gamepolitics: Firing Squad Interview with Congressman Cliff Stearns

Game Politics (

gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-08-21 05:10:00

Entry tags:

cliff stearns, congress, esrb, hr5912, john callaham, ratings

Firing Squad Interview with Congressman Cliff Stearns

GP's bud John Callaham over at Firing Squad scores another solid interview, this time with Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), chair of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. Stearns has also proposed legislation, the so-called "Truth in Video Game Rating Act."

Stearns expressed to Callaham his concerns about the ESRB's game rating process as well as how games are marketed. Here are some of the Congressman's points from the Firing Squad interview:

"The rating board, which is supported by the industry, does not review the game's entire content, instead relying on reviews that has led to numerous problems with inappropriate content being marketed to children."

"Ratings need to be clearer and more universal, and the entire game should be reviewed... My goal is to ensure accuracy and consistently in ratings so that parents are empowered to monitor the content of their children's games... Every industry should know the full content of its products whether that product is a video game, a movie, or a food."

Callaham also asked Rep. Stearns about the Hot Coffee and Oblivion re-rates.

"It appears that the industry responded appropriately in these instances and should be commended."

(28 comments) - (Post a new comment)

	dreamshade 2006-08-21 11:21 am UTC (link)
	"The rating board, which is supported by the industry, does not review the game's entire content, instead relying on reviews that has led to numerous problems with inappropriate content being marketed to children." ....Such as? (Reply to this)

	anticron 2006-08-21 12:21 pm UTC (link)
	"[...]that has led to numerous problems with inappropriate content being marketed to children." GTA: San Andreas and Oblivion is "numerous"? Is this guy even aware how many games come out per year? Further, "being marketed to children"? On which planet? (Reply to this)

	Silly widget andrew_eisen 2006-08-21 12:33 pm UTC (link)
	The rating board, which is supported by the industry, does not review the game’s entire content, instead relying on reviews that has led to numerous problems with inappropriate content being marketed to children. Numerous? Try zero. Neither example you're thinking of were marketed to children. Even if they were, "two" hardly qualifies as numerous. Andrew Eisen (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Silly widget anticron 2006-08-21 07:37 pm UTC (link)
	Oblivion's Teen rating could apply in this case. San Andreas obviously does not. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Silly widget andrew_eisen 2006-08-21 08:01 pm UTC (link)
	It could but it didn't. I didn't see any marketing for Oblivion that targeted children. I guess I could have missed them but because Bethesda didn't have to change any of their marketing materials beyond reflecting the new rating, I'm confident in my claim that the game was never marketed to kids in the first place. Andrew Eisen (Reply to this) (Parent)

	finaleve 2006-08-21 12:39 pm UTC (link)
	Seriously...I only know of 2 Instances where content wasn't seen, and even if this act was enforced, what the hell would it change if this was enforced before those 2 instances. NOTHING!!!! So toss this crap out...it ain't gonna help. (Reply to this)

	he's funny enmitywithin 2006-08-21 12:59 pm UTC (link)
	you think you can attack an industry making false accusations such as "relying on reviews that has led to numerous problems with inappropriate content being marketed to children" 1. name how the game is being marketed 2. name how the "inappropriate content" is being marketed if you cna't answer within 10 seconds, you fail. (Reply to this)

Rate the entire game, huh?

gamereviewgod
2006-08-21 01:06 pm UTC (link)

They should have pushed harder, especially with the "full content before rating" issue. I really want to hear him respond about how they're supposed to play 60 years of a franchise in Madden.

Figure 15 games a year (not even including playoffs) at around an hour each game, and you're looking at 900 hours of gameplay time. Wouldn't the ESRB need to play the entire franchise mode to ensure something doesn't show up in year 45? Technically, simming seasons all the way there wouldn't work either because they wouldn't be playing the games now would they?

