Slashdot Mirror
Truth in Ratings Act Reintroduced
dropgoal writes "Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas (and GOP presidential candidate) has reintroduced the Truth in Ratings Act. Like the previous version that failed to pass last year, Sen. Brownback's bill would make the FTC responsible for overseeing the video game ratings system and possibly result in a unified ratings system for games, movies, and TV. The ESRB would also have to review all game footage before issuing a rating. Currently, the ESRB hands out ratings after viewing a reel with representative content prepared by the developers. Sen. Brownback thinks that's not enough. 'Video game reviewers should be required to review the entire content of a game to ensure the accuracy of the rating. The current video game ratings system is not as accurate as it could be because reviewers do not see the full content of games and do not even play the games they rate', he said."
Good old Sam has solved all the other problems we are having today and ratings are last remaining vestiges of a cruel world...
~S
The developer sends footage of the worst/extreme content in the game, and fills out some paperwork. They are assigned a rating (developer can resubmit or appeal). Then...when the game is 100% complete ready to go to the shelves, ESRB gets another copy, and plays a bit... and if there is anything more extreme in that final game than there was in the footage (ie, topless chicks, more gore) the developer has some penalties slapped in their face. Its a good process, and it works pretty damn well, and it is certainly better than this pos "Truth in Ratings" act. Whether you agree with the whole GTA/Oblivion issues is besides the point. Nothing is foolproof, but if the worst we've gotten is anatomically correct nipples and disabled content, I think they're doing a damn good job.
What ever happened to the party of "less government interference?"
That's right, I remember now. It was the Unholy Alliance that did in the fiscally-conservative, small-government Republicans. Now the Republicans seem to be the party of fiscally-unrestrained big government. I find it rather humorous that during the Bush Years the FCC has steadfastly held to its notion that the free market will provide us all with speedy, cheap broadband and all kinds of broadcast diversity, yet one tit shows up on the Super Bowl and suddenly the FCC stirs into action. The FTC is an entity often decried for its meddlesome consumer protection activities, but throw up the hue and cry of "think of the children!" and suddenly the FTC is a useful government agency.
It seems the party now stands for individual freedom to make money, government money to spend money, and meddlesome interference into matters of so-called morality. Perhaps the theory is that if you can't make government work more efficiently, you may as well try to make it an extension of the church.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
To all posts that ask how this law is going to work, about generated content, etc, etc.
I have learned that nowadays, the main reason that law-makers introduces new laws is to boost their own popularity. It doesn't matter if the law cannot work, is impractical, will be struck down in courts, etc. It only matters that the (1) it grabs the headline thus putting his name on the news and (2) it showed people that he has "taken a stance" against something.
Just think about it, is it a surprise that people who are elected based on a popularity contest do things to boost their own popularity?
If you want to stop this law from passing, don't waste your time telling people it is not workable. Stuck at the heart of the matter and go tell games companies how much money it will wastes them, and tell people how many jobs such money could have created instead, or how much dividends would it costs the stock holders of those game companies.
Turn the law into an unpopular proposition and it will be dead.
Oliver.
By reviewing the games for as long as possible, this lengthens the time it takes for new games to make it to market. Therefore, everyone gets so bored with video games, we just give up and join the Republican party, and a church group -- instead. Or at least that's the plan.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
First off, while the "cut scenes" of a game could be said to have "footage", the whole rest of the game (typically) have no such thing. Even if you checked every single character skin and setting, there would be no way to _know_ there wasn't an easter-egg or something.
The fact of the matter is that "objectionable content" is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
And what of "patches" and "mods"?
Heck take some of the "dance moves" from WOW and line them up and you have simulated sex, at least within the limits within the minds of people who think that some of these other things were "objectionable".
The Nanny State cannot hope to get closure over this, and trying to is just more waste of my taxpayer dollar.
Note to you regulation-happy people out there: Your "precious bundle" is neither as fragile as you imagine, nor as important as you dream. Neither are you. If janet jackson's saggy boobie and the gyrations of a pair of 100 polygon figures are enough to undermine your sense of moral turpitude, then you are a mindless chode; and might I suggest that the world is much safer if you put an opaque polyethylene bag over your head. (But it only _really_ works if you cinch it snuggly. Assist your child before yourself.)
Now if you can get truth in ratings for suckage, then we can talk.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I believe this pretty much covers how the bill is expected to work.
Easiest way to review the content: ignore context.
Just hand the guys a giant text file of all the game dialog so they can scan it for profanity and racy phrases. Then do a long and tedious slideshow of all the wireframe models and their associated skins. Seeing as they only seem to care about nudity and gross obscenities, this should work just fine.
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
I don't see how this is a problem. Not to mention that the game (GTA) was already rated M...
Rated M, what does that mean? Does it mean that you have to 18 yrs or older to buy the game? Nope. Does it mean you have to have your parents with you to buy the game? Nope. It means nothing at all. It's voluntarily rated M as a warning to parents who may be buying the game for their preacher's kid, nothing more. There is no legal binding behind it. All this guy wants to do is to place a standardized rating system on video games so that the technically illiterate can understand it.
And it's not just the outcry over the Hot Coffee thing, but GTA in general. The object of the game is to carjack as many people as possible. Bonus points for beating up whores and ripping them off!??! It's not just the Hot Coffee that is the problem, it's the whole damn game and games like it. Ever play Postal 2? You piss on people, cut their heads off with shovels, douse them with gasoline and throw lit matches on them... and so on. How about Duke Nukem 3D ("Shake it, Baby!")? These games need a rating so that any 5 year-old off the street can't just walk into any GameStop and pick up GTA New Orleans-Mardis Gras.
It's not that I think all games should be Disney approved, but a rating system can actually free programmers to make whatever game they want. The can make "Sam and Max go the Red Light District" because the second a parent complains, all they have to say is, "Hey lady, you have to be 18 or over to buy this game. You saw the rating, why did you buy it for your kid? Do you buy them Playboy too? Then why did you buy them a game that says in plain letters that it is an X-rated game, right there on the label?" Right now, Sam and Max--Red Light will not be made because they'd get too much heat. Allow an X rating and it's on!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Rated M, what does that mean? Does it mean that you have to 18 yrs or older to buy the game? Nope. Does it mean you have to have your parents with you to buy the game? Nope. It means nothing at all. It's voluntarily rated M as a warning to parents who may be buying the game for their preacher's kid, nothing more. There is no legal binding behind it.
Perhaps you should review the legal status of movie ratings in the US.
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
No, our legislators are well aware that most of this junk can't survive judicial review. They just don't care. The whole idea - particularly when a presidential hopeful is involved (hi Hill!) - is to get publicity and attract the "Won't someone please think of the children?" vote. The next 20 months will be filled with lots of this garbage, and it's up to the electorate to get enough edumication so that they don't buy into it. Unfortunately, the chances of said edumication happening on any large scale are slim and voters will be swayed when someone like Senator Clinton says "I sponsored a bill intended to protect our children from exposure to videogame violence, and I will continue to fight to protect our children as President."