But... but... he's the enemy....

I'm just confused. I don't know what to believe anymore.

Also, typo on 'agees' there.

Ummmmmm

Forgive me dennis, for I don't mean to offend but.

WHAT THE FUCK!!!!?

Ok, now that I got that out, the guy who passed a law against the industry now says the industry can make any game it wants?

Can we say double talk?

Or is he perhaps wising up and thinking it might be better in the long run to not fight a hopeless battle and instead work with the industry?

Only time WILL TELL!!

Wait... did he... did he say what I think he said?

"The parental controls are necessary however."

He did... I don't know where to start. How about the most obvious place... There ARE PARENTAL CONTROLS ON THE NEXT GEN CONSOLES ALREADY! THE CONSOLE MAKERS ARE ALREADY DOING THE MAXIMUM EFFORT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO KEEP KIDS FROM PLAYING M RATED GAMES!

OK, I'm much better now...

Lee finally admits that parents already have some control over their kids.

May i state my reaction this way?

ZOMGWTFHAX.

@DavCube

I'd rather know what's going on personally.. Did he just say he isn't the enemy?

Yuki,
It's the same kind of argument where "certain individuals" say "I support Freedom of Speech, I'm only trying to 'protect the children'" then celebrate when a game is effectively banned in and out of the US as well as threaten to have police storm into a place of business and remove materials from shelves, thereby ALSO banning that product from being sold to ANYONE.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

He he i remember that day on gp when jacky boy went off saying he found a way for police officers to confiscate copy's of gta san andreas from anyone regardless of age....

shame we never heard more on that one

"If violence should be included among the decision for “AO”, why isn’t Senator Yee arguing that movies containing “ultra-violence” be made to carry a “NC-17? rating?"

because movies are ok since they arent watched by children ;)

Yee's doing something smart for once. He knows that AO games can't be sold to minors, so he wants Manhunt 2 to be released AO so kids can't get it anywhere near as easily. That would remove the AO stigma conciderably, encouraging other developers to up their games to AO instead of M, thus making less M rating games on the shelves to sell to minors. If that makes sense?

Duffy,
My 11 year old son knows the... uh, what's it called? The "jump rope rhyme" for Freddy Kruger. He also LOVES the Terminator series (although he has a problem with the temporal mechanics of it). :)

And if Senator Yee or you-know-who is reading this, -I- know my son far better than anyone else. I know his limitations, his dislikes and likes, those things which upset him, anger him, frustrate him. -I- am his Parent. If some other Parents wants their Parental Rights revoked and turned over to Senator Yee, you-know-who, any other individual, organization, and/or government entity, that's THEIR business. Keep your filthy, dishonorable, unethical, mitts off MY Parental Rights. Dictate your personal, religious, and/or political beliefs to YOUR OWN family and LEAVE MINE ALONE!

Sorry, Duffy, I get carried away sometimes. :)

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Lmao!!!!!!!!!!

Man i miss doing duffy rants! i just dont wanna annoy anyone since i know i use to be real bad about my rants

in other words...

actully parent your child!!!

"Hey, I’ve never read a “duffy rant.” I’m almost curious as to what it entails. You’ve mentioned them a few times so methinks that you’re tempted to do one soon"

LoL you can ask some of the old people here about that like nightwing or yuki...

And yea a duffy rant may come soon depending on how stupid the story is...its getting close though

Others have said this already, but I just want to add my voice to the chorus: as stubborn as Yee might be, at least he's a reasonable man and is willing to change his views in the face of evidence as opposed to JT, who ignores any facts that are presented to him when they become inconvenient to his arguments.

“And yea a duffy rant may come soon depending on how stupid the story is…its getting close though”

Translation: The next time we have a Thompson related story"

Lol i will try not to make it a thompson story but no promises

he he


yea my duffy rants are good..

Wow, you really ARE hung over.

"...2morrow or thursday ..."

Tomorrow IS Thursday.

:O

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Lmao yep im a bit hung over...drank 9 beers..

which is a lot for me since i usually only drink 3

Huh? Did he forget who he is?

Its simple if your 17 year old is not mature you got loads more problems than ZOMG "my 17 year old like boobies!"