He doesn't seem to have any grasp on what the games entail or how physically impossible it would be to play each game completely, and that's pathetic. He should NOT be speaking out against them in that case, but hey, facts are meaningless, right?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Rate the entire game, huh? gamepolitics 2006-08-21 06:33 pm UTC (link)
	good point re: Madden. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Rate the entire game, huh? hayabusa75 2006-08-21 07:56 pm UTC (link)
	JC did ask him that, but to everyone's utter shock, he completely evaded the question. (Reply to this) (Parent)

cecil475
2006-08-21 02:07 pm UTC (link)

I'd ask him how he plans to have an ENTIRE game reviewed. It could take months or more to review a new GTA game in its entirity. As would a lot of new games. Which is why most games have a 'save' feature. It might be done in the days of the NES and SNES becuase there wern't too many games that took many months to complete. A sim game here. A Squaresoft title there. I believe most were a complete in a few houre kinds of games Such of an idea to review an ENTIRE game might have worked out then. But now a lot of games take a long time to complete. Longer if you count in your daily schedule, other obligations, and not forgeting the fact you have never played the game before, so it takes time to get used to how the game works. Now I think that the people reviewing a game have a limited time with each game, before moving on to another. If thats the case. one really would not have enough time to review an entire game. And if thats not the case, It would take many months before a game could be released.

Please note that I'm not sure how the ESRB reviews games other than playing them.

- Warren Lewis

(Reply to this)

	godsy 2006-08-21 02:33 pm UTC (link)
	Do parents really need to rely on the ESRB that much, despite the fact that most M-rated games have the lead character brandishing guns or killing zombies? Isn't that enough for parents? And I mean, since they're throwing away 60 bucks for this game, can't they even bother to check out what it's actually about? (Reply to this)

jahbulon
2006-08-21 03:29 pm UTC (link)

"Every industry should know the full content of its products whether that product is a video game, a movie, or a food."

This is true enough. I'm glad to see some politicians would like to bolster the existing industry watchgroups rather than creating a new inquisition, or proposing ridiculous and unnecessary legislation. Just like movies, all the video game industry needs is consistent content ratings, and we can make whatever kind of games we like. In fact, I think it'd be a good idea if they modeled the ratings on the film industry, including the content necessary to receive a certain rating. This would lend the rating system legitimacy in the eyes of parents.

"It appears that the industry responded appropriately in these instances and should be commended."

The industry responded appropriately for an industry hoping it has a future, on this planet. The most appropriate general response would of course have been "Take your censorship and shove it up your arse you prudish luddite little bitches".

(Reply to this)

Unrated

traiklin
2006-08-21 03:40 pm UTC (link)

I want to know what would happen if some companies started releasing Unrated versions of their games.

Congress doesn't seem to give a damn when the movie industry does it, why should they give a damn when the video game industry does it?

Ratings need to be clearer and more universal, and the entire game should be reviewed

yeah smart move there, let's get people who never played games a controller and tell them to complete this 80+ hour game in a timely mannor (since the ESRB get's people who don't play games to rate games) that will work REAL well, GTA San andreas was over 120 hours (if you completed EVERYTHING in the game) now tell me, how many people that rated the game based on the videos would honestly play through the game for 120+ hours or even watch a video for 120+ hours to rate the game?

Why not start a "Truch in Movies rating act"? that way people would have to sit there and rate the 20+ hours of bonus features that are unrated and have to be rated now on top of the 4 hour movie they had to sit through to review.

(Reply to this)

I know he means well

jabrwock
2006-08-21 03:47 pm UTC (link)

I mean, this is the first guy who actually just concerned about the ratings themselves. Hedoesn't seem overly concerned with whether kids can buy the games, he's concerned that when the parent buys the game, they're not getting all the info they need to make an informed decision.

BUT

He needs to be reminded that "fixing" the ESRB by making them review the entire game wouldn't have solved the Hot Coffee or Oblivion issues. Because those resources were unavailable to the average player without a hack. So without a programmer who tries to break the code looking for unused resources, they're not going to find such things.

If anything, he should be working with the ESRB to develop harsher penalties and clearer guidelines as to what happens when such an incident DOES occur. Because even under his system, it will.

(Reply to this)

I could be mistaken, but...

xwaix
2006-08-21 03:48 pm UTC (link)

Aren't the Hot Coffee scandal and the Oblivion fiasco the two major screwups that led to this law?

And if that's the case, wouldn't that mean that regardless of whether or not they make the ESRB play through the entire game (which is infeasible in itself), this law will do nothing to prevent a recurrence, since neither of those two re-rates were based on things that COULD be found during the normal course of gameplay?

