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."
how come this guy is only a moralist when he's not running for national office?
Does anybody care about these ratings anyway? Dealers? Parents? Buyers?
Martin
This is a bad sign. If they are happy with what's going on, it's going to be horrible for the freedom of gamers everywhere. Nothing the ESRB does is beneficial for people that wish to think for themselves.
"[We'll be] really getting inside your head and making it an unpleasant place to be" -- Trent Reznor
Interesting to note: for Quake and Quake II, they gave them "Animated Blood & Gore,Animated Violence".
But then for the latest version, Quake III Team Arena, they gave it "Blood and Gore,Violence" - I guess the animation became good enough to be considered realistic. Technology is making progress.
Mind you, the original Lemmings got "No Descriptors", even though you can nuke a large number of the cute little guys at once...
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
I always thought the covers of video games constituted a decent rating system all by themselves. It's not as if a parent is going to look at the cover of Vice City and think "Oh, this looks like a great game for little Billy!" or buy something whose cover is on a par with Super Monkey Ball 2 and have it turn out to be more along the lines of Soldier of Fortune. But I guess there's no accounting for poor judgment.
The coolest voice ever.
My girlfriend and I use them for her kids. I only buy them rated "E" or rated "T" games, and we also monitor their internet usage, etc.
Of course, I have some rated "M" games that I play like Diablo II that I would let the kids play because I don't really see it being too much worse than a game that's rated "T" like WarCraft. I won't let them play Grand Theft Auto 3 though. It's just like the movies. There are some rated "R" movies I let the kids see, like "The Matrix", but typically we screen them before we let the kids watch them.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I have done some computer-related work for ESRB two years ago and here's what I saw: :) If you were an adult you could ask for them.
Three or more indpendent (meaning they don't work for ESRB) testers/viewers look at game footage and check-off presence or lack of different flags - like how many times vulgar language is used, nudity, realistic violence, etc. I can go on for hours describing what they look for, but the key is that it's people like you and me who come in and rate these games. They (testers) have no relationship with video game companies nor do they work for ESRB. Once they are done rating, another batch of outside people come in and rate other games.
ESRB gets paid by game companies that want their games rated. It's a small price to pay since it gets them off the hook since ESRB label clearly indicates what's inside the game and it's no one's fault but parents' if they fail to read the label. Some game companies WANT their rating raised to a higher level - if it's for older crowd, it must be good!? (well, not always but that's how most kids who ask they parents to buy these games think) Others will try to lower their rating so it's suited for a bigger audience. They may remove blood or make blood green instead of "realistic" red.
ESRB employees are pretty cool and love games. They are not there to prevent games from being released but work to assist parents with the purchases. Games are not like magazines. You can't just flip through the pages and determine in seconds if it's ok for your kid to read. And I don't know many parents who will play entire game just to see if it's ok for their kid before giving it to them.
Most libraries have children's sections where no "adult" books or material could be found. Parents could feel safe leaving their kids there to read or look at books that they may want to borrow. It just happens that I worked at a public library when I was in HS. We had a children's section AND we had stacks (basement section) where older books and adult material was kept. I am talking about Playboy and Penthouse here
P.S. AO
We had a small problem with homeless people borrowing Penthouse and other material and "reading" it in the bathroom.
Plus, now that Lieberman is seriously looking at the Presidency, he's a little worried about his image among most Democrats as a bit of a fascist..
Ratio of replies to old sig content : replies to actual post content > 0.5. Sig changed.
Parents found 13 percent of the games rated 'E' to be clearly objectionable for children 3-7.
This could be fixed with one change: the introduction of a new ESRB rating between "Everyone" and "Teen", roughly equivalent to CARA's "PG" movie rating. That said, my family lets the 3-7 year olds play Super Smash Bros. Melee, a game that's "T" on the box but probably should have been in this PG-equivalent category that I propose here.
Will I retire or break 10K?
nothing in the US constitution mandates or authorizes congress to regulate video games.
read 40USC255, and US vs Lopez (1995) for a start
'nuff said
(*still nursing open wound from when I had to drag my mom with me to buy a record... Oh the humanity! Blood and Gore in 2006*).
Yeah, everything is fine and good until another Columbine happens. Then the concerned citizens will say the rating wasn't descriptive enough. Then it wasn't placed prominently enough. Or it wasn't in Spanish or Braille.
A general description of the contents of the game probably isn't a bad idea, but it doesn't end there. The fact that some game publishers will censor a game to get a better rating makes it a first amendment issue. And yeah, the ratings where voluntary inasmuch as holding a gun of legislation to the head of the video game industry makes it.
And quite frankly, I am sick of it. I am tired of having my world Disneyfied because Mrs. Jones can't keep track of what little Suzi is doing. I am tired of Dungeons and Dragons/heavy metal/Satanist/pornography/drugs/rap/gangs/video games bearing the brunt of the downfall of western society when I haven't even killed anyone yet. By sheer numbers aspartame is more deadly and more readily available, but doesn't even bear the same amount of scrutiny.
Lieberman is pleased. Good. We have an ohmigawd deficit, most of my friends are out of work, and I am eyeing the new overtime regulations with a paranoia usually reserved for the Illuminati.
Lock the children and their parents in padded cells with all the morally righteous crusaders until the kids reach 18 (and try and tell me the rules they make up won't be more warped than the flagellates at Eton). They are not ready for the adult world.
And I still can't play the damn game.
When I first saw this, I did a double-take. "Lieberman pleased with new video game ratings? That's impossible!" But after reading the article, I must say that, at least now, it would seem Lieberman understands that while there are some children playing games like this, there is a majority of older players who play these games, and need not be limited by prohibitive actions. Kudos to Lieberman on that part. It's a step in the right direction. The only thing that we must wait for now, is to see how the public handles this. The question is: Will they take the time to read the labels, or keep buying these games with no concern.