Pols want "Truth in Video Game Rating Act"
by Christopher Grant 
{ Aug 7th 2006 at 10:45AM }
The ever vigilant Game Politics brings word of yet another video game bill (YAVGB), this one brought to you by a bipartisan group of Congressman spearheaded by Florida Republican Cliff Stearns, seeking "truth in video game ratings." Of course, Stearns is also the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, the same Subcommittee that The Daily Show's Jon Stewart teased for being out-of-touch in June. So what are they seeking with bill HR 5912:
- "Rating games on only partial content: Unlike the present system, the ESRB would be forced to play games in their entirety." This will immediately become the dream job of gamers everywhere.
- "Withholding content: Publishers would be on the hook for failing to completely reveal content to the ESRB." Also known as Hot Coffee and Orc boobies are bad.
- "Gross mischaracterization of content: Although not specifically named, the ESRB would be barred from 'grossly mischaracterizing' (as defined by the FTC) game content." So wait, it wasn't coffee?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
HeartbreakRidge @ Aug 7th 2006 10:50AM
On your last point, keep in mind that EVERY congressman/woman is running for reelection this fall (with the exceptions being retirees), so that's not saying much.
Kinsman @ Aug 7th 2006 10:55AM
"The ESRB would be forced to play games in their entirety."
Well, god help them if Nethack is ever ported to the Wii or something..
Ultimatallica @ Aug 7th 2006 10:58AM
Well this doesn't seem that bad. Compared to what they were demanding before, that is.
DG @ Aug 7th 2006 11:05AM
All Representatives are running for reelection because they are elected to two-year terms. Not all Senators, however, are running because they are elected to six-year terms. Therefore, not all Congressmen/women are running for reelection.
I'm still confused as to why orc breasts and simulated fellatio would trigger such a reaction, but all kinds of mutilation, dismemberment, disembowelment other assorted acts of violence are often overlooked. I really don't get American priorites: Sex is bad and violence is good. Huh.
Aaron @ Aug 7th 2006 11:07AM
This doesn't seem all that bad. It sort of serves as a bridge between the total freedom of video games and banning them from certain groups.
Thereby, it manages to protect both children and adults who are gaming fans.
Maybe we will also see the congress doing something to create jobs...if the ESRB has to play all games in their entirety, that is a lot of employees for the ESRB (and perhaps a much higher cost for video games one can imagine).
Ignignokt @ Aug 7th 2006 11:07AM
In response to #1. Congress includes the senate. You are just plain wrong. Not every congressman is running for reelection in the fall. If you're going to try to argue stuff like that, at least be right.
Mabui @ Aug 7th 2006 11:08AM
- I think it is a good idea to put developers on the hook for what sort of content is in their game. Every company has game testers, just give them an extra pad of paper or hire one more guy to go over it with a fine tooth comb about what kind of content is to be had.
- Making them play the entire game will only push release dates back, especially for those games that require 40+ hours, not to mension more sandbox style games where even more things must be investigated.
Lets face it, many reviewers give a game a score even though they themselves were unable to finish it. With the massive difficulty level of some games, wouldn't that mean they would be unable to be rated?
Brian @ Aug 7th 2006 11:10AM
Jeez, I hope none of these congressmen/women ever read a "Where's Waldo" book. There were boobs all over the place! Talk about your easter eggs.
Nicolas Redfern @ Aug 7th 2006 11:16AM
Damn strange American priorities.
PEGI has a much better balance
sockatume @ Aug 7th 2006 11:19AM
Interesting "withholding content" angle. In the UK, developers are obliged to get games rated by the BBFC if they include certain content (graphic violence or sexual content, basically), the government body responsible for film ratings. Where a game is particularly large, publishers will send recordings of potentially problematic content: for example, a compilation tape of all the fatalities in Mortal Kombat. They may also send along cheat codes and the like to allow the BBFC to quickly assess different parts of the game. So for some publishers this will already be familiar.
The upside of an outwardly totalitarian organisation like the BBFC is that the responsibility is (in theory) shifted from the publisher and stores onto the rating organisation (to get the rating right) and the customers (to observe and respect the rating). Of course the downside is the possibility of self-censorship in order to avoid a high rating.