(Reply to this)

	brokenscope 2006-08-21 04:07 pm UTC (link)
	1=100 This message brought to you by Rep. Cliff Stearns. (Reply to this)

	zewrestler 2006-08-21 04:37 pm UTC (link)
	so either the prices will go up for games because they will have to spend more on these games in order to get them to be released on time or game delays will be delayed because of them playing the entire game. (Reply to this)

I don't think he understands the industry

ace_of_sevens
2006-08-21 05:07 pm UTC (link)

I don't Clifff Stearns is a bad man who doesn't care about the constitution. He just doesn't seem to understand the business he's trying to regulate. Beyond the time concerns, if the ESRB played full games, it would mean that fairly skilled gamers would be doing the ratings, not the parents and what not they have doing them now. Would you trust the staff of Fangoria to run the film ratings board?

Also, the government doesn't have any right to tell private bodies how to conduct their business beyond safety regulations. It can try to put pressure to reform the ratings system, but it can't tell private certification boards what their standards have to be. If nothing else, I'm pretty sure this would be a violation of equal protection.

(Reply to this)

Video Game Security

dreadpirateiago
2006-08-21 05:09 pm UTC (link)

Yes, The ESRB should investigate every playable hour of a video game, just as Customs Offciers investigate of box and crate of cargo that enters the U.S....um waitaminute...

What I meant to say is that if the ESRB had actually played all of GTA and Oblivion, they would have found that secret code which was completely inaccessible except through hacking and mods...no..wait..I mean...

I wish we protected our borders as well as we intend to protect our children.

(Reply to this)

the1jeffy
2006-08-21 05:15 pm UTC (link)

The entire game should be reviewed? *sigh* I am tired of hearing that noise coming from the mouths of idiot politicians. Many major titles have ~80 hours of play time, if you speed through it and don't replay it. It is impossible to rate on that much material alone, yet again taking into account ALL game-play possibilities. Imagine Fable! You'd never see all the content available, not really ever. But it would take roughly an hour's worth of footage to rate it M where it belongs.

Besides, to even attempt to rate based on all game possibilities, you'd have to hire professional gamers. Who arguably would have a pro game bias, making them unable to objectively rate games. And most definitely, using more random people, mostly parents, as the ESRB currently does, is a better way to ensure that parents agree with the ratings. Ostensibly, the ESRB rating exist to inform parents. Doesn't it make sense to get unbiased groups of them to rate the games, instead of a professional gamer? Especially since the ESRB is called down for being industry backed.

Movies are roughly 2 hours. A reviewer for the MPAA can watch around 3 movies a day. The video game with 100 hours of "footage" (an extreme underestimate) would take roughly 3 work weeks to review. Why should the video game industry be forced by Congress to spend more money on manpower than movies, when the industry has a competent ratings board that is well accepted by parents who actually use it?

My goal is to ensure accuracy and consistently in ratings so that parents are empowered to monitor the content of their children's games

This is the ESRB's goal, too. They don't need your interference or help, asshat.

(Reply to this)

	caelum 2006-08-21 06:03 pm UTC (link)
	I wonder who would populate an independant review board... and how to keep it from being too harsh or too lenient. (Reply to this)

a comparison

blitzfitness
2006-08-21 07:10 pm UTC (link)

I have sitting on my desk two DVD boxes. Exhibit A is a movie (How High featuring Method Man and Redman) and Exhibit B is a Playstation 2 videogame (Resident Evil 4).

Point 1: The movie is rated 'R', the game 'M'. The movie rating is located on the back of the case with a letter R that is enclosed in a box that looks about 1/4 x 1/4 inch. The videogame has a rating on the front 7/8 x 1/2 inch AND on the back 2 3/8 x 5/8. Note: Parent's who don't know the subject matter are likely to see a rating on the front of a box than the back, especially with the way that these items are displayed in stores.

Point 2: The R rating comes with a descriptor that reads "Pervasive drug use and language, and for sexual dialogue". This is one of my favorite movies and I noticed a distinct lack of the word 'nudity' despite the fact that there is some nudity right at the beginning of the film. The M rating comes with the descriptors "Blood and Gore", "Intense Violence", and "Language". I have not played through this game, but from what I have played, completely accurate.

