Senator Pushes for New Video Game Rating Act

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), is going after the Enterprise Software Ratings Board (ESRB) with a  new bill that would require the video game ratings baord to perform more in-depth reasearch into a game before rating it for consumers.

From my personal experience, I feel that the ESRB is doing  agreat job with its rating system, and there's no need for government involvement in this area.

The article on PC World's web site says that Senator Brownback's "Truth in Video Game Rating" Act asks the FTC to prohibit the ESRB from rating games unless it has access to all of the game's content and has reviewed all of the materials.

I am not familiar with who is rating these games, but my guess is that they don't have the 50 hours or more time it would take to get through some of the more elaborate games available in the market today, so there's strike one against Sen. Brownback's suggestion.

Strike two ties in to the same issue -- how much would it cost the ESRB to pay someone to rate a game if they have to commit that much effort and time to reviewing one game? 

And, strike three would be that the ESRB already does a tremendous job at developing ratings for games, so the government shouldn't be wasting taxpayers dollars to try to fix something that isn't broken.

When I take my son into a retail outlet to purchase a game, he checks the ratings on the games he's interested in buying before I do. He's grown up with the ESRB and its ratings system, so it's second nature for him, as a 10-year-old, to check the rating of a game to know whether he can buy it or not -- much like when I was 10 years old and knew that I wouldn't be able to see a movie if it was rated R.  Further, the retailers are doing their job as well and now rrefuse to sell Mature Rated games to children under the age of 18.

Finally, this is really something that is up to the parents to handle on their own.  We are the ones who can judge our own child's maturity level and determine whether they can understand the fictitious nature of games. 

For example, I picked up Marvel Ultimate Alliance as a Christmas present for me and my son to play.  It's rated "Teen" for violence -- but I feel my son has the mental capacity to realize that this is not real, and that he understands he shouldn't be going around knocking people out.  On the other hand, I wouldn't pick up a game like Grand Theft Auto.  I think he can handle it, but I don't like what the game reprsents, and I don't want him to see people shooting at each other and being rewarded for breaking the law.

And as a gamer, I think most parents in the gaming community have the common sense needed to help their children make the right decisions using the quality ratings system that the ESRB has helped establish as a guide.

What are your thoughts?

Comments

[G Fraser]

Senator Brownback is a nutbag right-wing religious fanatic who is trying to garner support from the exteme religious right in the Republican Party as he tries to win the presidency. Obviously he is posturing on family values in an effort to get elected. By grandstanding on percieved problems that scare older folks and worried parents who can't do parenting by themselves, either through ignorance or fear, he is doing what any politician of his ilk would be expected to do. Perhaps this is much ado about nothing since the Congress doesn't have to run for office for another two years. Any responsible parent has the power of the money they dole out or spend on a child to control what games they play, and if the child is old enough to have a job of their own it is already too late to control what they play. At that point most parents have already done a enough job and their child is nuanced enough to seperate gaming from reality.

[Rossa]

Thanks for writing this.