gamepolitics: Utah Attorney General Joins with ESRB in Ad Blitz

Game Politics (

gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-06-27 17:30:00

Entry tags:

esrb, mark shurtleff, patricia vance, ratings, utah

Utah Attorney General Joins with ESRB in Ad Blitz

While some in Congress seem to favor using the ESRB as a punching bag, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has officially stepped into the ring on the side of the video game industry ratings board.

Yesterday Shurtleff and ESRB President Patricia Vance launched a series of public service announcements (PSA's) which will air on Utah television stations in coming weeks. During the press conference, Vance spoke about the need to raise parental awareness of the industry's rating system.

"Just like movies and TV shows, video games are created for a diverse audience of all ages," she said. "That is why it is so important that parents remember to check the rating when purchasing games for their children. We are very proud to have the support of Attorney General Shurtleff in reaching out to Utah's parents and educating them about the ratings."

For his part, Shurtleff complimented the ESRB. "As a father," the A.G. said, "I know about the tough decisions parents face over what video games they will allow into their homes. It's important for parents to look closely at the ESRB ratings before letting their kids play any game... As a fan of video games myself, I'm proud to be helping educate Utah's parents about this important tool."

More details about the Utah ESRB initiative are available on the Utah A.G.'s website.

CM: Shurtleff is a bit of a maverick on this issue, a political figure who admits to enjoying video games (well, as much as you can enjoy games dressed in business attire - see pic) despite having misgivings about the content in some titles.

GP readers may recall that as recently as September, 2005 Shurtleff participated in a video game protest. Back then Shurtleff asked game publisher Eidos to cancel the release of the controversial (and badly designed) GTA clone 25 to Life due to its portrayals of violence against police officers. Eidos eventually delayed releasing the game until after the holiday season. When 25 to Life finally launched in January, Shurtleff publicly announced that he hoped no one would buy it.

-Trying to figure out how to TiVo those Utah PSA commercials from Canada, GP Correspondent Colin "Jabrwock" McInnes

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...

(33 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Hmm....

scazza
2006-06-27 10:12 pm UTC (link)

All hope is indeed not lost.

He has, what in my opinion, is the absolute right stant point on the videogame issue. He understands that games are designed for all walks of life, and ages, and that "banning" games is wrong. However, when a game like 25 to life, makes "cop killing" an objective and tasteless, he peacefully requests the game not be released...when he lost that little battle, he shrugged his shoulders and just hoped people were smart enough not to buy it (which happened).

Not to mention he totally understands the ESRB, its rating process, and how it really does work (he is freaking proof of that!) when the parent becomes active in their childs game habits.

He is the "model" parent for the average gamer child.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Hmm.... premo_maggot 2006-06-29 04:38 am UTC (link)
	did he lose that battle? the game bombed lol (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Let's not forget Rep. David Hogue andrew_eisen 2006-06-27 10:12 pm UTC (link)
	Readers will recall Hogue's HB257 "Games as Porn" bill which died in the Senate a few months ago. http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/219058.html It will be interesting to see if a similar bill is introduced in the future in light of the Attorney General's news release. Andrew Eisen (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Let's not forget Rep. David Hogue

gamepolitics
2006-06-27 10:54 pm UTC (link)

Yeah, but I'm not aware of any linkage between Hogue and the AG aside from the fact that they are Republicans.

Shurtleff didn't that I recall voice any support for Hogue's bill. I'm gonna guess that the industry felt him out on legislation before jumping into this deal.

You may recall that a certain someone indicated that Shurtleff would file suit to stop 25 to Life. Although Shurtleff was dead set against the game - as you would expect from the State's chief law enforcement officer - no such suit ever came about.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	anticron 2006-06-27 10:17 pm UTC (link)
	Congress should take some notes on how this was handled. (Reply to this)

	phantompvp 2006-06-27 10:26 pm UTC (link)
	I think I speak for all of us when I say: "WTF? The politician with a sensible stance on video games and the ESRB is from UTAH???" (Reply to this) (Thread)

	chronovore 2006-06-28 02:53 am UTC (link)
	Yes... Someone had to say it. I was too baffled to type. (Reply to this) (Parent)

3/4th standing ovation.

nightwng2000
2006-06-27 10:38 pm UTC (link)

While it does appear confusing, the issue of the 25 to Life thing vs this PSA, I think he deserves a fairly decent standing ovation.

As long as he believes what he said, about wanting to educate parents and allow them to make their own informed decision, then I think he's doing something useful. Wanting to educate parents is a true attempt to create one of those tools that politicians misleadingly call those video game legislations cropping up.

Yes, I know many will say these PSAs are too little too late. But that shouldn't stop them from being made. I think it is important to inform those not in-the-know, parents or otherwise, on how to obtain information so they can make informed decisions for themselves. Rather than rely on a dictatorship to decide for them.

