Brownback Proposes Game Ratings Bill in Senate

Lost Watcher:
Pointing this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15032063/
Someone prolly will use it.

I just read that - I think the "videogames turn kids into killers" angle might not work, since the shooter was apparently 30-50 years old.

“The current POLITICAL system needs improvement,” Brownback said, “because POLITICIANS do not RESEARCH the full ISSUE of games and don’t even play the games they are CRITICIZING. For SENATORS to be meaningful and worthy of a parent’s trust, the GOVERNMENT must be more objective and accurate.”

Fixed it for you, Senator Brownnose.

@Yukimura

A few points:

1) I'm not lecturing about government run media, I'm mentioning this grossly exagerrated view you have about our media. The government does not censor to fit an agenda, otherwise we wouldn't have these lovely shows about the secret government documents, get to laugh at Tony Blair's failings or purchase Grand Theft Auto without any backlash against it.
2) The gun laws did accomplish what they were set out to do, it removed away impulse killings. Gun control will not rule out planned criminals, this is accepted, but most murders/attacks are done as a spur of the moment thing. By removing the gun from the household you take away that risk. Its a specific risk your going after and obviously does not effect actual planned crime but despite what you may believe it has helped. We have different self defence laws in place which also contribute, laws I will agree are in the wrong. You cannot kill someone for entering your house/threatening you unless they were preventing you from escaping or putting you in utter danger. You are however allowed to use reasonable force which does allow physical attacks, stabbing etc...provided it was reasonable. The most obvious example of when this was not the case would be the farmer who planned an attack on tresspassers, laid traps and then shot them when they attempted to flee.
3) London is a very busy place, and small to boot. Arizona is much bigger and can house more people. Of course there will be a greater crime count in a smaller contained area then in a large open one. I think the main reason that crime is reported as increasing is simply that, its being reported. More and more people are now reporting crime when previously they didn't, in addition Police methods of recording crime has improved. You'll find the same statistics in Arizona as well I'd wager.
4) Wow, your compairing the labour government (who has been the biggest support of your US administration to date) to the Nazi party? Do we ban news stories about governemnt mistakes? No. Do we ban reports that the government is secretly funding wars? No. Do we prohibit films which show a certain agenda? No. The last time I remember a film being banned was on video release and even then only for a short time (it was shown on cinema first). Gameswise, we haven't banned anything you country didn't refuse to rate and we happily have 18 rated games on shelves.
5) I don't want games censored any more then you do, especially as the states has its wonderfuly biased shops which refuse to stock certain titles thusly censoring them for you. If censorship is allowed in your country it effects all of us but I'm tired of seeing my, remarkably liberal country compared to Nazi Germany and Fundamentalist Muslim states.
6) I'm not even going to get into this whole patriot distorted view of the War of Independance and the evil Brits...

Like I say I don't want censorship, certainly not in any of the manners proposed by your government so far. I just wish you'd lay off the Brit bashing.

In the interest of understanding Yuki, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Particuarly this section:

"Britain remains one of the countries with the lowest murder rate in the world per capita, accounting for 853 murders in the reporting period 2003/04 according to the Home Office's Crime Statistics, which at a population of more than 60 million that translates into less than 1.3 murders per 100,000 residents in the UK.[6] By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 murders for every 100,000 population.[7] In addition, 70% of murders in the United States involve firearms compared to 6% in the United Kingdom.[8] Both New York City and London have over 7 million residents, with New York reporting 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004 to London's 2.4 per 100,000, also in 2004.[9]"

Yuki: I'd just like to point out a few more facts about England as a whole...

Arizona has a land mass roughly equal to that of England as a whole, but has roughly one tenth the population (5.13 million in Arizona versus 50.431 million in England), meaning the population density is a lot higher in England and particularly in the relatively higher-density areas like London. It's true that there is, on an absolute scale, more crime in England than there is in Arizona. However, to use an absolute scale to compare the two would be unfair, as England has ten times as many people to commit crimes.

While yes the crime rate in England has risen... It's not the epidemic you make it out to be. Sure there are a few hundred murders country-wide, but that doesn't even come close to the death toll the good ol' USA manages to rack up each year... even on a per-capita basis.