Grow the fck up people.

I am sorry the only issues with M17+ in the public are that politicizations want to puff them selfs up and distract from the issue and say that the problem is ambiguous and must be fix to save the lives of children, when all they are doing to gathering votes from the anal cavities of the gullible and easy swayed.


we need a solid R level in the ESRB R waffes from mid PG13 to lite NC17 we need a solid and effective change in the ESRB and for ocne its a simple one.

T15+ would be the new breeding ground of lite R and harder than PG13 titles and it dose not carry the M "stigma" and prehaps can let M17+ be a true R level and not the mix and match it has become.

Come to the forums and share your thoughts!
http://www.gamepoliticsforums.com/showthread.php?p=49482#post49482

I'm not sure where to stand on this issue. I don't think we should be attacking the man - as people are doing. He's made it clear that he's not just another Jack Thompson.

I think, perhaps, a revamp of the obviously flawed ESRB may be in order. Not to have them forcibly release how they arrive at a decision, but rather make the ratings clearer, and get rid of the useless 1 year difference between M and AO. As I've said elsewhere, perhaps a rating system based on actual ages (eg, 12+, 15+, 18+, such as the also flawed BBFC).

And if you don't think that the ESRB is flawed, having a game rated AO being essentially a kiss of death isn't a good system. Perhaps, as has been mentioned here before, an X rating for actual porn games.

I think we can work with this guy, and hope he, and others, feel the same.

Guh, it feels wierd defending someone I considered "the enemy" until this morning.

@ Mark Lucherini

While I understand and even support the idea of creating a separate "Porn game" rating, I DO NOT blame the ESRB for the "kiss of death" that a AO rating has become. That fault lies with the console makers and the retailers. Blaming it on the ESRB feels like scapegoating. Though we could probably come up with a better classification than "Adults Only." It really does bring up images of pornography.

@Mark

Oh, I think he's still the enemy. His stance on everything else hasn't changed; and as Raum pointed out earlier:

"Yee’s doing something smart for once. He knows that AO games can’t be sold to minors, so he wants Manhunt 2 to be released AO so kids can’t get it anywhere near as easily."

Now, I think the ESRB is doing what it's supposed to, and meeting with a reasonable level of success. However, I also agree that a more finely-tuned rating system would be a great idea.

E - everyone
12+ - PG (roughly)
15+ - PG-13 (roughly)
18+ - R (roughly)
21:V - NC-17 (Violence)
21:S - NC-17 (Sexual Content)

Card for those ages for any game of that rating. Have it come up automatically on the register's computer when the game is scanned, for all I care. I do agree that retailers should be taking the rating system, and game sales, VERY seriously.

Unfortunately, no matter how much we say that the responsibility lies with the retailers and the parents (and I place a TON of the responsibility on those two parties), the fact of the matter is that kids CAN get access to this stuff without parental knowledge.

I've been trying to figure out this particular situation for a couple days now. A family has 2 children, a 10 year old and a 17 year old. The 17 year old buys a copy of Manhunt 2 and brings it home.

The 10 year old now has access to an M rated game. The retailers did not sell it to a minor, the parents did not buy it for their underage child, but he has access to it. The parents may not even know it's there. And if they do, what do they do about it? Lock it up when they aren't home? Put parental controls on the console so that the 17 year old can't play it? That situation is unlikely to make anyone involved happy. The other option is to place their trust in the 17 year old by giving only him the parental control code.

Another issue is that by saying the parents are responsible for raising their own children, we're saying that they're responsible for raising all the children that THEIR children bring home to play. You may be the best parent in the world, but what happens when your child goes home after school to another parent's home and plays the M-rated game that they unthinkingly gave to THEIR son or daughter?

Don't get me wrong, I still attribute about 90% of the responsibility of minor exposure to violent video games with the parents and retailers, but these hypotheticals have me stumped at the moment.

@Erik

Ambiguous term? Oy. Okay let me break it down nice and simple: Parents shouldn’t fucking even consider or look in the direction of an M rated game for little Billy at all for any reason, end of story!

And if "little Billy" is 15?

