Feedback on Government Regulation of Games

Today, as we're reporting on the House investigation into Rockstar and the Illinois violent games law, Gamasutra is offering up industry responses to a question concerning the role that government should play in games. From the article: "Government legislation would be a disaster. The ESRB rating is a good enough system. I seriously doubt that the number of employees at retail stores selling 'Mature' games to minors is greater than the number of parents who let their children buy the game. If their parents won't let them play it, chances are they have a friend who has it and they play it at their friends' house. If parents want to censor their kids, they need to be the ones to do it; the government is not responsible for raising children. -Cari Begle, Stardock"

Comments

Anyone remember "Congress Wars"?

[squiggleslash]

Reminds me of the mid-eighties hit "Congress Wars". You had to play a senator or a representative (why it wasn't Republicans vs Dems I don't know) and control your character (top-down perspective), taking him to the other house and killing as many members as possible before their "top hitter" killed your entire side. Oh yes, I remember now - while all the carnage was going on, the two houses would be voting on various bills, so your aim was also to ensure there wasn't a majority party in both houses, as you basically would lose automatically if the houses were able to pass three bills. There was a two player mode, and I think the senate and congress differed slightly - senators were armed with semi-magical powers or something where they could push a hand towards you and you'd fly to the other side of the house.

Think it was Gremlin Graphics, or maybe Imagine, who did that one. Despite being largely unmarketed outside of Britain, the game generated uproar in the real congress, with politicians of all sides condemning it and it even leading to US-lobbied-for Scotland Yard investigations of the game's author, Roy Dallstute. To a certain extent, you could understand it, you'd be playing the game and suddenly a message would flash up: "WARNING: CONSENSUS APPROACHING. KILL MORE REPUBLICANS!" if, say, the Republicans had a majority in the other house and were close to one in the one you were playing in. If I was a politician, I'd not be overly happy about that kind of thing being flashed up in front of kids.

The hubbub only really died down when Al Gore, of all people, made some speech where he claimed it was important to recognize free speech even extended to those who oppose democracies or something in a comedic sense, and that if nothing else the game was increasing those who played it's awareness of the US political system and that wasn't a bad thing. Dallstute himself defended the game by arguing that (a) it was a game and (b) while the methods may have been unusual, the notion of politics being a game where passing laws was considered a bad thing was new, and he hoped that message would reach a new generation of politicians.

It remains to be seen what the investigation into Rockstar turns up, but I suspect compared to CW, it'll be a storm in a teacup. We might see ESRB ratings carry some legal weight, but I think it'll be meaningless outside of that.

Re:Like many other areas

[brkello]

You are missing what the problem really is. Parents don't pay attention to the current, simple rating system. Making it more complex with scores in each category would help essentially no one. If they can't figure out M is for mature, 17+...having three sections with ratings is going to make their heads explode. The current rating system is fine. People just need to start taking personal responsibility for their children.