No surprise that the committee was obviously biased against the industrybeardoggxJune 15 2006, 02:38:19 UTC
No surprise at all.
It was surprising that the committee criticized the FTC's slap on the wrist. Barton and Upton should grow up and accept the FTC's ruling and move on. Maybe Upton should be fined million of dollars for always attacking the First Amendment.
Lowenstein also repeated a line he has used previously, saying, "Defining this industry based on its most controversial titles would be like defining the film industry based on Kill Bill, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Natural Born Killers..."
Lowenstein made an ironic point, as Oliver Stone beat a "wrongful death" lawsuit over Natural Born Killers.
For her part, researcher Kim Thompson suggested that the ESRB might do well to actually play the games which it rates (the ESRB relies primarily on game publishers to tell the ratings body what type of content games contain)And again I ask, how does she expect the ESRB to play the games when some games take several weeks and months to complete it?(And they would have to play the games through to find everything to rate) As I said
( ... )
Re: No surprise that the committee was obviously biased against the industryrformerJune 15 2006, 04:37:30 UTC
Dr. Walsh's stats were great. She claims Pac-Man is incredibly violent. She claims that on average, there are 60 deaths per minute in the average game. The idiocy of all of this is that even if they "play every game," what's the chance of them finding something like hot coffee? Zero.
Re: No surprise that the committee was obviously biased against the industrycrimson_mageJune 15 2006, 06:03:46 UTC
For her part, researcher Kim Thompson suggested that the ESRB might do well to actually play the games which it rates (the ESRB relies primarily on game publishers to tell the ratings body what type of content games contain)
And again I ask, how does she expect the ESRB to play the games when some games take several weeks and months to complete it?(And they would have to play the games through to find everything to rate) As I said, her study wasn't worth the paper it was printed on as it was nothing more than glorified nitpicking at its worst, straight and simple. I strongly disagree on both counts. I'm sure you could find people willing to play through every nook and cranny of a video game on the hunt for hidden content. Heck, I'm pretty sure that if you rounded up a tenth of the people who contribute to GameFAQs.com, offer them some money to do the job, and divvy up the work, you could get spot-on ratings for even epic-scale games like Elder Scrolls IV in a matter of weeks. Throw in some people from the mod community and you can
( ... )
Re: No surprise that the committee was obviously biased against the industryeusisnaphtaliJune 15 2006, 10:13:22 UTC
I suspect the problem is hiring enough people to blast through these games as necessary, espicially since many are reviewed before they're actually complete, and that requiring a thorough play through before release would require a delay in the game for it to be rated. As well, there's only /3/ anonymous people reviewing these games according to the ESRB's site, and they want to keep them anonymous.
I think a compromise would be to hire a bunch of people to play through the beta version to a significant degree, and write down their experinces for the raters to look over in case there's any significant differences publishers may not have considered important or whatever. I seriously doubt hiring these testers will be all that hard for the ESRB.
Re: No surprise that the committee was obviously biased against the industrygray17June 16 2006, 00:02:08 UTC
I strongly disagree on both counts. I'm sure you could find people willing to play through every nook and cranny of a video game on the hunt for hidden content. Heck, I'm pretty sure that if you rounded up a tenth of the people who contribute to GameFAQs.com, offer them some money to do the job, and divvy up the work, you could get spot-on ratings for even epic-scale games like Elder Scrolls IV in a matter of weeks. Throw in some people from the mod community and you can avoid messes like what actually happened with ES4.
The problem there is avoiding accusations of bias. And actual bias. They do it the way they do it now not for it's efficiency, but for legitimacy in the eyes of the average mom and pop.
It was surprising that the committee criticized the FTC's slap on the wrist. Barton and Upton should grow up and accept the FTC's ruling and move on. Maybe Upton should be fined million of dollars for always attacking the First Amendment.
Lowenstein also repeated a line he has used previously, saying, "Defining this industry based on its most controversial titles would be like defining the film industry based on Kill Bill, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Natural Born Killers..."
Lowenstein made an ironic point, as Oliver Stone beat a "wrongful death" lawsuit over Natural Born Killers.
For her part, researcher Kim Thompson suggested that the ESRB might do well to actually play the games which it rates (the ESRB relies primarily on game publishers to tell the ratings body what type of content games contain)And again I ask, how does she expect the ESRB to play the games when some games take several weeks and months to complete it?(And they would have to play the games through to find everything to rate) As I said ( ... )
Reply
Reply
And again I ask, how does she expect the ESRB to play the games when some games take several weeks and months to complete it?(And they would have to play the games through to find everything to rate) As I said, her study wasn't worth the paper it was printed on as it was nothing more than glorified nitpicking at its worst, straight and simple.
I strongly disagree on both counts. I'm sure you could find people willing to play through every nook and cranny of a video game on the hunt for hidden content. Heck, I'm pretty sure that if you rounded up a tenth of the people who contribute to GameFAQs.com, offer them some money to do the job, and divvy up the work, you could get spot-on ratings for even epic-scale games like Elder Scrolls IV in a matter of weeks. Throw in some people from the mod community and you can ( ... )
Reply
I think a compromise would be to hire a bunch of people to play through the beta version to a significant degree, and write down their experinces for the raters to look over in case there's any significant differences publishers may not have considered important or whatever. I seriously doubt hiring these testers will be all that hard for the ESRB.
Reply
The problem there is avoiding accusations of bias. And actual bias. They do it the way they do it now not for it's efficiency, but for legitimacy in the eyes of the average mom and pop.
Reply
Leave a comment