By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - House of Representatives Introduces Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act

For any of you out there thinking that this bill, if passed, might be a good thing: Consider that the ESRB is a private, self-regulating organization, which isn't subject to governmental standards or regulation. According it special status under the law would, in effect, make the decisions of that private organization legally enforceable under an act of Congress. That's a pretty scary thing, if only for the precedent it sets.



"'Casual games' are something the 'Game Industry' invented to explain away the Wii success instead of actually listening or looking at what Nintendo did. There is no 'casual strategy' from Nintendo. 'Accessible strategy', yes, but ‘casual gamers’ is just the 'Game Industry''s polite way of saying what they feel: 'retarded gamers'."

 -Sean Malstrom

 

 

Around the Network

I believe that the very foundation of the ESRB is flawed. Of course, they theoretically provide a necessary service, as games should be rated just like movies and tv. But the difference is, if I'm not mistaken, that these other mediums are rated by government standards, and not private ones. Right now it's just a bunch of parents watching a video and saying "I don't want my kid playing that, so no others should."



Could I trouble you for some maple syrup to go with the plate of roffles you just served up?

Tag, courtesy of fkusumot: "Why do most of the PS3 fanboys have avatars that looks totally pissed?"
"Ok, girl's trapped in the elevator, and the power's off.  I swear, if a zombie comes around the next corner..."

Good God. I wish people would step back and remember that this country is a Republic. This is the sort of thing states are supposed to handle. We don't need the Federal government sticking their nose into every fucking situation.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

so if that passes the kids in the us will have to slip the taxi driver an extra 5 bucks to get their game.

 (slipping the taxi driver an extra 5 bucks is the method most commonly used in my area for underage procurement of booze, smokes, and mags.)



rocketpig said:
Good God. I wish people would step back and remember that this country is a Republic. This is the sort of thing states are supposed to handle. We don't need the Federal government sticking their nose into every fucking situation.

Blame the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution, and the fact that Congress has been using it to grab power originally delegated to the states for over a century.

"The regulation of interstate commerce being within this Legislature's power, the ESRB's ratings shall be enforced, blah blah blah..."



"'Casual games' are something the 'Game Industry' invented to explain away the Wii success instead of actually listening or looking at what Nintendo did. There is no 'casual strategy' from Nintendo. 'Accessible strategy', yes, but ‘casual gamers’ is just the 'Game Industry''s polite way of saying what they feel: 'retarded gamers'."

 -Sean Malstrom

 

 

Around the Network
thekitchensink said:
I believe that the very foundation of the ESRB is flawed. Of course, they theoretically provide a necessary service, as games should be rated just like movies and tv. But the difference is, if I'm not mistaken, that these other mediums are rated by government standards, and not private ones. Right now it's just a bunch of parents watching a video and saying "I don't want my kid playing that, so no others should."

The MPAA is private, not government.

 

I like this bill in theory but feel the ESRB itself is flawed to the point that mandating anything they say as law is more frightening than anything I've ever played in a video game.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Garcian Smith said:
rocketpig said:
Good God. I wish people would step back and remember that this country is a Republic. This is the sort of thing states are supposed to handle. We don't need the Federal government sticking their nose into every fucking situation.

Blame the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution, and the fact that Congress has been using it to grab power originally delegated to the states for over a century.

"The regulation of interstate commerce being within this Legislature's power, the ESRB's ratings shall be enforced, blah blah blah..."


Yep, that clause has caused many problems and given the Federalist-types way too much leeway to govern what should be state affairs.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

ok, so what about movie ratings or music? I don't think I have ever see anyone barred from buying M Music or R movies.



Viper1 said:
thekitchensink said:
I believe that the very foundation of the ESRB is flawed. Of course, they theoretically provide a necessary service, as games should be rated just like movies and tv. But the difference is, if I'm not mistaken, that these other mediums are rated by government standards, and not private ones. Right now it's just a bunch of parents watching a video and saying "I don't want my kid playing that, so no others should."


I like this bill in theory but feel the ESRB itself is flawed to the point that mandating anything they say as law is more frightening than anything I've ever played in a video game.


Well, "anything they say" is a gross exaggeration; this bill just states that people under 18 can't buy anything that the ESRB designates as "M" or "AO." But it's frightening nonetheless, because it's basically a carte-blanche license for the ESRB to restrict any material in video games that they don't wish children or teens to see, without Congressional or Constitutional oversight.

Consider this scenario: A game comes out that, say, stars a homosexual main character and makes references to same-sex relationships. It would otherwise be rated "E" or "T" by the ESRB. However, the ESRB decides to rate it "M." Suddenly, nobody under 18 can buy it. That would constitute discriminatory government censorship in any other situation, but in this one, it's all right.

Now replace homosexuality with abortion, religion, statements of opinion against certain public figures, or whatever you like. Protected by the First Amendment, right? Nope.

But then, it seems like legislators can get away with anything these days, regardless of its constitutionality or sensibility, so long as some hypothetical child might otherwise be harmed...



"'Casual games' are something the 'Game Industry' invented to explain away the Wii success instead of actually listening or looking at what Nintendo did. There is no 'casual strategy' from Nintendo. 'Accessible strategy', yes, but ‘casual gamers’ is just the 'Game Industry''s polite way of saying what they feel: 'retarded gamers'."

 -Sean Malstrom

 

 

Can anyone name me a single game where the main character actually rapes someone? I honestly can't think of any. Plenty of games where you get "high scores" for killing the most people, though.

I support the principle of enforcing age restrictions, but the fine here is way over the top, and this guy's ridiculous rhetoric is making it very hard for me to sympathize with him.