Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment News

Lieberman Pleased With Video Game Ratings 136

Posted by CowboyNeal from the backing-off dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lieberman Pleased With Video Game Ratings More

Lieberman Pleased With Video Game Ratings

Comments Filter:

  • Uh Oh.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Delifisek ( 190943 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:54AM (#6318920) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:Uh Oh.... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The "government cartels" that you refer to were either elected directly to office, or hired by those elected to office by a voting public who, when things don't go the way they like, start shouting "Somebody should do something!" or "There should be a law!"

      To paraphrase something once said about enemies: when you find yourself wondering why there's a problem, start first by looking at yourself. If you didn't cause it directly, chances are you had a lot to do with letting it continue. The personal respon

      • Re:Uh Oh.... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Delifisek ( 190943 )
        You may not understand what I try to say, because English is not my native language.

        We (Turks living in Turkiye) laughts law culture in USA.

        I believe in USA law becomes religion and this system miss used by USA people. isn't it ironic?.
        I think most americans proud their Law system (or your movies all lie) and if they find a hole they try to hack law system to gain sometings and if someting start to bad for them they start to shouting "There should be a law!"...

        Because of this nature of your people, your
        • That's an interesting view of American politics from overseas... and pretty accurate I might say.

          I think the problem with America's system of Law, which I do have great respect for, is that we have had great prosperity in the U.S.A for 60 years. Without any huge national crises, the government has been free to address less critical problems, which is good, but unfortunately, government solutions tend to consist almost entirely or increasingl more and complex regulation of more and more aspects of our live
    • ESRB and MPAA are independent from the government...

    • Re:Uh Oh.... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by nyteroot ( 311287 )
      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..
    • The ratings done by the ESRB are self-policed by the gaming industry, and is not run by the government.

  • election year morality (Score:5, Interesting)

    by technoCon ( 18339 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:57AM (#6318932) Homepage Journal
    how come this guy is only a moralist when he's not running for national office?

  • FX! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:57AM (#6318934)
    does anyone remember the First X-rated video game in the 80s? (for Atari) It was basically VERY bad quality porn.

  • Useless ratings? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by martingunnarsson ( 590268 ) <martin&snarl-up,com> on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:59AM (#6318937) Homepage
    Does anybody care about these ratings anyway? Dealers? Parents? Buyers?

    • Re:Useless ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Acidic_Diarrhea ( 641390 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:06AM (#6318961) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • Re:Useless ratings? (Score:3, Informative)

        by nemoest ( 69043 )
        There's no video game rating similar to NC-17...

        What about Adults Only [esrb.org]? Content suitable only for adults. May include graphic depictions of sex and/or violence. Not intended for persons under the age of 18.

        The way I see it, the M ESRB rating is closer to an R movie rating [mpaa.org] since both recommend being 17 or older.

        You just don't see either the NC-17 or Ao rating that often since some stores don't carry either [wired.com].
      • there is, ESRB rating of AO Adults only, its on very few game titles, mostly playboy calander or something like that, you can search for it on the ESRB ratings website. and of course you wouldnt consider the ratings, the ratings weren't ment for you, they are ment for parents of young children who want to buy their children a game. Agreeing with eariler posts, this rating system would be great if people actually used it.
      • ratings are soley for parents
        theres no other real reason for them
        they are for lazy parents and for the smarter ones that use it as a general guideline.

        ratings arent for single adults. I mean, hello.

        parenting...ummm...i would argue that culture is changing, good or bad, better or worse. look at all the different generations, children were raised in extraordinarily different ways in all of them. The human race is still here. The environment and society is different these days. Travel to other countries, see
      • As a tool for parents, yes, ratings are great. In terms of preventing kids from viewing things, regardless of the stance of their parents, or in terms of even the consistency of the ratings, I think there is a lot left to be desired.

        Bear in mind that my experience in the matter is much greater with movie ratings than those of video games, but I think many of the same social mores apply. Most noticable, something I personally would consider to be a very high level of violence may get only a "PG-13" rating

    • Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? :)
    • Does anybody care about these ratings anyway? Dealers? Parents? Buyers?

