Like most people, I’ve got some viewpoints on the matter so I thought it’d be good to commit these thoughts to text. I have little interest in legalities, so my arguments will be kept as simple as possible and (hopefully) common sense will be my guiding light. Let's go:

Concerning whether the entire game needs to be played or if clips of gameplay footage from the developer are enough:

Neither is the answer in my mind. The ESRB does need to play the game, and to an extent that exhibits all the range of experiences and content the game provides. That doesn’t mean they have to play all the way through. That doesn’t mean they have to do every side mission. But they have to have reviewed all extremes of the experiences that the game provides, even so far as to play the game in ways not intended by the developer. To make this process practical, I believe developers should be required by the ESRB to outline the levels, areas, or interactions/experiences that define the game to such an extent that the ESRB MUST experience them to understand the game. But I think some responsibility should fall on the developer to delineate what those experiences are, and not omit any game activity that is worthy of revue. It’s not that hard really, if they simply use common sense (if only one level or area features nudity, swearing, extreme violence, etc. then they should know to include it in that revue list). Perhaps they can even provide the ESRB with saved games that fast track the gameplay to the areas of interest.

The paradigm shift that needs to take place, in my opinion, is that the ESRB is going to rate the experience, not simply the content, of games. Filling out checkboxes to denote types of blood and violence and such doesn’t do a good job of explaining the actual experiences possible while playing the game. Yes, these experiences vary based on the player, but we are intelligent enough to know what may transpire in different game scenarios.

You still need brief descriptors for the gameplay, but they must not get muddled in semantics (Ruby reports there are five variants of blood classification in the ESRB standards). People don’t discern much between similar ratings, and adding more subtlety just serves to dilute the meanings. If anything, the box ratings need to be simplified, not further complicated. One solution that still allows for a thorough description of the game’s content would be to reference an online ESRB summary of the game that can go into more depth. This would both simplify the box ratings and provide a clear encapsulation of the game for those who truly want to know everything before purchasing said game. Ideally, this online summary should also be linked to on the developer’s/publisher’s websites.

On downloadable content:

For games that allow the user to download any type of content created by other users, there should be a disclaimer in the rating (or rating system) that states as soon as you download content not provided by the developer, you void the rating and the developer cannot be held responsible for said content. Does Lego Star Wars become a mature audience game if someone posts a mod that shows Princess Leia naked? Does this issue really need deep analysis? Come on now, we’re adults and we’re capable of rational thought – holding developers responsible for user-created content their consumers seek out on their own volition is nonsensical. I will suggest this compromise: if developers want parents to buy their children these games without fear of unapproved content being downloaded, then there should be some kind of parental lock built into the game.

Lastly…

I don’t think the ESRB is a failed entity. Much legislation has been brought up against the game industry and I feel the ESRB has done a good job of defending our position. I do believe however there is room for improvement. I think the ESRB should simplify its box ratings yet provide a more in-depth analysis to those who seek it. Once a more defendable system is place, the ESRB can say, “We have done more than enough to explain the content within this game, it now falls on the consumer to accept or avoid this product.”

I also agree that the industry as a whole must do a better job of coming together and showing an interest in these affairs. We need to step out from the shadows of a medium that seems to only half-respect its worth to society. When someone points at the violence of GTA, we need to point out the childlike joy of Katamari Damacy, the tragic beauty of Shadow of the Colossus, the exuberant social event that is playing Guitar Hero with friends.

We also need to defeat this pervasive government mentality that believes we’ll crumble the first time they can catch us in some bureaucratic trap. Sooner or later I think we will need to find a member of our community who can be a vocal representative for our industry, someone able to go toe-to-toe with legislation zealots while maintaining his (or her) composure, intelligence, and charm.I don't know who that person is at this time, but I've listened to a lot of intelligent people speak at the Game Developer Conferences, and I'm confident that one or more of them can rise to the challenge.