[...] Back from Peru, and digging out through a ton of email. You don't want to know how much, but I'll give you a hint and say it was in the middle four digits. Yep, all in two weeks.Anyway, saw a post on Evil Avatar linking to Game Politics. It discusses a proposal from Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) to improve the ESRB rating system. In particular, the concept is that reviewers would have to play through the entire game before assigning a rating. To quote: Brownback’s Truth in Video Game Rating Act (S.3935) would appear to be the Senate version of a House bill of the same name proposed by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL).“The current video game ratings system needs improvement,” Brownback said, “because reviewers do not see the full content of games and don’t even play the games they are supposed to rate. For video game ratings to be meaningful and worthy of a parent’s trust, the game ratings must be more objective and accurate.”Brownback’s measure would mandate the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to administer the requirement for a complete play-through before rating.“Game reviewers must have access to the entire game for their ratings to accurately reflect a game’s content,” Brownback added.I actually think this is a good step in the right direction. There's certainly value to reviewers having experienced the entire game and not having to depend on selected (and potentially targeted) assets to make their decision. I've actually believed for a while that government regulation of the game rating system is coming and could actually be beneficial. Unfortunately, it also appears that the current proposed bill has the usual "don't get the games industry" flaws that would need to be addressed. (I should say that this isn't a ding against Mr. Brownback - I actually think he's on the right track here. It's more a comment on the fact that the current generation of politicians didn't grow up with games and just don't get them - in many ways, video games are seen as the new Rock & Roll, corrupting American youth and contributing to the general downfall of society. This is self-correcting as "our generation" gets older and becomes those same politicians... in the meanwhile, we just need to help educate them. Kudos to John Stewart for helping fight that battle!)It's worth stating that we don't have the complete text of the bill yet - so keep that in mind as you read the possible holes I see.The first is simply that a video game isn't necessarily the same, linear experience as a movie. As such, it's just not reasonable to expect an MMO or even a huge RPG such as Oblivion to be completely played through (ie, all content experienced) before being given a rating. This is just a simple reality, and the bill's text will obviously need to take this into account. My hope is that this is sufficiently obvious such that it's already being considered - but we shall see.The second is that it appears the bill doesn't understand the difference between content available to players in game vs. "debug" content that may never be accessible in any way to a player other than via game modification devices. There's nothing wrong with having a "nude" avatar model in the game engine if the game always clothes that avatar before displaying it. Users (and reviewers) would never see the corrupt evil that is nudity (note sarcasm), and the world would continue to turn. However, it appears the bill doesn't understand that it's possible for "hackers" (call them what you will) to do all sorts of things to game code once it's outside the hands of the developer and publisher. That's a huge gaping hole that needs to be addressed.I look forward to seeing the final bill text - here's hoping it goes in the right direction! If not, I'm sure the Daily Show will have a blast with it. Posted: Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:21 AM by Ozymandias Filed under: Gaming Industry, Game Politics [...]

I am highly supportive of actvism,although i may not possess the necesarry skills. i found it highl disheartening that we could not campaign against John bruce thompson in paticular(No offence,but,WTF?!) and that topics posted in the activism section would get no replies. however,flowers for jack showed just how organized gamers can be.

@Yukimura:

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The fact that Australia's rating system for games is NOT the same as our film ratings is beyond understanding. Whoever decided that games should be rated differently obviously doesn't understand games and how much potential they have had, and still have, as a creative medium. The unfortunate truth is that Australia is like America's little lapdog. Whatever George Dubya decrees, lil John Howard is going to follow soon after.

Therefore, all of these law suits against game companies and the scapegoating of gamers in America is beginning to catch on in Australia. Just recently there was a story on GP about the NSW Minister trying to get Bully banned, despite the OFLC giving it an M15+ rating. She cited numerous lawsuits from the US in later press releases. As someone who has been lobbying the government constantly to get the games ratings system changed to mirror film ratings, these kind of chain politics is REALLY F^T$ing annoying.