      From my experince a lot of teens pay attention to the ratings, but for the wrong reasons. I don't know how many times I've seen kids harp on games rated E (It's teh KIDDIE!), and drool over games rated M (It's teh MATURE!!). Tho I suppose it's no different than when I was a kid and Disney movies were considered lame and I wanted to see Porkey's becuase I wasn't supposed to.
    • I've personally used them to decide which new game seemed like something I was in the mood for. Sometimes I want to play something relaxing, and knowing how gruesome the game I'm considering is likely to be is important. I'd need to be in quite a different mood to want to play a life-like violence game than an animated violence game, and they're not necessarily distinguishable until you see what the characters look like after they've been shot.

    • I don't think most parents pay attention to the ratings, this is the companys attempt to cover theor own asses.

      Therein lies the problem. Parents will buy little johnny what ever he wants to shut him up with out actually looking into what it is (Hell, that would mean paying attention to the kid). Later, when mom and dad find out what GTA is really like they freak, and start demanding laws to protect the kids.

      I suppose as long as the games are rated the companys making them can say that they tried, which wo

  • This is the way ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PaulK ( 85154 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:59AM (#6318938)
    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.

    • I'm not sure it could. I don't see anyone saying that these games can't be made - just that they have to be rated so that other people can have an idea as to the content so they can choose whether or not they want to subject themselves or their children there. None of that violates the first amendment in any way.

      The only argument I've heard that brings this into the first amendment realm has been by smaller developers who say that by rating their game as M, that they are being discriminated against and wil

    • we must police ourselves.

      I'm a file sharer, so I'm going to send all my possessions to RIAA right now! Imagine their expression when they realize they can't take my money because they already have it!! I'm so brilliant!!!

    • Re:This is the way ... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Cyno ( 85911 )
      Does the first ammendment give you the right to sell? I think that is what censorship..

      In fact look at our public libraries. We recently passed a law requiring them to censor their nets. How are they required to do this? If they don't, they lose their government funding. A public library losing government funding because they won't censor themselves is the most ironic thing I have seen to date in this "free" country.

      Why do people still think we fight for our freedom? We're giving it up every day we
      • And I might actually be FOR censorship in our libraries IF we used open source software with open black/white lists that everyone could determine if they have content that should be kept out of the library system. But even that is a scary road once you choose to take it. We chose to go with a proprietary commercial solution.

        How would you feel if Microsoft was allowed to build a school and teach your children? How would you feel about putting your children through the Nazi Germany school system? That pr
      • Does the first ammendment give you the right to sell?

        Depending on the context, the answer is a qualified "yes." The main qualification in the US is that we have laws restricting the sales of pornographic materials to minors. If the government (such as in the recent St. Louis case [msnbc.com]) places restrictions on sales of an entertainment product because of content, it can indeed be considered a first amendment issue and dealt with as such by the courts.

      • Actually, the libraries don't lose ALL government funding, just the computer improvement money. My city's medium-sized library gets only about $5K a year (and that's with 50-80 computers), and they are likely to reject the filters (since it would cost them more money to install them).

  • If they like it, then things are bad (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lorien420 ( 473393 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:00AM (#6318943)
    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.
    • While I can understand your concerns, at least we don't have the equivalent of the old Hays Office that strictly enforced what could be shown in a motion picture. If we had that in place for videogames most of the videogames out there would either be not allowed to be sold or have to be severely re-written to conform to what amounts to a censorship code.

    • Re:If they like it, then things are bad (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gerbache ( 540848 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @09:47AM (#6319279)
      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.
      • I think you should be right. But there is a snatch of course.. the parents who care enough about their children to think about this and look at the labels, raise their kids in such a way that they won't likely act on violent games, movies, etc. If these labels weren't there, these parents would still be able to relate to their kids and make sure that their kids would see things in perspective.

