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."

Date based or procedural content?

[tepples]

Video game reviewers should be required to review the entire content of a game to ensure the accuracy of the rating.

How would this work in cases of games that literally take 365 days to complete, such as Animal Crossing, or procedural content that has well over 4.2 billion combinations, such as Spore?

Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[Infonaut]

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.

Doesn't matter if it is not workable

[khchung]

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.

Suggestion

[justinlee37]

I'm all for a standardized system of rating games, but the problem is that games are just TOO LONG to view entirely. Lawmakers from older generations must not understand this. A movie can easily be viewed in entirety because it is only about 2 hours long -- a game can be upwards of 80 hours and beyond! A potential solution is to retain the system of viewing a developer-prepared reel, but to make this reel publicly available at the time it is sent to the ESRB. Also establish laws that hold the developers financially liable if a game is found to have more graphic content than represented by the original reel -- if lying to the ESRB can sink your company into debt, then it simply won't happen. As it is right now, most people don't have a clue about what sort of arcane methodology the ESRB employs, and there's basically no culpability for error; legally establishing who is liable and making the methodology transparent to the public will fix the ratings issue without requiring the significant expenditure of time and money required to view all games in entirety, a hoop that could potentially damage the industry. Additionally, lawmakers need to understand that the nature of most PC games is that they are "editable" -- through modifications, mods. You all know that, but honestly, sometimes I think that some people don't, and this is for them. If I mod The Sims 2 to show all of the women topless, that's not a feature that was included with the game that the developer should be liable for -- the equivalent of this is to buy a movie, take it home, and use video-editing software to make it appear as though all of the actresses are topless. Should the producers of the movie be liable if I do that to a PG-13 film? Holding developers liable for the explicit content contained in mods will sink the industry -- and it's an industry a lot of voters care about!

E is for "Drinking Game"

[loftling]

I work at Three Rings Design, makers of Puzzle Pirates [puzzlepirates.com].

The game is free to download, but we had a publisher and put out a box version with some extra goodies. The game was sent off to be rated and they came back with an "E" rating, to which we replied "Really? Even though there's a drinking game in there?" It's not a central part of Puzzle Pirates, but is easily found and playable at any Inn: pass out and miss a turn.

They hadn't even noticed, but after our helpful idiocy they bumped us to "T".

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[KDR_11k]

Dunno but Animal Crossing got rated in Germany which does require going through all content in a game. I think they just demand a testing build that allows easier access to such content. If the test build and final build differ in content the rating is revoked (see e.g. Far Cry).

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Jekler]

I agree. In the current generation of games, it's seldom possible to "review the entire content of a game". There's hardcore gamers who go through games multiple times and don't even see all the content for years because of subplots they didn't know how to activate, or some obscure combination of factors that unlocks other content. And what about patches that dramatically alter the game's content? Do we need a ratings panel to review every patch for every game?

Games like GTA, The Elder Scrolls series, and other dynamic world games would be virtually impossible to review without there being hundreds of ratings reviewers who collaborate to systematically make different choices than each other. And then there are player mods to consider. Games like Half-Life become an entirely different beast once a few mods start getting popular.

I think the biggest problem for the idea will be the games we see that become completely dynamic, where all game world content is generated differently every single time. It's like asking someone to play through entire content of Dungeons and Dragons (the tabletop game). Make sure you visit every city, plane, run every adventure module, etc. That shouldn't take any more than 6000 years.

I can imagine the good ol' senator shitting a brick after hearing how it's done. "What do you mean they can just make this crap up as they go along? It's not fair! I want it rated!"

How to get moderated flamebait - wider issues

[Flying pig]

I know I'm going to be ignored or down moderated, but can you lot think for one microsecond beyond your obsession with being allowed to watch anything at all that you want on your computers? There *is* a wider society out there and, no, I am not necessarily "thinking of the children".

An issue that the US needs to address is that it has created a huge rod for its own back by providing vast outpourings of violent content. "24" is a good example. It is quite amazingly good propaganda for Islamic fundamentalists, because it portrays extreme violence as being appropriate in dealing with any perceived threat. How can you tell fundamentalists that beheading hostages is wrong when it is clearly behaviour approved of so long as it is by Americans? How can you persuade Iraqis that the US army doesn't spend its time torturing them when they can pass around professionally made videos showing that this is exactly how Americans behave when they want something? I am quite sure that Al-Queda recruiting and training camps spend more time showing their gullible trainees mainstream American material than their own videos because they can use it to "prove" that the US will go to any lengths at all to get what it wants.

I think there is a case to be made that game producers should be required to document their content. It should not be necessary for reviewers to sit through games. Somewhere there are surely storyboards, scripts, and a system map. It should be possible to identify content against an agreed set of criteria and to identify risk areas ("Players can create anatomically detailed avatars."

Please note this is not censorship. It merely applies the same level of disclosure to a game as applies to a book. Hiding extremely violent content in difficult to access levels of a game is not an excuse for not documenting content, even if that documentation is necessarily restricted in circulation

The producers of a film and the publishers of a book make the entire content readily available for assessment. This has not prevented the circulation of either. I cannot see why the same standard of disclosure should not apply to games. I suspect that an issue in the response here is that some of the younger /. readers get kicks out of doing something which they think is a closed book to the adult world. I have news for them. Games are produced by corporations: you are not doing something counter-cultural, you are doing something that is ultimately for the benefit of midle aged suits. In the same way there is nothing rebellious about teenagers drinking whisky; you are just doing what the drink marketing people are trying to persuade you to do through carefully judged advertising.

Re:won't survive

[Fred_A]

You mean you actually get to vote for someone in the US ? Here we mostly vote against the other guy...

I've yet to see a candidate I would actually consider voting for instead of just seeing it like a lesser evil. :(

Re:Funny you should mention 'gore'

[NayDizz]

Here's [joesapt.net] the transcript in its entirety. Zappa's testimony [joesapt.net] is classic.

Re:Sounds like I need to educate myself

[ucblockhead]

That's not true. In 1900, the Republicans were socially *liberal* and fiscally conservative. (According to the standards of the day, of course.) In 1900, nearly all African-Americans were Republicans because in 1900, it was the Republicans who were the civil rights party. Roosevelt wasn't by any means a "radical". He was right in line with his party on social issues, and a moderate on fiscal issues. (i.e. willing to negotiate with unions and pass worker-protection legislation, unlike his party cohorts but still quite anti-socialist.)

(Otherwise you are correct.)