Conversely, we do have some politicians who do seem to get the picture. A couple of years ago the Premier of Queensland Peter Beattie gave a multi million dollar grant for XBOX game development within Queensland (how much did MS give him for that I wonder). That's great, but censorship is what is really hurting. There a few (notably younger) politicians which are campaigning against the censorship of games, unfortunately they are not the ones in power. Parliament is typically full of old conservative, close minded, argumentative people. That's the way it has always been.

Like Grahamr said, activism is a fantastic way for everyone outside of our community to realise just how many people of all societal status are games, and how awesome games are for creativity, storytelling and medical purposes. Activist drives like flowers for jack, Penny Arcade's frequent donations to charity (especially the one in the name of Jack, hypocritical shit that he is) and endeavours like Child's Play show just how much power gamers really have.

I'll never give up fighting for my creative freedom.

I am trying to get an activist group together and organized...Just don't have the full political nor financial stability for it as of now, not to mention not enough support from the community.

Some action should be taken to defend our rights...we are people too. And Gaming is just as much of an Artform as Film.

We deserve respect.

Foton
PixelEnigma.com Webmaster

I can not believe how utterly useless this bill would be. It will completely and totally NOT solve the "problems" in game rating, as some people see them.

As has been pointed out, neither San Andreas' Hot Coffee nor Oblivion's boobs would have been caught by playing those games all the way though. Neither of those things were part of a complete play through of the original, unmodded game. Is playing 100% of the release version of the game even close to necessary? Do you need to do all 30 Rampages in Vice City to see that the game is fairly wantonly violent? Wouldn't just one really get the point of that aspect of the game across?

It's also been pointed out that this would boost the amount of time (and hence, the cost) required to rate a game to an obscene level, but I think it's worse than most people are considering.

One other person mentioned it in passing: Not only would you have to play through the entirety of a game, you would have to play through the entirety of the game on EVERY DIFFICULTY LEVEL, just to make sure the game wasn't more sexy/violent/drugged out/whatever on extreme than it was on easy, or vice versa.

So, not only will Jenny Soccermom at the ESRB have to play all 100 hours of some RPG, she'll have to do it 2 or 3 or 4 times. How will she even know if she's missed something? Most games don't actually offer you a completion percentage.

The fact is that as it stands now, the ESRB operates in a very effective manner. Using a video allows them to have unskilled, average joes rate games, specifically so that the rating isn't coming from a gamer. The video from the publisher essentially has to contain not only a representative sampling of the gameplay, but all of the "worst" elements as well.

If they leave out said "bad stuff" they are hit with a not insignificant fine, plus the game will be re-rated (and pulled by most retailers in the meantime).

Warren and others,
One more update, a rather unpleasant graphic one:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15057589/

nightwng2000
NW2K Software

vjfqavy...

sabezoudgx kutsnrwg sbmhtdfkq...

If the federal government wanted to create their own rating system for videogames I'd be totally behind them. They could do things in their own asinine way, spend all the time and money they want paying people to replay randomly generated elements and prowl around in search of easter eggs, scramble to throw out a new rating every time a patch or mod hits the internet, and otherwise go on not knowing what the hell they're talking about. Then they could post their ignorant opinions on the game box right beside the old rating.

But leave our ESRB the f*** alone.

This leaves me wondering if we do indeed have the lesser of two weavils or the choice there-of. Aren't there FAR more important issues to be addressing? Pork project spending? Flat tax (where the heck did that go!?)? Social Security? Rising Healthcare costs? Stagnant Wages? Sputtering Economy?

And lest anyone think otherwise, I think they're all a bunch of self-serving crooks - I'ld say time to dump something else into Boston Harbor, 'cept they're all so oily the EPA would have a fit as they all floated out to sea on their own oil-slicks.

What the game industry needs is honesty between game developers and the ESRB. If the developers would truthfully describe the *potential* content of the game (i.e., user-created content, mods, and Easter eggs) directly to the the ratings board, we wouldn't be having so many scandals. In fact, a new rating system might be in order to take variables like user-created content into account. Game devs like Rockstar and Bethesda are in effect screwing the ESRB over when they secretly include objectionable content within the game data. Other games in which the nudity, etc. comes from completely external data are more forgivable, but from now the people who make the games need to give the ESRB the whole story, including a prediction of what users might be able to do with the game.