        It is the parents who don't or can't care about their kids, who know nothing about what their children do, and who
        • I don't agree at all. I think that the ESRB ratings give parents an opportunity to get a snapshot preview of what could be objectionable content in the video game. If you look at teen-heavy message boards such as the ones at GameFAQs [gamefaqs.com] you'll see a lot of kids asking how they can convince their parents to buy them particular M-rated video games. As a non-scientific sampling of kids who might have even more freedom than others (they're allowed to post messages on the Internet, presumably unsupervised), I th

    • 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.

      So it would be better if any game that appeared to have violent or sexual content could be banned due to some kind of court action for objectionable content? I think it's a lot better to have a ratings system like this one.

      Parents feel helpless in this world. They can watch a movie before their ch

    • the ESRB only puts on a rating that indicates who should and shouldn't buy a game. Stores don't enforce any sort of age-related purchase restriction. A 10 year old kid could buy an M rated game if he wanted to without any problem.

      If anything, the ESRB is very beneficial for people who want to think for themselves. They only provide information about the game (does it involve excesive violence, would parents feel safe letting their 7 year old play it). They offer information that allows you to make a decisi

      • A 10 year old kid could buy an M rated game if he wanted to without any problem.

        Not true. There are quite a few major outlets that enforce these ratings just like with movies. My 15-year-old cousin has had many problems buying M rated games. The largest problem has been getting his mom to care enough to come to the section of the store to buy the game for him.

        The only people who are worried about ESRB ratings are minors whom are afraid that their parents won't buy them the latest game because its rate

    • People that wish to think for themselves write and use GNU software and don't pay much attention to the capitalists.

      The only way they can censor you is if you want their money. Take money out of the picture and you have taken away their authority for censorship.

      You only get these types of ratings when you want to sell stuff at Frys. If none of us wanted to sell stuff there would be no censorship.

  • Ratings they gave for quake... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thelandp ( 632129 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:05AM (#6318958)
    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...

    • There's no reason why the ESRB couldn't have given Quake III: TA a similar -- or the same -- rating. The "animated" seems redundant since all games are animated. But with the increasing levels of detail and realism, the industry will have to do something to make it clearer what is and what isn't suitable for kids, and how graphic the visuals and levels of violence are, or else it will suffer a backlash. If the previews are an accurate reflection of the game, I have no idea what they're going to do when Doom

    • "Mind you, the original Lemmings got "No Descriptors"

      The original Lemmings was made before this revision to the ESRB rating system so of course it got "No descriptors"

  • To be honest... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:09AM (#6318971) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:To be honest... (Score:5, Funny)

      by C.Maggard ( 635855 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:22AM (#6319006)
      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!

    • Don't judge a book (game, movie, etc) by it's cover. Sure, most games make it pretty well known on the cover what the content is, but there's a lot of really basic looking covers out there, and you really don't know what it is about until you play it. Besides, this is just like movie ratings, which we've had in place now for years without much of a problem. (I know, most filmmakers refuse to make NC-17 movies for fear that they will not be sold, but the fact that they can try to make them says to me that th
    • "I always thought the covers of video games constituted a decent rating system all by themselves."
      • What about "Black and White" ... is that a game about racial equality?

    • Duh. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Surak ( 18578 ) * <{moc.skcolbliam} {ta} {karus}> on Saturday June 28, 2003 @10:53AM (#6319559) Homepage Journal
      The design of the games cover tells you what market they are targetting. Look at the cover of Quake III Arena. Clearly they aren't targetting 6-year-olds.

      Plus covers usually have screenshots because - duh - screenshots sell games. You can judge for yourself what the game is like by looking at the screenshot.

      The reason ratings exist have nothing to do with parental judgement calls. Any parent with half a brain can look at Vice City and clearly see that it's not a good game for young children and it's likely to have violence that will be too scary for them.

      What it boils down to is lazy, stupid parents who let their kids buy or rent games without looking at the cover first. If you want to be the judge of what your kids play and don't play then *you* (yes, YOU) have to look at what they're playing. But now, instead, you can just say 'hey, I'm not going to let you play any game rather over E (everyone) or any game rated M (for mature) or T (for teen) or whatever.