Anyways, this is a little surprising, but it does make some sense. Console makers allowing the AO rating would help open the way for the AO rating to be used more often. In which case games that got an AO rating might actually be released as such rather than cut juuuust enough that they could get an M rating.

@lumi

"Another issue is that by saying the parents are responsible for raising their own children, we’re saying that they’re responsible for raising all the children that THEIR children bring home to play. You may be the best parent in the world, but what happens when your child goes home after school to another parent’s home and plays the M-rated game that they unthinkingly gave to THEIR son or daughter?"

No rating system in the world can stop that though. Which is why any ratings are only as good as the parental guidance behind them. What if your kid went to his friends' house, and found his 21-year old brother's stack of Playboys? Or grabbed "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" from the entertainment unit to watch?

Parental responsibility extends to know and talking about what your kid does outside the home. Just assuming the rest of the world is a fluffy sheltered world is just as bad. Talk to your kids' friends parents, invite them over for coffee. Ask them about stuff like media policies. Ask that they respect your concerns over content.

Most parents are pretty reasonable when it comes to that. You're not telling them how to raise their kids, you're just asking that they respect the way you raise yours...

And finally, accept that no matter how much of a sheltered bubble you put your child in, something somewhere will expose them to something you disapprove of. It happens, deal with it... unless you want to become a control freak...

Adults play games, too, you know.

er, my comments vanished... hmmm

Well, once again, sort of playing the Devil's anti-advocate here myself, I wonder how much of a problem it actually IS.

When I was 14 I was watching 18 certificate films, and that was 2 decades ago, so the problem of Media getting into the 'wrong' hands is actually an extremely old one, and without statistics, I don't know whether the situation is improved or worse than then.

If you take away the Drama, the Fear-mongering and the bad science (and the famous lies, damn lies and statistics). There's ALWAYS been a section of youth that has watched films that they are too young for, when you are young, a higher certificate is a challenge. I watched The Shining at 15 years old, and that starts with a Rape Scene in the first half-hour. That was in 1987.

So, whilst it is true that some young people get their hands on video games, it's also very true that MORE of them get their hands on movies that are rated higher than their age allows, and let's face it, for all our DirectX10, parallax mapped, pixel-shaded beauty, a Video Game is still nowhere near as lifelike as a Movie, which has real people in it.

Yes, it IS a problem, but it's a very old one, and I think taking the Utopian view that it can ever be dealt with entirely is hopeless. There's nothing wrong with striving towards it, but introducing a government mandated system doesn't affect it, I know that because I live in the UK, so I was technically breaking the law by watching The Shining, at 15 that's actually more of a 'Reputation booster' than the rating being voluntary.

Forbidden Fruit is one the great temptations of Youth, tell them they can't do something and you'll start a landslide of them doing it.

this proves it people

yee is an asshole.

let me explain for the confused yee want to shut down video games systems but cant because his "protect the children" arguement is dead

however if these systems had adult software the government would move in to restrict where they were sold

@ GamePolitics

Perhaps surprisingly, State Senator Leland Yee (D), a frequent critic of the video game industry, agrees with Bogost’s position.

Needed to point that out.

OK, he started to earn some respect with me, then he came out with

"Another problem with this whole ratings mess is that the ESRB just refuses to use the AO rating for violence despite the descriptor calling for such a rating when there are “graphic depictions of violence.” If Manhunt doesn’t qualify, what would?

Combined with the use of the ambiguous term “Mature,” many parents are left with a false sense of how violent an M-rated game may be; and obviously even some retailers as the FTC study suggests."

First, Manhunt DID earn an AO. Rockstar re-cut the game, and got an M rating, meaning they toned down the violence and whatever else may have been in the game.

Second, the term Mature isn't ambiguous. Mature means the game is too violent for a Teen rating, but it doesn't fall into Yee's favorite term, "ultraviolent", therefore not meeting the criteria for AO.

Also:

"His issue has consistently been about protecting children and eliminating their access to the most violent games without their parents’ knowledge."

Their access HAS been eliminated. The new systems ALL have parental controls. So can Yee go back to spending our tax dollars on something worthwhile now?

How is Mature rated games ambiguous? It says very clearly 17+.