Forget MMOs and big single-player games. The real buzzkillers for this bill are games involving massive amounts of downloadable, user-created content. Right now, I have an 12 gig Unreal Tournament 2004 directory, and about 2/3 of that is custom map content almost entirely made by third parties. I happen to know that two or three of those maps include depictions of uncovered breasts. That alone ought to highlight the problem; that said, the very worst of UT's content happens to be pretty tame overall. The real problem comes in with games that push the content-authoring envelope further, like the soon-to-come life-sim Spore. With an FPS with custom content, I can (with a little know-how) look at the map/mod list before I connect, see that the next map in the rotation is "DM-BigPornoPalace[Clan TTF ReMix]," and find another server to play on. However, according to its description, Spore will push user-created content directly to the user along several vectors; the creatures that populate the world, aside from those created by the local player, will be selected by some unknown arbitrary algorithm from the pool of ALL user created creatures. Hence, I could find that my herd of purple alpacas were being -- shall we say, attacked? -- by a flock of carnivorous winged dildos that happen to fill the algorithm's desire for an avian predator. Now, if Spore is half as good as the hype, it's going to be one of the most relevant gaming watersheds of the decade; nevertheless, its dynamic content system may well be a ruthlessly double-edged sword, ESPECIALLY in the wake of asinine legislation. What happens when a really thought-provoking game gets barred for sale to minors or gutted in the media because some unenlightened rater happened to see a walking anus or some hateful watchdog put a few dozen screenshots of the game's absolute filthiest user creations into a powerpoint presentation for the board? I guarantee that SOMEWHERE in Spore, someone is going to make independently ambulatory versions of every imaginable sexual organ or sex aid and construct buildings with designs hateful to every known religion (say, a town full of swastikas, one full of burning crosses, or one with obvious depictions of Mohammed standing knee-deep in a pig carcass). I ALSO believe that the really wretched material will make up only a tiny proportion of the Spore universe, such a small part that one would have to "go hunting" to find it. Nevertheless, if video game censorship gets further politicized, how long will it be before somebody's political action group scours any game with user-created content for walking fetuses, tarbabies, or snuff, and then, bearing "proof" of the game's foul nature, demand a recall?

so why not make the parents play through these games in their entirety before they buy them for their children? the government wont think twice about regulating things like oil and foreign labor laws, but when it comes to something that will make parent's lives be less involved with their childrens day-to-day, more power to it! its not at all difficult to learn information about any game with the internet out there, but i guess those smart parents who bought their kids GTA way back when without even reading the title are kicking themselves right now.

This is what I see:

Past leading up to the present: As concerns over the content in video games rose, the ESRB was created so that people (and parents) would be able to determine, quickly and easily, what kind of content the game had (and whether they deemed it appropriate for their kids to play). Those that have come after the video games industry have been firewalled off with the ESRB, with the content of the game clearly posted and not merely a rating, if they don't like what's in it, then don't buy it. But with GTA:SA and ES IV: O, there are cracks in the defense, and those who object to the content now have an avenue they can work through. They have evidence showing that the ESRB ratings are not 100% reliable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB

The bill itself (and Brownback's statements): Both imply that the ESRB has been doing extremely sloppy work, not just a couple misses in thousands of games, but an implied though unstated 'many or most games and that Government supervision is required because the industry is unable to regulate itself.'
In addition, a game's content remains fairly consistent throughout it, a person doesn't have to play the game in its entirety to have a good understanding of its content. Look at any game in these series and see if the content varies significantly within the game: Metal Slug, Command & Conquer, Dragon Quest, Mega Man, Super Mario, Sonic, The Sims, Battlefield ####, Civilization, WarCraft, Mortal Kombat. They overall don't. I wonder what the bill's definition of in its entirety would mean, it oculd play the game though with every single possible combination...

