Tristam,
I agree on both parts. As I'm sure most do on at least the first. Though I wouldn't CONDEMN Rockstar or Take Two's inclusion of stereotypes (by way of Freedom of Speech, which protects unpopular speech as well as popular speech), but I don't support the use of stereotyping for purposes of bigotry and misinformation.

I do, however, find it absolutely HILARIOUS that politicians are complaining about stereotyping. I mean, seriously, how many news stories have we heard in just the past few years where various individual politicians, organizations, and even individual citizens have used stereotypes for various purposes? And, while this committee may be attacking media use of stereotypes in fictional content, I wonder if they will be addressing the use of stereotypes in non-fictional media and other situations. Various religious individuals and/or organizations who stereotype in sometimes verbally and mentally abusive manners regarding sexuality, race, gender, "opposing" religions, etc, etc, etc. Various news organizations, mainstream or otherwise, that have pushed, in one fashion or another, either bluntly or subtly, various stereotypes along the same lines. Even, as we well know, gamers and the "gamer community".

So, it seems rather hypocritical of this committee to be pointing fingers at select segments of society without pointing the fingers at other aspects, including the political media.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

@ Blackice

You won't get any information from JT.

@ Eville

This is not about stereotypes in games. It is about stereotypes in media. There are not any confirmations on the issue of games in this committee. If you look up to my previous post, I showed a site that has Mr. Zelnicks previous work history in it that may hold a more valid reason to why he is in this.

@Jack Thompson

So Mr Zelnick personally emailed his testimony to someone who's emails they route to someone else in the company?

Does not compute.

Why don't they investigate Starsky & Hutch and The Love Boat while they're at it? sheesh

why are we trying to legislate certain morals?

I sort of get confused between 'Stereotype' and 'Charactarisation' to be honest, after all, every Italian in a game being a Mafia member would be a stereotype, whereas every Italian in a game speaking with an Italian accent is characterisation, it's a neccessary stressing of a character trait, purely to confirm their Nationality/Position within the game. If it's dealing with the first, but not trying to classify the second as some kind of Stereotype, then it has good intentions at heart.

I'm worried about this. If they have no intention of taking any action, why are they investigating it? Perverse curiosity? To have something to do? To waste money? On the bright side, it seems they are investigating all media, so it's not biased.

@ Tristram

No, the Video Game Decency Act of 2007 is not a good thing. By any stretch of the imagination. The ESRB already punishes publishers who conceal material to receive a lower rating with heavy fines. And who is this material being concealed from? Last I checked, the ESRB is not a government agency and is not supported nor enforceable by the law.

Besides what idiot conceals content to receive a lower rating? If I make "Happy Kiddie Purely Innocent Adventure Game" and it receives an E, I'd be a fool to hide torture-rape-bondage-abusive-porn as an Easter Egg. What would I gain? Especially when you consider that many games take years to develop; Heavenly Sword, for example, took about five years. There's no profit in it.

This law is merely a knee-jerk reaction to Hot Coffee. I highly doubt that concealing content is common or intended when it occurs.

To anyone who thinks there's anything to gain from hiding material in games to get a lower rating:

You clearly haven't been paying attention.

Take Two lost millions in sales, paid millions for the recall, spent millions retooling and reissuing the game, which many retailers then wouldn't carry in case it still contained other hidden gems. Probably lost a millions in stock value, and has had a rough time ever since. And was told by the ESRB that if they ever did it again, they'd face millions of dollars in fines.

And now they are under constant scrutiny by both public and government.

Yeah, that whole "hiding code to get a better rating" thing worked out GREAT for them.. /sarcasm.

@ E. Zachary Knight

Exactly. I can't help but wonder how such legislation would work. Would it even be enforceable?

Perhaps they are considering modifying the FCC's guidelines, but why would they ask Zelnick there? Which is even more worrisome, actually. They could put video games under the authority of the FCC (truly, a frightening concept).

Ok. I'm getting a little paranoid, now. Such an action would be resisted. After all, there is a difference between television and radio and video games. That is, you have to buy the game, but TV and radio are practically free.