I want this guy instead of Jack. I mean, he doesn't personally attack things and he is actually smart. I mean, not that Jackie boy isn't smart, or else he wouldn't have been able to pass the Bar test in the first place, he's just vulgar and ignorant. Lee is clearly against video games, however, he is actually suggesting alternatives that are making everyone think.

if that will shut him up*

I'll agree that if Yee IS serious about helping us keep games out of the hands of those who shouldn't be playing them, then yes, I'd rather have a reasonable person to debate with.

However, he made the mistake of pushing first, and now that hasn't worked, he's trying the 'softly softly' approach. Something tells me had he not charged in with legislation like a Bull in a China Shop first and started treating gamers and their industry as humans and not cattle to be herded in a 'socially acceptable' direction then he would have made a lot more progress by now.

As has been said before, it's not just the consoles that need to be looked at so that developers aren't constantly having to edit their work to a lower level. If AO was allowed on console, there would be no outcry from either the gamers for Rockstar editing the game, nor the Politicians, who seem to think that an unedited game has been re-rated.

If Yee is TRULY behind what he believes then work with us and stop trying to destroy our creative medium and stifle our right to Free Speech and instead work with us to educate and enforce the structure that is already in place to protect children. What should matter is whether parents are made aware of what those ratings are and WHY THEY WERE PUT THERE, for all the bluster about protecting children far too few politicians stress that the ESRB ratings are there to be used, because they are too busy trying to impose government ones, so they are every bit as responsible for confusion over the ESRB and what it represents.

To be honest, transparency in rating systems will educate parents not one jot, that's purely pampering to Politicos, your average Joe doesn't care how the rating system works, as has been mentioned uncountable times, people have been perfectly content to use the opaque movie-rating system for years.

In Summary, if, Senator Yee, you are talking about keeping adult-oriented games out of Childrens' hands then we are on the same side, if you are talking about imposing some kind of control over the Industry that produces those games, then we are most certainly on opposite sides.

Actually, if console makers allowed AO games, some of this stink would go away. Developers would be more inclined to let the AO rating ride and the ESRB wouldn't be under so much pressure about their decisons of AO or M.

As it stands, the ESRB walks a fine line between allowing a company to publish a game or catering to parental and "fear-mongering" politicians. But if you take away the AO ban, the ESRB could have an easier time and publishers could guarantee that their product makes it to market.

However, Yee is only suggesting this to save face ("I'm not into trampling the first amendment! See?") Mr. Yee, I demand a private watchdog group to be appointed to sit in your office and monitor your decisions. Why won't you explain your every action Mr. Yee? What are you trying to hide?

I think if he could pressure sony, microsoft and nintendo into allowing AO titles then perhaps he could do some good for everyone. Well everyone except me but lets not discuss that.

Point is game developers could still make violent games, gamers could still play violent games and the broken ESRB system could be on its way to being fixed. I don't want him to do it through law but if he just wanted to talk with the big three then perhaps that could do some good. I think it could be a win/win for everyone. I mean even I would find it tolerable if the ESRBs system wasn't broken and the big three allowed AO titles. Sure I'd much rather just not have any regulation what so ever but I think I could live to tolerate this until I'm a bitter old man.

Zippy- The ESRB needs a lot of work, but its not going to get anywhere as long as their only title for 18+ games is not acceptable by console manufacturers. This breaks the system and until the situation fixes the main issue the rating system can't be perfected.

@Yuuri

A good point. Maybe just have 18+:V and 18+:S?

Main reason I agreed with that idea is it kind of follows the rating system I grew up with... however... perhaps something along the lines of

E - everyone
PG - Parental Guidance
13+ - PG-13
15+ - R? As above, roughly
18+ - NC-17
18+V;18+S - As above.

Any other ideas?

"Yee is the enemy!"