Point 3: The 'R' stands alone. I have no information on the box that says what 'R' stands for, the type of audience it is not meant for, nor whom put the 'R' there. There is a symbol that I guess represents the MPAA, but I honestly don't know if that's what the symbol is for. However, both the front and back labels on the game label what 'M' stands for (mature), lists the target audience (17+), AND have the letters ESRB on them. The back label also has 'www.esrb.org' to lead people to their site.

Point 4: The DVD's background is a plain blue sky with thin white clouds background. Nothing special, yet I can see this background THROUGH the rating label. A quick look at other movies points out that, yes, a color scheme can indeed make it difficult to read the ratings. The game has a very dark and moody background that clearly shows artistic talent, however, the ESRB chose to implement its label as a constant black and white, and therefore the art won't obscure the information.

Do I have to go on? Cliff Stearns, do some research. Ratings on the medium you are targeting are vastly superior to the well-protected medium of movies and film.

Off Topic: Anybody read the Editor page of the Sports Illustrated (the 2006 college football preview feat. Notre Dame) by Jeff MacGregor? Specifically, his last 3 paragraphs? I'm curious to hear what others thought about it.

(Reply to this)

barfo
2006-08-21 07:27 pm UTC (link)

Its humorous that his "numerous" examples of "inappropriate content being marketed to our children" is 2, and then when asked specifically about those two cases he says that the industry should be "commended" for their actions there. If passing a law forcing them to do all sort of ridiculous hurdles in order ot review games is how he commends them, id hate to see him give them a reprimand.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	xlorep_darkhelm 2006-08-21 11:04 pm UTC (link)
	yea, I think it would be execution-style bullet to the back of the head. :P (Reply to this) (Parent)

hayabusa75
2006-08-21 08:01 pm UTC (link)

What an assclown this guy is. In his perfect world, all movies would come with a copy of the screenplay attached, all grocery stores would have a free sample section for everything in said store, and free 1,000 page walkthroughs would be available for every game being sold.

Perhaps I should retract my earlier sentiments about getting gamers in office; most of us seem to lack the prerequisite of only talking about things we know nothing about.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Silly widget

terminator44
2006-08-22 01:02 am UTC (link)

Perhaps I should retract my earlier sentiments about getting gamers in office; most of us seem to lack the prerequisite of only talking about things we know nothing about.

Well, there's that, and there's also the fact that most gamers aren't rich. Since you need so much money to campaign, the people who were born into upper-class wealth and privilege are essentially the only ones who can win any office higher than local. This is one of the biggest flaws with the U.S. political system (and the political systems of most first-world countries, I imagine) and it explains why many of the people in office simply look out for their own interests instead of listening to the wants and needs of their constituents.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Oh boy, where to start?

terminator44
2006-08-22 01:21 am UTC (link)

First off, neither Hot Coffee nor the Oblivion mod were readily available upon purchase. In both cases, you had to search the Internet rigoriously to find user-created code required to acsess that content. For you parents out there, ask yourselves: If your child has that kind of free-roam with the Internet, then what's to stop them from acessesing REAL porn?

Second, although clothed dry-humping and Argonian boobs make for a nice moral panic, there is NO documented evidence (that I know of) of ANY children accesessing and viewing either Hot Coffee or the Oblivion mod. Neither is there any solid evidence that such things have a significant negative effect on a young person's mind. So, really, what the hell is everybody worrying about?

Third, since both examples were accessed by experinced modders, simply asking the ESRB the play every game AS IS in its entirety wouldn't have prevented either. If Stearns was advocating having experienced programmers check for such hidden content, I might understand his approach more (though I still wouldn't support it). But no, he simply wants to force the ESRB to play every inch of what is playable, which won't accomplish anything.

Forget about fair treatment under the law or infringing on a private organization's rights. This bill is a flawed solution to a nonexistent problem. I REALLY hope this bill doesn't get past judicial scrutiny (assuming it passes), because if it does, the ESRB will end up with a lot of extra work for no good reason.

(Reply to this)

(28 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

LJ Labs

Store