      I, for one, wouldn't trust such systems. I, and I alone, will be the judge of what games my kids play. Why do you need a ratings system if you *know* your kids are playing. Simply set down the hard-and-fast rule that I'm not going to let you play a game until I see the game cover or the game itself. My father took me to "R" rated movies. He based his decision on what movies I should see based on their *content* and not on their rating. If he felt the movie had themes that were too mature, I didn't get to see those movies. If the movie got an "R" rating due to language, then, oh well, words never hurt anyone -- especially when I reached the age to know how to use my own discretion in choosing words to be used in polite conversation.

      It is both the right and responsibility of a parent to decide what content is and is not too mature for their level of development. Not some stupid ratings board.

      • On the other hand... I was a kid not so very long ago. And it wasn't much of an issue with video games, but with movies... It saved a lot of arguments, I think. What exactly is the line between Crazy Taxi and Vice City? Okay, now tell your kid. And bear in mind that they really want to play VC. Now, would you rather hanve that discussion, or just tell them, 'Well, it's rated M. Let me take a look at it, but I don't think so?' You can always make an exception, my mom let me see a lot of R rated movie
      • Exhibit A--The happy tree friendsGo look at the home page quickly, then watch a few of the episodes (I think they use flash, sorry). A little different from what you expected. What most of us have to realize is that these ratings aren't there to help the parents that actually take some time out of their day to help make good entertainment decisions, they are there for the parent who spends 5 sec deciding which game to buy Johnny before Jenny starts screaming, and Jordan has left the aisle following a bug
      • I, for one, wouldn't trust such systems. I, and I alone, will be the judge of what games my kids play.

        So you're going to play every game your child is interested in all the way through before permitting them to see it? Or are you simply going to give them only hand-me-down games that you've already played? One way you're wasting hours upon hours of time and the other you're restricting your child to having exactly the same taste in games that you do. Good stuff, indeed.

  • Despite being pleased with the ESRB's rating system, the senator had some rather harsh words for the video game industry.

    "I am, however, absolutely disgusted by the material our children are subjected to in some of these games. Not only the violence, gore, and sexuality, but also the realism or, more importantly, the blatant lack of realism depicted in these games. I mean, seriously, what kind of world is this if a fat Italian guy won't shoot a hooker [com.com]?" Lieberman said.

    • You'd think he'd be used to the illicit sex and extraneous violence, seeing as he works in congress...
    • but also the realism or, more importantly, the blatant lack of realism depicted in these games

      Yes! The games these days aren't nearly realistic enough. We need holodeck technology implemented immediately to rectify this situation.

      /sarcasm off

      I don't know about the rest of the world, but I play games to step away from reality for a little bit. Its the same reason I read fiction or go to the movies.

  • I know why Liberman likes the improvements. (Score:5, Informative)

    by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:25AM (#6319019)
    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).

  • What changed was... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Garg ( 35772 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:42AM (#6319066) Homepage
    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
    • You mean, "A lot of money must have changed hands".

      Kohl's got $300 million in the bank from the sale of his family grocery chain. Dude's weird, but not buyable.



      Watch this space, I'll be running against him in '06.

  • Lieberman's Lolly (Score:5, Informative)

    by looie ( 9995 ) <michael@trollope.org> on Saturday June 28, 2003 @09:07AM (#6319142) Homepage
    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)


    • well, according to MoveOn's Democratic Party "pseudo-primary" vote this week, Lieberman only got 1.92% of the 317,647 votes. He will probably NOT be the next Democratic Party nominee. Of course, MoveOn's members are a self-selected group of very liberal, very politically active people, so their results might not mirror the voting public's. :-)

      http://moveon.org/pac/primary/report.html [moveon.org]

      btw, Dean had 43.87% and Kucinichi had 23.93%.

  • The real question is whether or not they are used (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PierceLabs ( 549351 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @09:33AM (#6319233)
    I have always been curious as to whether or not parents are really using these systems. Certainly parents find out about certain games such as Grand Theft Auto and restrict the purchase of those games, but on the whole do parents really look at stuff like Command and Conquer, Half Life 2, and Star Wars Galaxies and say ('hmmmm... I should check the rating on this')? There are many very violent games that kinda squeek through the system unchecked would be my guess.