No offense to some, but that is quoted by people who aren't in tune to both sides of the coin. Yes Yee constructed the failed CA law, but Gates dropped out of school before being the richest man in the world. I would think that he should start to realize now that he cannot simply stop games like Jack Thompson wishes he could do. Yee simply wants the ESRB to do its job and there would be no need for laws and nanny-state politics. Yes parenting is important, and I think he's been on the most of the support for that, but I have to agree with him that the ESRB is not doing the job it has promised itself time after time again. Retailers are also in this category. Both needs to step up their policies of enforcing ratings and enforcing sales of M rated games to minors. Parents need to open their eyes and teach their children that violence against others is wrong. For any of you to label Yee or even Thompson as "enemies" is showing the very ignorance that they example in how gamers are uncultured radicals wanting only what they want at the expense of everyone else. I know it sounds harsh but you have to see both sides for who and want they are and detail their points. Even Thompson has a good point every once and awhile that is worth nothing, and apparently so does Yee.

Also, Nintendo has not allowed AO and similar type games since the original NES. This isn't likely to change as the Wii is being marketed towards kids and families. The only one who I think would ever decide differently is Sony.

delta,

but retailers have been stepping up in the 'not selling M games to minors'. they are doing better at not letting minors get M rated games than they are at not letting them have R rated, or even unrated, movies. they are doing even better than movie theaters at keeping minors out of R rated films. so who is slacking? just a reminder, the MPAA ratings are also done by the movie industry, and is not backed by any law.

the ESRB is doing it's job. it's rating games. after that it is up to the parents to decide for themselves what games are okay for their kids.

Yuuri,

They're doing thei job, up to a point. They are attempting to educate people as to how the ratings work, yes, but the system still needs a definite revamp, so that something like the Manhunt 2 factor can't happen again.

Whether or not it should have been rated AO, there should never have been a question about it being released on consoles - a change it the ratings would make a difference to the stigma attached the AO rating, and allow the so called ultra-violent games to be played by those who want to play them.

Of course, console manufacturers need to be taken to task for not releasing them. If this is want Yee wants - which is what it seems to be, then I say let's gladly work with him.

Nothing about the ratings system needs a revamp. The ESRB ratings are more effective than the RIAA's ratings, and they have a damn high approval rating among parents. Suggestions for improvement are always great, but anyone who thinks the ratings system is in crisis is dealing with the subject in the abstract rather than looking at the numbers. The cases, such at Hot Coffee, that have supposedly "proven" that the ESRB are asleep on the job are cases in which the ESRB couldn't have done anything before the story broke, and they reacted perfectly reasonably after the fact.

And by the way, since I came off a little ambiguous in the last thread, my stance on Yee's "request" is that the ESRB has every right to tell him to go to hell.

Now if only Jack could say the same thing . . . wait that would be a sign of the apocolypse.

Anyway this is some shocking news, because the ban stick that is Ao does keep violent games out of the hands of children (and everyone else).

@ chuck

"the M rating is meaningless. It’s like R ratings on movies, or the explicit lyrics advisory on albums"

The R rating is the stop-gap between PG-13 and NC-17. As far as I interpret it, R means it's too intense for tweens and young teens, but it's not intense to the point of vulgar.

It's there pretty much for the same reason the Explicit Lyrics sticker is on music, it's to keep the "censor it for the sake of the children" groups from talking politicians into wasting time and money on unconstitutional laws and long, drawn out inquiries. Anyone remember how useless the PMRC inquiries were? We already have a list of Tipper Gore wannabes lining up to try to legislate videogames.

@chuck

It's been a while since I've seen E10+ used, I'd pretty much forgotten about it. That, and I'm running on about 3 hours sleep at the moment. Sorry for my ignorance on that one.

You're also right on the part that nothing but complete censorship will make the watchdogs happy.

I'm not terribly surprised that he feels this way. It's good to know at least one member of Congress doesn't mind adult game existing.

If he was a little more informed about the parental controls on the console or how effective the ESRB is (debateable, I realize this), then perhaps he would change his tune in banning the sale of these games to children. Either that, or it'd provoke him to add legislation to other industries as well. Either way, just be consistent on adult material as a whole, not just games.

If consoles allowed for AO games to be made for them, a lot of violent M games would probably be thrust into this category. That's all fine and dandy, but don't a lot of stores refuse to stock AO games?

I'm not certain they would be thrust into the AO category, or, at least, they ought not to be. If they were, then it would mean that Yee was right about games that should be AO being rated M. I live in the UK, so we have the 18 certificate, I wouldn't know personally though.

you are very funny