Slashdot Mirror
Lieberman Pleased With Video Game Ratings
Babbster writes "GamesAreFun.com is reporting that Senators Joseph Lieberman and Herb Kohl are pleased with the ESRB ratings system for video games and specifically praise the changes being made to ESRB labels effective September 15th. A lot must have changed at the ESRB in the last seven months since both these men wanted congressional hearings on video game ratings."
First educate people, then rate programs or films.
I believe rating system does not solve problem. I just another goverment cartel to control someting.
Everyting is up to you. If sometings go wrong don't blame ratings, games, films etc.
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
it should be.
In order to limit legislation for which only those lobbyists with deep pockets can provide direction, we must police ourselves.
Anytime a politician can form an astroturf campaign out of something like this, we all lose; the effects of legislation always exceed its initial bounds.
This could, on the other hand, be parlayed into a first ammendment case.
As far as dealers and endusers go, I don't think ratings come into play heavily. There's no video game rating similar to NC-17, which is the kiss of death and most dealers wouldn't show at their cineplex so it's not so much an issue. And as a buyer of video games, I don't consider the ratings (I'm well above age to buy anything) but instead read reviews and take a look at how enjoyable the game is.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
there is, ESRB rating of AO Adults only, its on very few game titles, mostly playboy calander or something like that, you can search for it on the ESRB ratings website. and of course you wouldnt consider the ratings, the ratings weren't ment for you, they are ment for parents of young children who want to buy their children a game. Agreeing with eariler posts, this rating system would be great if people actually used it.
Sun is Warm, Grass is Green
A lot must have changed at the ESRB in the last seven months since both these men wanted congressional hearings on video game ratings.
You mean, "A lot of money must have changed hands".
Garg
Garg
Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
I have always been curious as to whether or not parents are really using these systems. Certainly parents find out about certain games such as Grand Theft Auto and restrict the purchase of those games, but on the whole do parents really look at stuff like Command and Conquer, Half Life 2, and Star Wars Galaxies and say ('hmmmm... I should check the rating on this')? There are many very violent games that kinda squeek through the system unchecked would be my guess.
The ESRB is perfectly beneficial for people who want to think for themselves, especially people like parents. There's nothing in the ESRB ratings that prevent games from being made; it's just a way to restrict access to those who really shouldn't be playing them in the first place and to let parents know what their kids are doing. Movies have been doing this for years, yet I've seen plenty of movies that push the limits of taste in their pursuit for freedom of expression
It's not like the ESRB is limiting the games that can be published; they're just trying to tell parents and retailers what the content of the game is to prevent kids from playing who shouldn't be exposed to the games. Besides that, if a parent, who should know their children well enough to be able to tell whether they're mature enough to play, can decide to buy the game for the kids, but the ratings in theory should prevent the kids from buying the games without their parents knowing about it. This -is- a good thing, because it allows a method for the industry to show that they are not all about warping kids and making them shoot everyone in sight with a shotgun.
Just because they're pleased with the changes doesn't mean that they're still not pushing for more.
In American Culture, war is ok, but sex is bad.
War good, sex bad.
Sometimes, America being only 200 years old is painfully obvious.
The design of the games cover tells you what market they are targetting. Look at the cover of Quake III Arena. Clearly they aren't targetting 6-year-olds.
Plus covers usually have screenshots because - duh - screenshots sell games. You can judge for yourself what the game is like by looking at the screenshot.
The reason ratings exist have nothing to do with parental judgement calls. Any parent with half a brain can look at Vice City and clearly see that it's not a good game for young children and it's likely to have violence that will be too scary for them.
What it boils down to is lazy, stupid parents who let their kids buy or rent games without looking at the cover first. If you want to be the judge of what your kids play and don't play then *you* (yes, YOU) have to look at what they're playing. But now, instead, you can just say 'hey, I'm not going to let you play any game rather over E (everyone) or any game rated M (for mature) or T (for teen) or whatever.
I, for one, wouldn't trust such systems. I, and I alone, will be the judge of what games my kids play. Why do you need a ratings system if you *know* your kids are playing. Simply set down the hard-and-fast rule that I'm not going to let you play a game until I see the game cover or the game itself. My father took me to "R" rated movies. He based his decision on what movies I should see based on their *content* and not on their rating. If he felt the movie had themes that were too mature, I didn't get to see those movies. If the movie got an "R" rating due to language, then, oh well, words never hurt anyone -- especially when I reached the age to know how to use my own discretion in choosing words to be used in polite conversation.
It is both the right and responsibility of a parent to decide what content is and is not too mature for their level of development. Not some stupid ratings board.
My journal has hot
The problem with the rating system is the ESRB is so hypocritical. Alice, the game where evil/demented Alice returns to Wonderland and hacks up card guards with a knife along with other "wicked" stuff is only rated T for teen. The game has blood, gore, it might as well have Alice stripping. Yet, it's rated teen.
Now let's look at Kingpin, filled with racial slurs, lead pipe bludgeonings, f**k in every line, murder, gore, blood, the works. Kingpin even had a yellow tape around it that said "For 18 Years of Age ONLY," when it shipped. Stores were supposed to put it on the top shelf and only sell it to adults. Yet, it's rated M for Mature (17+), not Adults Only.
Finally there is Duke Nukem, Mr. Lieberman's "favorite" scapegoat. If you guys remember he was the first to lobby to the ESRB that the game be boosted from mature to adults only because it had nudity. His case didn't go through, but as far as I know, Duke is the only game that really had and pushed nudity. IIRC, Lieberman lost his case because of the "adult mode" integration.
Never-the-less, I know there is hypocrisy in the ratings, but how does it run? By company, by genre, by name? We need a more impartial rating company, that isn't comprised of Nielsen raters and people like Joe Lieberman.
Movies are rated by choice not mandate. Some of the best movies I ever saw were "Not Rated" by the MPAA at all.
"Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."