If rejected: The phrasing of the bill will give Brownback and Company ammo that can be used in propaganda against the ESRB and others. If rejected, they can start make a huge fuss about how the Video Games Industry is not being regulated, for 'the common good.' (Consider, if a Republican votes against a bill to fund an Abortion Clinic, Democrats can make statements about how that Republican voted against funding for medical facilities and research. If a Democrat votes against a bill that would allow a national park to be turned into residential development, Republicans can make statements about the Democrat voting against providing new homes (possibly low-income housing))


If accepted, near future effects: The ESRB will have a Mr.Smith perched on its back, 24/7, and through it, the game industry. Because of the bill, the government will be able to dictate every single rating and operationg proecdure. I can expect that when the ESRB rates a game, they will have to go though numerous regulations, that will keep increasing, year after year. Extremists, Special Interest Groups, Lobbysits, and others will have a backdoor that they can dictate terms through. Somebody doesn't like their group's portrayal in a game, they can tack that onto the rating system. Gamer's interests will be neglected. (Remember: People are subjective and emotional, a person can hear a fraction of the story and make a firm decision)
They could also hurt opposition groups the same way. The video games industry will take a rather noticeable hit, but will try to adapt. The exact measures of the bill will dictate how extensive the adaptation.

Long-term: The ESRB will be replaced by the government. Either by having more bills that have the government annex the ESRB, or by tacking evermore regulations, red tape, and requirements until the ESRB can't handle the load anymore/slips on a technicality. Another possibility is that another Hot Coffee could occur, or even that the ESRB is made accountable for user-content.
With this bill, the government will have its foot in the door and won't be taking it out. Anybody who takes the gamers side can be easily portrayed as taking the side of 'murder simulators.'
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/02
Sigh.
What happened to no Taxation without Representation? The Colonies broke away from the British because they were being subjected to decisions from several months and thousands of miles away without being allowed to have their own voices heard, concerns considered, or a vote in what happened. There are just so many people now. Us breaking away would be quite impossible.
Any suggestions on what we can do?
I see parallels in Terry Goodkind's book, Faith of the Fallen (the wiki entry is incomplete)

"Sen. Sam Brownback has sponsored legislation in the United States Senate which would require the ESRB to play games in their entirety before assigning an age rating."

I have an idea. How about we require politicians to play at least one video game in its entirety before they make stupid laws and try to influence the industry.

I don't understand how laws can be made to regulate a certain industry when the lawmakers have no knowledge of the industry.

I can't believe that another politician is trying to propose legislation on an issue that they know nothing about... Oh, wait, yes I can! Hilary had a fit about GTA. Don't forget the frenzy about Doom and its supposed effect on the Columbine murder/suicides.

When will people learn that it's not because a game is violent that their kids become violent, it's because their kids lean towards violence that they are drawn to violent games and content? But I guess little Susie and Bobby are perfect in every way. It must be someone else's fault that MY kid is a horrible little heathen! I've played some bloddy and violent games, and I'd like to think I'm somewhat normal.

And why do we focus on bloody violent games? Ever play KOTOR (Knights Of The Old Republic)? That game is bloodless (if I remember right), but you can choose to kill completely innocent people for literally no reason. Doesn't that teach bad behavior to children? KOTOR also is another example of games that would be near impossible to play through completely as you can choose to preform many different acts in many different ways. Even in some of the most "kid-freindly" games like Kingdom Hearts you KILL enemies. Maybe we should all start playing Introduction to Typing for fun, and then when Columbine 2 happens they can blame something else!

It's been said before but these idiots in DC (both Republican and Democrat) really need to learn what they are talking about before they decide to tell us how to live or what we can and cannot play/watch/do/eat/drink/say/think. It's more that just the way they think of video games. The Janet Jackson nipple slip was blown way out of proportion. I was watching that on a 60 inch TV and her breast was maybe the size of my thumb nail (and blurry). As a result, the FCC can now levy heavy fines on stations. In an over-reaction to Howard Stern, the FCC can now fine the DJs; not the station, but the person on the air; nearly $100,000 or more.

It's absurd the way these politicans think they can just make laws and throw money at an isssue to make it go away. We need people who actually know what they are talking about to make laws. No wonder any real action takes 5 years to go through and we are in debt.

Sorry for the rant!