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."

Comments

Uh Oh....

[Delifisek]

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.

election year morality

[technoCon]

how come this guy is only a moralist when he's not running for national office?

Useless ratings?

[martingunnarsson]

Does anybody care about these ratings anyway? Dealers? Parents? Buyers?

Re:Useless ratings?

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Unfortunately, in today's society these ratings aren't used nearly as often as they should be. The idea of a ratings system which quickly lets parents know that something is not appropriate for their child is a great one. As far as the implementation goes, and this is more so with movies, the raters can be a little quirky. But anyway, the real problem lies in parents who take little to no interest in what their children are doing. The ratings should be used in conjunction with just checking a game out yourself to determine if the game is acceptable. Many parents do neither. I don't mean to bemoan the downfall of Western Civilization but it's troubling to see how many parents deal with their children in public and also how often I see kids out on school nights in public places misbehaving and getting into trouble. I'm sure that over half of most parents do a good job but I honestly am concerned for the future. Parents just aren't parenting anymore. The ratings system is a good tool for parents but I think the sad fact is that it's not used by many.

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.

This is the way ...

[PaulK]

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.

If they like it, then things are bad

[lorien420]

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.

Re:If they like it, then things are bad

[gerbache]

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.

Ratings they gave for quake...

[thelandp]

I decided to put the ESRB to the test and see exactly what ratings they gave to Quake.

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...

Re:To be honest...

[C.Maggard]

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 the bananas had 26 dismemberment zones!

I know why Liberman likes the improvements.

[MtViewGuy]

I believe that Lieberman and Kohl likes the improvements planned by ESRB because they are going to a rating system similar to what the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) implemented some time ago, namely giving clear and descriptive reasons on why a movie get a G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17 rating.

This is something I actually like, because parents will know clearly why certain games rated by the ESRB as M are not advisable for those under 18 (strong violence, explicit sexuality in various forms, strong language, and so on).

Re:FX!

[Anonymous Coward]

All those huge pixels with sharp-edged corners put me off sex for years. The girlfriend finally convinced me she supported a high enough resolution that anti-aliasing wouldn't be needed for safety.

What changed was...

[Garg]

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

Lieberman's Lolly

[looie]

no one should be fooled by lieberman's sudden 180.

we all know that his primary concern is to get into the pocketbooks of soccer moms, left and right. he is the senator from a state that depends heavily on defense contracting, has the city that ranks second in the nation in poverty (hartford), a school system in shambles, an unbalanced budget, a governor who has just been fined for the second time in 9 years for ethical improprieties (accepting gifts) and whose campaign team is headed by another convicted bribe-taker, where mayors of two major cities have either gone to jail for graft or are about to do so. he was until recently a ranking member of a far-right religious organization which procured funding for emigration-to-israel projects. (he quit that group when he started campaigning for prez.) and, remember that he pounded the lectern demanding censorship of the internet when running with gore.

the senator has done diddly for his state. he comes from a state where political corruption is business-as-usual and he is part & parcel of that package. he will do the same for the country, while lining his own pockets, if elected president. don't just not vote for this guy, work against him.

mp

Waterbury CT (37 yrs for the mayor for having sex with 8 & 10 yr-old girls, now waiting for his corruption trial to begin)

ESRB facts and IMHO

[nxs212]

I have done some computer-related work for ESRB two years ago and here's what I saw:
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 :) If you were an adult you could ask for them.

P.S. AO
We had a small problem with homeless people borrowing Penthouse and other material and "reading" it in the bathroom.

lies

[Trepidity]

You post on slashdot, so I am skeptical of your story involving sex and a girlfriend.