You know, with the total lack of anything that I stand for being done both by those who win and those who I'd actually vote for, I think I'm going to base the entireity of my voting record on the stances taken by politicians on video games. It seems to be the area that there is no bullshit in what people think. Not to say what they do isn't BS, but yeah, there is no spooky phrases or 10 second soundbites, just pure, unfiltered, dumbass-ery.

For example:

While on the surface, to someone who knows nothing about games beyond "Pong" or the like (or the US congress), it seems like a good idea, it isn't.
I'll quote what Penny Arcade said in its article on this:

I bolded one part that I thought of as pretty interesting.

Its just annoying to see lawmakers that know zero about what they are making laws about.....making laws about that.


Oh, and for those of you who are more visual learners, I present this to you:

I have a question. Is there a law in place to actually force the gaming industry to get their games rated?

Naturally, this link is to a retailer's information page:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id...1&type=category

For those wanting the drier, government issue:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:yJS9yb...us&ct=clnk&cd=4

ESRB's own site:
http://www.esrb.org/ratings/faq.jsp


The long and short of it, no... it's not required, it's voluntary. And the ESRB is an independant organization, not responsible for answering to government in the absence of any governing laws or being an actual government agency. It is wise marketing to go ahead and get a rating... perhaps even with the hopes of getting a harsher rating for more appeal.

It's ironic how Lieberman sang praises for the ESRB...

Yet Lieberman rants it's still not enough, especially since "Hot Coffee" slipped past the ratings system. Hillary Clinton and he are proposing the "Federal Entertainment Protection Act" (FEPA?). You can get the low-down off of her own site - http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/...s.cfm?id=249368.


OPINION
Just think, we can all play our games in the safety and privacy of our own home... just as long as the game and the game's audience are fully certified/licensed. That's right, a "license to kill" might be required in the gaming industry. I look forward to the day when I have documentation allowing me to prove I am an adult and am able to view pornographic material, play violent games and oh... own a real hand gun, drink alcohol... not to mention, be forced to fight in Iraq if in the military. Or would it be okay if the soliders overseas play GTA? Nah..... too much sex and violence for them too, right?? And if it's not, guess you have to be on the government payroll for law enforcement or military to be able to enjoy them.

Aye, soon enough "Video Game Control" laws are going to become harsher than gun control laws. Heck, I imagine the laws governing overseeing what can and can't be done with a gun (such as ease of modifications, gun kits, etc) are probably going to be less strict than video game enforcement.

Just to add, I couldn't agree with you more when you talk of how stupid it is that people who know nothing about video games are trying to set laws for them. The new game Bully is a great example of that, it was almost just as controversial as San Andreas, before any information about the game, other than it was being developed by Rockstar, and it was going to be in a school setting, was even released. They started accusing it of being a "columbine simulator".
I bought this game a few days ago, and it's actually a very light-hearted game, and rated Teen. Pompous fuckasses just assumed that it was going to be a horrible game, and it was blown so incredibly out of proportion, for nothing. Even my father heard about it, and he knows nothing about video games. :P

I think more people are trying to get involved with picking on video games simply because it's a hot topic in the media and they want to get their names mentioned in some third rate magazine, or possibly their face on some third rate news program. The only problem is they're making themselves look like fucking morons in the process.
Example: Jack Thompson.

I wonder if the developers at Rockstar might try a little marketing coup.

Perhaps they should confront those so dead-set against the release of certain video games, they should buy them at full retail to have a nice little demonstration like book burning (except burning the game CD's), all the while pointing out they ruin a perfectly good computer game that could have kept young children at home versus going out to beat up the neighbourhood kids?? Or maybe just off the streets late at night and doing who know's what for peer pressure or prestige???

Oh Jack Thompson, he'd be funny if he wasn't so pathetic. Anyone who commits a murder AND owns a video game trained on the game, obviously.

I'm really starting to see a lot more of those --Content or experience may vary in online gameplay that may not be considered in the rating-- sort of messages on games now. It's going to pretty close to impossible to rate games that are more complex.

Perhaps they should add more to the rating. With complex games, add more detailed ratings. If it's predicted that patches will come that may make the character sprites nude or add animated blood or the like then just put a small letter "p" for "Patchs Expected/Available" below the larger rating such as "E" for everyone or "T" for Teen.

Problem is, though, there's no way you can predict what player will make what patch.

Which is why they shouldn't try rating for future patches, but just warn people that they are expected. You can change a game's rating drastically with one patch. Instead of rating based on patches, they should rate based on the original game and tell that patches are expected or are already available. And I'm sure making some attempt at playing a game before rating it would help too. >_<