    • 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

  • Lieberman (Score:4, Funny)

    by Daimaou ( 97573 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @09:56AM (#6319315)
    I don't know why, but Lieberman reminds me of the dad on that old TV show ALF. I can even imagine an entire episode devoted to the wrongness of playing Grand Theft Auto III.
  • Just because they're pleased with the changes doesn't mean that they're still not pushing for more.

  • A lot must have changed at the ESRB in the last seven months since both these men wanted congressional hearings on video game ratings.

    Maybe they realized that a Democrat who acts like a Republican is going to lose to a Republican.

  • Exactly what he wants you to think... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by telstar ( 236404 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @10:19AM (#6319411)
    " A lot must have changed at the ESRB in the last seven months since both these men wanted congressional hearings on video game ratings."
    • Nothing must have changed. Ya see, by Lieberman declaring that he's pleased with how things are, he can add this to his list of successful battles. Now it'll be a campaign-trail talking point.It seems that the poster of this story fell right into his trap ... and I'm sure many Americans will too.

  • So Once Again (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward


    In American Culture, war is ok, but sex is bad.

    War good, sex bad.

    Sometimes, America being only 200 years old is painfully obvious.

  • rating system has limited success? (Score:4, Informative)

    by majcher ( 26219 ) <slashdot@ma j c h e r .com> on Saturday June 28, 2003 @10:44AM (#6319525) Homepage
    According to the current You Decide [kqed.org] feature at KQED.org, some experts claim that the current rating system has had "limited success [kqed.org]". That is, even though the ratings may be appropriate for the games, they are rarely, if ever enforced. Of course, others disagree altogether:

    "Parents found 13 percent of the games rated 'E' to be clearly objectionable for children 3-7. This year [parents] would have assigned an 'M' to 31 percent of the 'T' games. Our parents think that the ESRB is starting to rate 'on a curve.'"

    • 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.

  • ...put a huge amount of blame from the Columbine incidents and the similar events upon video games and movies?

    Sure, the rating system works fine. But only in a the same sense that people can tell you what PG-13 means, or R for that matter. We know and understand the rating systems, that's not the problem. What the problem seems to be is the individual enforcement of this in singular households.

    Are they just giving themselves a pat on the back for creating a measurement system, or trying to avert the p

  • ESRB facts and IMHO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nxs212 ( 303580 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @11:01AM (#6319596)
    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.

  • Hypocrites (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Emperor Tiberius ( 673354 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @11:10AM (#6319642) Homepage
    The problem with the rating system is the ESRB is so hypocritical. Alice, the game where evil/demented Alice returns to Wonderland and hacks up card guards with a knife along with other "wicked" stuff is only rated T for teen. The game has blood, gore, it might as well have Alice stripping. Yet, it's rated teen.

    Now let's look at Kingpin, filled with racial slurs, lead pipe bludgeonings, f**k in every line, murder, gore, blood, the works. Kingpin even had a yellow tape around it that said "For 18 Years of Age ONLY," when it shipped. Stores were supposed to put it on the top shelf and only sell it to adults. Yet, it's rated M for Mature (17+), not Adults Only.

    Finally there is Duke Nukem, Mr. Lieberman's "favorite" scapegoat. If you guys remember he was the first to lobby to the ESRB that the game be boosted from mature to adults only because it had nudity. His case didn't go through, but as far as I know, Duke is the only game that really had and pushed nudity. IIRC, Lieberman lost his case because of the "adult mode" integration.

    Never-the-less, I know there is hypocrisy in the ratings, but how does it run? By company, by genre, by name? We need a more impartial rating company, that isn't comprised of Nielsen raters and people like Joe Lieberman.
    • I really see this as a 'make money' idea for them rather than being hypocritical. As buisnessmen surely they understand that the ratings are only informative, and not legally enforceable (unless you count being grounded by parents?), and thus is a great source of recognition and thus income. This means that they get the praise and appreciation from others from 'informing' the public about a games contents, rather than the 'enforcing' image they give off. Through all of that any fool would still remember th

      • Re:Hypocrites (Score:2, Informative)

        by Emperor Tiberius ( 673354 )
        Stores like Wal-Mart and now Hasting, as well as CompUSA now "enforce" the ratings. Say, you're sixteen and you're trying to buy HL, they'll actually ask for a state ID card, or drivers license to see if you're seventeen or older. Same thing with AO, and I think Wal-Mart is now doing the teens rating as well. Kind of stupid if you ask me, it's hurting their business more than they think.