SuicideNinja @ Aug 7th 2006 11:19AM
"Unlike the present system, the ESRB would be forced to play games in their entirety."
It sucks to be them actually. Do you know how many BAD titles come out compared to good ones? I'm sure about 90% or more of those thousands PS2 compatible games would be painful to play ALL the way through.
This scapegoating by our government officials is getting really old. They have no idea what they are talking about yet feel the dire need to assign blame to the subject.
KilgoreTrout XL @ Aug 7th 2006 11:20AM
The most interesting aspect of this bill is requirement that a Comptroller General's study be conducted on the video game industry.
Specifically, Section 3(a)(4) mandates an inquiry into whether Publishers target advertising and marketing campaigns of mature video games towards children.
Putting aside whether or not they do target these ads to kids, it immediately reminded me of the manner in which big tobacco was vilified. I can't think of any other valid analogy to such an
inquiry in the entertainment industry, or any other for that matter.
Networks advertise their most popular and normally violent shows during times they know children will watch with relative impugnity. Marketing campaigns and ads of hugely violent Motion Pictures are likewise free from such inquiry.
Further, besides pandering to parents' concerns, which were raised by the TV shows telling them to have such concerns, what would be congress' recourse if these publishers are found to be marketing these games to kids? Even using its near-ubiquitous
commerce power, the US Congress still cannot pass a law that affects speech in a manner that isn't content-neutral. Any punishment for advertising to children would seemingly have to affect the entire
entertainment industry (and of course could only come after they figure out how to legislate where states have as yet failed.)
And, to that effect, you can bet that the motion
pictures industry wants to keep itself separated from video games, and will lobby against any legislation towards the inquiry required
in Sec 3(a)(5).
boohiss @ Aug 7th 2006 11:24AM
These are good ideas, but they should be imposed by the ESRB, not by any government organization.
32_Footsteps @ Aug 7th 2006 11:31AM
Hmm... part of this bill seems pointless.
First, point #1 is excellent. My biggest beef with the ESRB is that they don't see enough of the game and mostly trust just what the manufacturer claims is in the game. The ESRB should have instituted this ages ago.
Point #2 is already something the ESRB does. Publishers are subject to fines if they're caught lying to the ESRB. I don't know how much these fines are, but the ESRB is very strict (but surprisingly under the radar) about it.
Point #3 is also pointless. The ESRB is very careful about defining content. The only time problems arise is when they don't catch someone lying to them (see #1).
Of course, I don't know how much legal grounds congress has to mandate this of the ESRB. It wouldn't surprise me to find that this is unconstitutional, no matter how much of a good idea #1 is.
Jdoki @ Aug 7th 2006 11:37AM
As a Brtiish citizen I think I must be missing something in all the furore around rating video games.
In the UK we use the same system as movies - so we have 15 rated and 18 rated for the top end stuff. It is the responsibility of the shop to not sell to people under that age (I've seen people asked for proof of age numerous times in my local GAME). We also have the ESRB rating which gives us more detail on what the game contains... drugs, sex, violence, bad language, and a suitability age rating such as 16+, Teen etc.
It's not perfect, but it seems sensible to me.
Why is it such an issue to try and protect minors from watching and enacting violence in video games? Is there as much uproar about movie ratings in the US?
I keep hearing that it's unconstitutional to enforce ratings on games - but surely common sense, a desire to protect the vulnerable, and a means to make parents and stores responsible for their actions should be welcomed?
But like I say, I may be missing something here. I'm not having a dig at the US, I'm genuinely interested in what the problem is.
Brian @ Aug 7th 2006 11:37AM
#8 and 6,
This is a House subcommitee and the title "Congressman/woman" refers only to people in the House of Representatives, senators are called "Senator". Try taking 8th grade civics.
Jdoki @ Aug 7th 2006 11:39AM
Correction..I believe it's the PEGI rating scheme we use - not ESRB.