I think I have figured out why they invited Straus Zelnick to this committee.

Here is the website for Zelnick media:

http://www.zelnickmedia.com/indexflash.html

Here is what they say about Straus Zelnick:

http://www.zelnickmedia.com/zelnick.html

Appearantly, he has been the head honcho of several movie and music businesses. It may have nothing to do with video games.

It's nice that they're doing this, but don't hold your breath. It'll turn out as everything else did.

As everyon'es said, Trstram, this is a bad thing. First of all, it's a waste of the time and money these people should be putting toward actual needs; second, doing this only to video games would be utterly asinine considering that unrated movies are available for anyone who wants them; and third, doing this would just support the opinions of those who believe video games are evil, gamers are idiots, and the games industry isn't trustworthy.

This would accomplish nothing that isn't done voluntarily already, and the only reason they're trying to do it at all is that these people don't or can't comprehend what Hot Coffee actually was. Considering that part of the game was inaccessiblle in an unmodified product, the ESRB could have played every part of the game and it still would never have been discovered.

Which brings us to why certain other useless, misguided, and ignotrant efforts to do things like requre a full play-through for rating. This would also be a terrible idea for oh so many reasons, not least of which is that the people trying to pass such laws honestly don't understand that this would have had no effect on Hot Coffee at all because that became available only through user modification--

Although let's be honest--if your underage child is mature enough you let him or her PLAY a GTA game, they are more than mature enough for a hidden scene that is less pornographic than what most of the tamest romantic comedies show, let alone R rated movies which get away with considerably worse and are widely regarder by most parents as acceptable for their children regardles of age

Yet some of the same people who let their kids watch explicit sex scenes in movies were up in arms about pixellated semi-nudity. Not to mention the surprise of so many excellent parents who couldn't imagine why a game called "Grand Theft Auto" and rated M would contain things they are appalled their children had been playing since they bought it for the kids.

"From Imus to Industry: The Business of Stereotypes and Degrading Images"

Is a funny title to give the hearing. It doesn't strike me as a discussion, or an inquiry. Rather it strikes me as the kind of thing someone says when they already believe they know the answer (Industry = Stereotypes = degrading images).

I don't disagree that our media cranks stereotypes, but reaming them out in congress isn't going to do anything about it. Furthermore, legislation on reducing stereotypes would be a sign that we should leave the country or topple the government.

The last thing I want is a politician (or more likely a lobbyist) deciding whether HBO's The Wire stereotypes its characters, or if artistically characterizes life in Baltimore.

@Xlorep DarkHelm

Good reference! Not only did the comic code ruin comics artistically for decades, it actually destroyed several well established comic companies. Tales from the Crypt publisher EC comics is a lot like modern day Rockstar -- they were even brought to Congress and made testify over the graphic quality of their comic book covers and the impact on children. At the end of the day, even though they had a sizable readership base, since they couldn't print their content, EC didn't survive.

Guys, be nice. I want an answer out of him.

How're you going to get in Jack? Do you have a legitimate reason to testify?

@AgnostoTheo

Your input is noted. Now take a seat.

Best bet is to ignore JT posts at the moment, he claims to be involved in any 'event' that is mentioned here, and it inevitably turns out to be a false claim.

@ BlackIce

I'd bet that Jack is just trying to get a rise out of us. He thinks he's important. It's kinda cute... when a dog or cat acts that way. Then again, I think my dog is smarter than him anyway. The odd makers say he has no contact with the committee and if he does they dismiss him.

Like E. Zachary Knight noted Zelnick has ties to movie companies so he’s more than likely there for that reason. Video games maybe a bonus topic, but I doubt they want the Massacre Chaser there telling them how the Virginia Tech review board was wrong or some garbage like that.

@Gameboy

Duly noted. I'll wait another 5 minutes then give up.

Ah yes, another congressional subcomittee to waste everyone's time and money. I guarantee nothing at all will come out of this, except for a few people getting to sleep faster via CSPAN.