        Thank god, I'm not a minor.
        • Is that even legal? It would seem like the store is enforcing an non universal policy for a universal product. That cant be right, something just doesnt smell right with that.
          • No idea, really. I know they do it, I've seen them card kids for games like HL and Enter The Matrix. Their store, their rules, I suppose. It's similiar to when B&N stopped selling Maxim/Stuff to people 16 years of age. They put signs up advising of the change and everything.

            It just hurts their business, eventually they'll figure it out.
  • ...the major video game publishers paid up.
  • The only ones who are going to care about those ratings are the people who think saying "fuck" on the TV is what destroys the youth, and who monitor everything their kids are doing.

    Besides, I am quite sure the kids who warez the games don't give a rats ass about the ratings. This has accomplished very little. Except for getting kids more excited about titles with XXX-18-dirty-bloody-evil ratings ;)

  • just read the f***ing constitution (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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
    • You have to keep in mind that its not really a regulation policy, but an informative one. They can't say No! it is illegal for your son to play this game! But they can inform the parents of what is in the game and let them decide. Completely constitutional that way, even if devious.

  • Thanks for the help, guys. (Score:4, Funny)

    by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @11:27AM (#6319727) Journal
    Without Sens. Lieberman and the other guy, I wouldn't be able to tell exactly which kind of violence I'm getting in my games. This will make it much easier to feed my psychosis on a budget. Who says the government doesn't know what it's doing?
  • I'm pleased that Lieberman garnered only 1.9 percent of the vote in the MoveOn.org [moveon.org] primary. This puts him right next to Al Sharpton on the (lack of) poularity scale with likely democratic voters. I'm pleased the days of sell-out, wannabee Republican DLC democrats like Lieberman, Gore and Clinton are coming to an end. Goodbye and good riddance, Joe. L
  • A lot must have changed at the ESRB in the last seven months since both these men wanted congressional hearings on video game ratings.

    The video game industry threw money at them.
  • did the industry send them some pork money to call off the attack?

    or, maybe, they have bigger fish to fry now.

  • Open Secrets didn't have it (Score:3, Informative)

    by alizard ( 107678 ) <alizard.ecis@com> on Saturday June 28, 2003 @02:08PM (#6320524) Homepage
    Open Secrets doesn't break out video games as a separate category from entertainment yet.

    Anybody know how much they paid Lieberman off via campaign contribution to decide video games are no longer Satanic EVIL!!! ?

    While it isn't necessarily true that Lieberman's previous call for censorship and regulation in that industry were in fact, a shakedown intended to get them to pay him "protection" money, that's the way to bet.

  • The new content lables tell you so much, but like the blurb on the back of the box, it never tells you if the game actaully sucks or not.

    And speaking of fair warning, congressmen should have warning labels too, such as how much money you need to "contribute" to get them to attack or abandon the targets you desire. It's not that the American political system is corrupt, its just that we elect officals that are to expensive for the common man to buy off.

  • Guns don't kill people, videogames do.
  • (*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

  • On first sight... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BoB_suxx0r ( 606797 )
    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
  • Back in the late 80s, early 90s when they started putting the "Parental Advisory Explicit Lyrics" labels on music, I remember seeing those CDs/Cassettes fly off of the shelves.

    The 2 Live Crew got rich because of those labels. Their music was awful, funny but awful. They sold millions of records because of that little sticker.

    Those labels are tantamount to labeling a product like this "Rich old white people don't want you to buy this. Stick it to the man and purchase me!"

    This is pure idiocy.

    LK

Slashdot Top Deals

Garbage In -- Gospel Out.

Close