Brian @ Aug 7th 2006 11:42AM
#15,
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I used the word "senator" in my post. Try taking an 8th grade reading class.
pandlcg @ Aug 7th 2006 11:45AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressman
From Link:
It is important to note that although it is technically a term for members of either house, "Congressman/woman" is used almost exclusively to refer to members of the lower house in the United States in formal address. Indeed, it would likely be considered a faux pas to refer to a member of the United States Senate as "Congressman/Congresswoman"
So i guess it is for either house, but used normally for only House members.
idioteraser @ Aug 7th 2006 11:59AM
Ahem 99.999 of the time the ESRB rating is right as rain even though they don't play through the game. You do realize they don't see the finished games but just a tape with the most extreme content proposed by the developer. Shit the ESRB is a hundred times more consistent with their ratings then the Motion Picture Association of America.
When the rating isn't right it's because the developer withheld the content in the case of Oblivion that was extremely true.
Notice two incidents compared to dozens for the MPAA.
Sorry but the law is out of touch and is just some feel good legislation garbage that is a waste of taxpayer time and money.
Twist @ Aug 7th 2006 12:00PM
I have to agree with the first point. Rating the games based on a small subsection of the content isn't a very good idea. The way it currently works as I understand it is that the developers/publishers actually just submit a video featuring scenes from the game, so the game isn't actually played by anyone at the ESRB. Now then actually playing the games to completion will be a major undertaking. The ESRB will definitely need more staff. It just so happens that I am looking for a job ;)
DG @ Aug 7th 2006 12:04PM
Intentionally belaboring the point, to say that all Congressmen and women are running for reelection is factually inaccurate. If a person says "I hate Congress," they are referring to both Houses. Ergo, not every congressman or woman is running for reelection.
And I'll call senators "congressmen" all day long. I pay their salary, they can faux pas their face.
Encodes @ Aug 7th 2006 12:05PM
wheres waldo books had breasts? i dont remember that... maybe i should go get my copies out of the loft :)
Matt Paprocki @ Aug 7th 2006 12:08PM
"My biggest beef with the ESRB is that they don't see enough of the game and mostly trust just what the manufacturer claims is in the game. The ESRB should have instituted this ages ago."
They don't do it because it's impossible. How do you rate Madden? When have you played "the entire game?" When do you review a MMO? You can reach the highest character levels and still not see the majority of the game. What about GTA? People put in a hundred hours and still have more to see.
The politicans simply don't understand this. You can't rate them like the film industry because the medium so different.
sockatume @ Aug 7th 2006 12:09PM
#19: I think the idea is that they include some oversight. That'd be good for the ESRB in the sense that it offloads some of the responsibility to the government. On the other hand this is being used to push a lot of agendas (I had overlooked the requirement for an inquiry which #11 points out) so it's probably not all sunshine and ladybugs.
Giant Food Monster @ Aug 7th 2006 12:10PM
This is garbage. You can not blame devs for user created content. You can not hold up the industry for people to play 80 hour games. They represent their products as they are. Hot Coffee is the biggest load of crap. If they want to stop Hot Coffee from happening, come down on the people that make action replays. This makes me sick!
HeartbreakRidge @ Aug 7th 2006 12:30PM
I will add only that in this specific context, we are discussing a bill introduced in the House and therefore cosponsored by other members of the House, so to throw in the detail that the bill's cosponors are running for relection means less than might appear, because all members of the House are running.
If this were a Senate bill, the point would be more meaningful. That is all I meant.
gozirah @ Aug 7th 2006 12:43PM
This legislation may sound like a good compromise, but there are two slippery slopes:
1) *Laws* regarding content are tricky, since there is a lot of subjectivity in gauging what constitutes lewd, or overly violent depictions. ESRB is self-imposed by the industry. Self censoring doesn't infringe on freedom of expression. Using ESRB or equivalent content assessment cannot infringe on freedom of expression, unless harmful influence on kids or other people is scientifically proven. I'm not saying that kids should immerse themselves in violent games. I am just saying that if you let the guvment restrict content, then it's V for Vendetta for future generations.
2) Reviewing every single minute is not only impractical, it may be impossible. Law makers would ask that the industry cry a river for complaining about costs of review. But if you consider procedural programming in contrast to cutscenes, you'll realize that future games can create new content ad infinitum. Sure, Spore is unlikely to create something more violent or more sexy in hour 3000 than in a first sample hour of gaming, but you simply cannot review content that has not been made yet.