An intelligent parent will make use of all available resources to make good decisions, even if those decisions are the same ones other parents make.

An intelligent industry will do all it can to make certain that all individuals, parents or otherwise, know about those resources and work to create other resources where there is a lack of same.

And an intelligent government will encourage the industry to make those resources available and make certain that parents know about them. An intelligent government won't step in and make the decisions for individuals, parents or otherwise. They'll make certain, instead, that parents and individuals can make informed decisions for themselves.

nightwng2000

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: 3/4th standing ovation. gamepolitics 2006-06-27 11:42 pm UTC (link)
	I don't find it confusing. Just because he objects to 25 to Life, that's not inconsistent with favoring use of the ESRB ratings. A lot of people objected to that game. In his position, it's not surprising. There's no reason why everyone has to be down with the industry's party line on every issue. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: 3/4th standing ovation. terminator44 2006-06-28 01:17 am UTC (link)
	Show me a gamer that DIDN'T object to 25 to Life, and I'll show you someone who has no taste in quality games. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: 3/4th standing ovation. al_wesker 2006-06-28 04:11 am UTC (link)
	Zing! (Reply to this) (Parent)

trenthowell
2006-06-27 11:11 pm UTC (link)

hmmm, Well at least he isn't launching campaigns to put bills into laws against violent games. He just protested it, which is an EXCELLENT choice of action vs forcing laws through legislation that are unconstitutional. Done with the comment on that. End that rant/note.

Is this guy the "Anti-Jack" we've been waiting for? Probably not, but still kudos to the AG of Utah for siding with the ESRB and launching PSA'a on it to educate parents on the rating system rather than attacking the gaming industry and forcing through unconstitutional laws.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	terminator44 2006-06-28 01:22 am UTC (link)
	Is this guy the "Anti-Jack" we've been waiting for? Nope. That position's already been taken by Tom Buscalica (sp?). (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	gamepolitics 2006-06-28 02:02 am UTC (link)
	Tom Buscaglia http://www.gameattorney.com/ (Reply to this) (Parent)

	beardoggx 2006-06-28 02:54 am UTC (link)
	While he's not the "Anti-Jack", it does make him the "Anti-Clinton". (Reply to this) (Parent)

11440
2006-06-27 11:15 pm UTC (link)

"Shurtleff is a bit of a maverick on this issue, a political figure who admits to enjoying video games (well, as much as you can enjoy games dressed in business attire - see pic)"

That picture reeks of a canned photo opportunity. If I'm not mistaken, in that photo he's holding a DualShock 2 with the face buttons facing away from him. That, more than his attire, must make playing difficult.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	gamepolitics 2006-06-27 11:43 pm UTC (link)
	yeah, he probably games with his 5 kids. Like a lot of parents, a very casual player. but neither of us know. he could be a major WoW junkie for all I can attest to. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	11440 2006-06-27 11:58 pm UTC (link)
	Anything's possible. But the photo depicts him playing a game, which is impossible considering that he's holding the controller backwards. Where I come from, we call that a misrepresentation. It's regrettable that the Utah AG doesn't have the integrity not to pose for a deceptive photo. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	gamepolitics 2006-06-28 12:19 am UTC (link)
	wow, I think that's making a huge leap between that picture (of which we don't know the context) and questioning his integrity... It's obviously a posed pic for the photo opp, nobody games in their blue blazer and tie. He may have just sat down and been handed the controller. give the guy a break! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	11440 2006-06-28 01:12 am UTC (link)
	I don't see why I should give him a break. He's a state attorney general, so he ought to be held to a high standard of professional responsibility, which would not include misleading publicity. Certainly staged photo ops are par for the course, but the fact that something is customary doesn't sanitize it of dishonesty. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	terminator44 2006-06-28 11:36 am UTC (link)
	But the man IS a gamer, so it isn't really misleading. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	terminator44 2006-06-28 01:19 am UTC (link)
	Hmmm, I wonder what games he likes? Would he be interested in the Xbox 360? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	curiousthompson 2006-06-28 01:55 am UTC (link)
	Andrew W.K. plays like that... Don't you remember that? (Reply to this) (Parent)

Wow

7d5
2006-06-27 11:17 pm UTC (link)

A government official that actually thinks that parents should be given help in doing their job, instead of doing it for them? I think the sky may be falling.