@ cppcrusader

Actually, he is relevant for once-- he's a living, breathing lawyer joke.

I think i'll give up on JT answering me for now.

Where's RaRouche? I have the need for Senator-Bashing.

Why would JT go? It's about stereotypes, not games specfically. Sharing his brand of bullcrap is off topic.

@JT

Good, you can tell them how much you hate Homosexuals.

ARrr, why he be wantin to research sterotypes? Aye say we make 'im walk da plank!

@Gavin Schmitt

What happened with Comic Books mirrors what we are seeing now with Video Games, in many ways, much more closely than other attempts to censor & restrict media (which most, if not all, have had their run with censorship). I think that people need to look at what happened with Comics, and attempt to learn from history, rather than repeat it. I would really hate it if the only games that become acceptable are "my little pony dress-up" or some such, and even games like Super Mario are considered "too violent". If we don't learn from history, that's exactly where this is heading, just like it did with the Comic industry before (when everything was significantly redesigned and the industry was reeling from what happened).

Just like how Comics are not strictly for kids (but were publicly perceived as such back in Werthem's days) -- and only recently really started to become publicly recognized as an entertainment and artistic medium for adults, with complex, and varying mature plotlines and themes, games are int he same boat. The public image for video games is that they are for kids. This image remains as long as people keep referring to them as something for "kids". Unfortunately, just telling people they aren't "just for kids" doesn't seem to accomplish anything, because there is a certain level of apathy that people have toward that cause. The *image* of what Video Games are needs to change, to be pulled away from the notion that they are just for kids.

Rockstar Games has one approach to it (make games that are extremely obvious they are made for mature audiences), but that is a two-edged sword, in the effort to make a point of making adult/mature oriented games, nay-sayers turn the tables and say that Rockstar is marketing mature-themed games to children... this is because of the stereotype that has formed that games are for kids... so rather than affecting the change in image that Rockstar (and other developers) seems to be striving toward, they end up feeding fuel to the fire used against the industry.

Destroying the image of the people who are against video games, accomplishes equally little... everything can be spun one way or another, and then you also have the certain level of apathy which exists in the population where they simply don't care about those things.

What needs to be done is a massive ad & marketing campaign which clearly guides people (gently guides them) into changing their perception of video games as "kids toys" to a medium that is more mature. And not just an ad and marketing campaign, but also get in and let the politicians know -- stick it in their faces, get them fully aware of what video games are and aren't. I like the new head of the ESA's idea of carrying around a DS to Capitol Hill, and letting the politicians see first-hand what the latest video games are, and try them out. We need to get people become established in the mass media scene, who can help guide people to see the merits of video games, talking heads that help establish a much more realistic, and game-friendly environment across the board.

These are not easy to do... and the need becomes less and less important as time progresses, because people who grew up with video games in their lives are on the verge of being the "established" leaders... And then the whole point becomes moot, because these people won't want to remove video games... rather, it will be *something else* that will be the new hot-ticket item to attack... and then the cycle will continue.

"Ignore Jack, he’s just trying to include himself in something in which he has no relevance."

Life?

Jacko isnt testifying. He probably wont even try to get in to testify. Hes just trying to ruffle feathers.


Afterall, the only real use having Jack at a hearing of this nature would be to have a real life example of a racist bigot to spew out sterotypes for them to compare against.

agree... why would jt testify?

@ Jacko the Wacko

You would make an excellent example of a stereotype Jack, for several different stereotypes.

-You are an ambulance chasing, money grubbing, frivilous lawsuit lawyer.

-You are a religious nut case who is convinced of your own divinity and can do no wrong.

-A Self proclaimed vigilante crusader who is all but clueless about the world around him.

-You are a blatant media whore who will say just about anything to stroke your own ego so you can be on TV.

Have I forgotten any others?

Someone needs to go up there and remind congress about this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Movies and videogames could have every black man in an afro and cheetah patterned zoot suit or every Asian with buck teeth and a math book and it still would not be the business of Congress to do anything about it.