32_Footsteps @ Aug 7th 2006 12:56PM
Well, the rational workaround for user-generated content is that it's effectively unrated, and you only rate what the manufacturer specifically puts in the game.
Take Mario Kart DS for instance. I've seen people use all sorts of body parts and objectionable images (such as the swastika) for their personal symbol. Does this mean that the game should be rated M? Of course not, and nobody is going to argue that it should.
Similarly, with Spore, it's a question of what will come in the game pre-made. If the defaults set up that there are creatures that bleed red, then the descriptors will note it. If there are human-like beings as a default that go about naked, the game will note it.
But if all that content is generated by the players, then it's unrateable. As long as you rate what comes as a default, then the ESRB did the best it can.
Still, it's a sad day when you can't look at an orc's nibblies anymore.
Babylonian @ Aug 7th 2006 1:13PM
"Gross mischaracterization"? The only thing I could think of that is misleading is the label 'Suggestive themes'.
John H. @ Aug 7th 2006 1:36PM
Oh dear god. There is no force on this earth more dangerous than a congressperson feelin' anxious over his chances at reelection. They'll leap at the nearest hot-button issue and jump all over that button, all in the name of scaring people into voting for them.
And look at that guy's portrait! Sears portrait studio meets half-off sale on flags!
Huzzah!! @ Aug 7th 2006 1:40PM
This is pointless. "Hot Coffee" and "Orc boobies"(lol) were HACKS! Someone paid to just play through the game will not HACK into it!
This is also the reason I don't think GTA should have been changed to AO.
Erik @ Aug 7th 2006 1:51PM
You guys are missing the obvious plunder in this article. The guy is from Florida. Since when has there been good news out of this state? And I should know, I live in it!
Tiago @ Aug 7th 2006 2:05PM
American congressmen really need to lighten tthe f*** up. That doesn't look like any kind of government it looks like an attention whore circus.
I'm already picturing some guy at ESBR having to play every inch of final fantasy XIII in one day to assert all it's content.
Publishers witholding information is one thing. Mods and hacks made by users are another.
You don't blame weapons manufacturers because some guy bought a handgun and turned it into an automatic weapon. So why blame game publishers for something they didn't do? Blame modders, but blame them for what, for making nude mods? I don't know for american congressmen but I was born naked... lol Maybe if they passed a law to better sexual education in schools it would be more productive?
Stoli @ Aug 7th 2006 2:20PM
As long as politicians continue to ramble on about ONLY video games (and not other forms of media), I just can't take them seriously. The ESRB is good. Not perfect, but good. Stearns should find something worthwhile to do with his time.
Shagi @ Aug 7th 2006 2:21PM
Last time I submitted a game to the ESRB (granted it was a while ago) I had to include a VHS take that showed me playing the game from begining to end. I don't know if they watched the whole thing or not but at least they use to require it.
Brian Sexton @ Aug 7th 2006 3:12PM
"Publishers would be on the hook for failing to completely reveal content to the ESRB."
Then the ESRB would probably either refuse to rate long games or require a fee so large that small publishers would be prevented from securing ratings, harming their marketability and sales as well as innovation and competition. That is a Very Bad Idea.
Brian Sexton @ Aug 7th 2006 3:17PM
And what about non-linear games, in which the content may change based upon the sequence of events? This is absurd.
Psaakyrn @ Aug 7th 2006 9:35PM
To those who think this is pointless:
You do realize that this would in effect give ERSB government backing. I believe this is important enough for a newspost, as opposed to the cliche and boring "news" of yet another county trying to impose it's own laws and failing respectively. The 3rd point is of greatest harm though, I'm going to guess they'll try to push all intentionally violent games into the T bracket at minimum.
Though frankly, I think the "playing game entirely" clause is unfeasable. E.g. some games requires multiple playthroughs to get all endings (to inflate game-time).
DocGonzo @ Aug 8th 2006 10:33AM
#11
You know, it might not be a bad thing. Games that are horrible would simply be unrateable, because the ESRB guys simply couldn't handle the crap. The entire industry would benefit from this, I think.
As to games having ratings changed based on the end-user applying a mod or hack...UTTER BULLSHIT. Why hasn't every single Tomb Raider game been retroactively re-rated to AO?