All kidding aside, it seems pretty clear to me that the AG has been informed by "unbiased" parties, as well as being a gamer. Interesting that someone that isn't having the "all games are hooker killing simulators!" stance crammed down their throat is actually looking to help inform parents. Since the scare tactics are having approximately zero effect, it's good to see a public official stand up & point out the rating system, instead of demonizing video games altogether.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Wow gamepolitics 2006-06-27 11:44 pm UTC (link)
	I'm not sure "unbiased parties" exist in this debate... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Wow

7d5
2006-06-28 12:18 am UTC (link)

Hence the quotes. I really beleive that the ESRB's intention is to keep parents informed about what content is in games, allowing them to make the right decision. As a gamer parent, I can appreciate that stand. Far too many others would prefer to just ban violent games altogether or take liberties with 1st amendment rights to keep violent media away from children. This is a win-win for everyone except people who would rather make a choice for everyone else.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Wow

m0lim0
2006-06-28 12:27 am UTC (link)

Well, there are people like my dad who used to play games a lot, still plays some, but takes the stance of "The only time I see a problem with video games is when a person gets so absorbed in them that they don't do anything else."

I'm not going to say that he's got a completely unbiased opinion on game legislation, but he does know to check ratings and all that. I talk with him about a lot of the current political hotbuttons, and his opinion on games is that they are entertainment, but they can take the violence and such too far sometimes. He doesn't say that they should be banned or have government intervention, he just thinks that developers should tone it down sometimes because not everything they put into games is necessary. One point he makes to support that is "When we finally get to the point that we have true virtual reality systems or holographic image projectors, I wouldn't want a game that throws a person's intestines on my wall if I were to hit them with a grenade. There's a point that shouldn't be crossed when it comes to the violence that's in games people play and the amount of realistic detail used to portray that violence."

And really, if you ask me, he's right when it comes to the whole violence deal. There is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and some games are getting close to that line. You shouldn't have to watch a guys arm go flying past you after you kill him with a grenade just to enjoy a realistic game. We worked with just blood spray for a long time and we can still work with it for a long time to come.

Now, I'm not saying that a lot of games are doing the "flying limbs" thing because the closest I've seen to that is gibbing in Quake and Unreal Tournament games, but you guys should get the point of what I'm saying.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Wow

kajex
2006-06-28 03:54 am UTC (link)

Right- I don't think that a guy should dump 2 gallons of blood when someone loses an arm. Call me sick, but the Crazy 88 scene from Kill Bill was hilarious, if only because it was that unrealistic. Still, there is sense in what you're saying- sometimes the most offensive thing about violence is that it'll sometimes defy the laws of anatomy, biology, gravity and physics. Even if what happens in a game can happen in real life, that's not what we want, really- I mean, keep that stuff in real life, eh?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

automancer
2006-06-28 01:53 am UTC (link)

When 25 to Life finally launched in January, Shurtleff publicly announced that he hoped no one would buy it.

I've played 25 to Life, it's not that great of a game. The single player mode makes you shoot cops for very little reason. It just gets boring and tedious. The online play is a little better, but it's no different than Halo or Socom which offer a much better single player game than this one does. Some people may buy it for the hype, but if it's a poorly designed game, it won't sell.

-Auto

(Reply to this)

	artheleron 2006-06-28 02:26 am UTC (link)
	His views on 25 to Life could be seen as more proof he likes games though. I mean, I haven't met anyone who hoped people WOULD buy it. Hell, didn't Eidos's own president pretty much go "Please.. PLEASE don't buy our game."? (Reply to this)

Both sides of the coin- best of both worlds?

getwellgamer
2006-06-28 04:42 am UTC (link)

In a way, I think Shurtleff's position is actually stronger for his involvement of the 25 to Life debacle. Really, both of his major actions against the game are exactly the kinds of actions the industry would like to see. Once, he asked that the game not be released- not that it be declared illegal or criminalized as pornography, simply that it wouldn't be made. When the game did come out, he approaced it from the most meaningful angle- the people not buy the game, which is probably the only surefire way to prevent a sequel.

I think he should be praised for his use of rational discourse instead of trying to wave the judicial system threateningly in the general direction of the industry. Also, note the focus on "parents to look closely at the ESRB ratings before letting their kids play any game", probably one of the most sane things I've ever heard from a politician regarding video games.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Both sides of the coin- best of both worlds?

gamepolitics
2006-06-28 10:49 am UTC (link)

Shurtleff apparently was contacted by our pal Jack Thompson during the 25 to Life dustup. That's back when Thompson wanted police officers to sieze - without warrant - copies of 25 to Life from retail shelves based on some bizarre theory of his that such games constituted a public nuisance.

No police officer or law enforcement agency in the United States would actually do that, of course, but it is revealing in regard to Thompson's grasp on the whole free-speech concept as well as our right to be free from unlawful search and seizure.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

finaleve
2006-06-28 02:52 pm UTC (link)

You can, and then you cant support. It's a split-reason with this guy. He likes to play video games, and he says that (though words arent always as good as actions are). He protested against a game that was easily a bad game that was both bad in its portrayal (at least half the game anyways) and bad in production value. Like he says, he is a father, so he can help decide what games can be good and bad.

(Reply to this)

(33 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs