responsible' isn't tagged onto every use of the label 'parent'..." But you have to understand that we are the minority. 

Now I, myself, am also a sheep of sorts. I'm sure that there are things of this world that I am not well-versed in. I'm sure that there are things that I don't know enough about because I either haven't done the research or the information isn't available to me. I'm fine with that. I'm referring to things as trivial as "why do materials only reflect certain colors of light?" to things like Area 51. That's why we have appointed people to positions of power to make the proper decisions on the larger issues. But where will your arguments cease? How far will they go? We argue about the cover of a video game right now, but where will you stop? Will you take this as far as to preach anarchy? We have appointed/elected people to positions of power to make these decisions, and I trust the majority will of the people (us SHEEPS) - even when I disagree - to elect the proper individuals to make these decisions. THAT is what America is about.  

...I would also advise you to refrain from giving "grammar lessons" until you have eliminated any from your own post. 




And why do they comply with the ESRB. That is bullshit at its finest.



The ESRB is an entertainment run entity.  It was this or have the government rating games and movies.

The only real problem is that its consistency in rating things is a little off.  But nothings perfect and this is still better than letting the government decide.  Especially if the religious right got its grubby paws on it.



I would tell the ESRB to fuck off.  I don't understand why games have to have any compliance to the ESRB?  Is it a law or something?? 



No, it is not a law, but it may as well be.  No major retailer is going to carry a game without an ESRB rating, and most will not carry anything above M.



I guess it would come down to them complying for the sake of not getting an Adult rating.  The ESRB might just be big enough douches to do that if Valve hadn't complied, which would've banned it from certain stores, countries, losing them money they could have made by changing art before it gets printed onto any gameboxes and such.  Still a BS call.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.