JT should testify!

Think about it! What has happened to every single bill that JT has testified in support of. IT HAS FAILED MISERABLY!

So I say GO FOR IT! ;)

"Mr. Zelnick will be testifying about the stereotype of the entertainment mogul who markets sex and violence to other people’s kids, who calls games like Manhunt 2 art, and who targets critics with lawsuits and Bar complaints.

Oh, wait, Strauss is that stereotype."

Since when are lawyers 'critics,' Mr. Thompson? And since when have you 'critiqued' anything? Critiquing is not "GET RID OF THIS NOW OR I BLAST YOU."

Learn the definition, you blowhard.

@Jack Thompson:

Shouting at your TV while it plays C-SPAN doesn't qualify as "testifying". Hope this helps, and remember, anytime you want more lessons in how to be a real grownup lawyer, you can always come back and ask for more.

Well if Jack does testify that'd fill the "Racist, Bigoted Lawers who are against games" quota.

Jack, this is the sort of thing you have to be invited to attend. You know what that means, right? You can't show up and wave your book around.

Now go away, we're talking about grown up matters.

Kinda glad to see they're including Zelnick, as it means we're one step closer towards having games seen as a legitimate form of media, instead of as certain people would have it seen, vomit on the sidewalk.

ARRRG!! YE BE FORGTIN THE PIRATES MATIE!

Not wit 'ose shifty ninjas landlubbers!

Double post.

@ Whoever suggested the wikipedia article on the comic code: I actually knew about that but had not considered it in the same context. Thanks for reminding me.

Um... Jack? Don't YOU target critics with lawsuits? like every Rockstar and Take-two game since 1997?

As much as I love pulling the hypocrite card on you, it's really getting tiresome

@F**ked Up: One of the things in your list is totally not like the others. Can you spot which one? Here's the list again:

"Hmm Saying Manhunt 2 is marketed to other people’s kids is saying that Eyes Wide Shut, South Park, Saving Private Ryan, Sim City, Natural Born Killers, Reservoir Dogs, Hostel, Hell Raiser, I spit on your Grave, Saw, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, 24, Nip/Tuck, CSI, Law and Order, the Shield, The Sopranos, 6 feet under, and on and on are marketed towards kids…"

I wonder why they are only looking at the media's portrayal, and not considering the deeper issues of how a family--intentionally and without even realizing it--raises their children to certain racial and ethnic preconceptions. It seems to me that most of the people influenced by television's racist, sexist, or stereotypical portrayals of anything usually already had some preconceived notions the media only affirm in them, not plant in them. And I hope the study looks at News, because the news portrayal of races--as seen in the wake of Katrina when white people scavenging televisions was termend "finding" and black people scavenging bread and milk was termed as "looting"--is incredibly biased.

So much so that many, many people actually believe over ninety percent of violent crimes are committed by blacks because white-committed crimes tend not to make the news unless they're white-collar. If they're going to examine how fiction portrays stereotypes, they'd better examine reality, especially since the attitudes people hold in regards to real live people are more dangerous than any they hold about characters in a movie or game.

If it takes all of that into account, the study itself might actually become a welcome development if it doesn't try to use this in support of ill-conceived--impossible to employ and ridiculously uninformed--efforts to legislate what game makers put in their products, especially without any similar expectations of other forms of media. It's been said before, better than I could express it, that the games industry has every reason to get their games accurately rated and none at all to hide it, so such legislation as that would be completely useless.

Why legislate when market forces lready accomplish what you're trying to legislate? As I've said, I think the main reason people keep trying to do this kind of stuff is that they are afraid of what they don't understand, but the second is that they are too lazy, too incompetent, or too blindly
gullible about other people's "save teh childrenses!!!" efforts to actually bother to learn what Hot Coffee really was and how there was nothing the rating system could have done to prevent it--NOTHING.

The onus fell on the game makers, who mistakenly turned off what, in a mod-happy environment, should have been removed. They didn't include the Hot Coffee scene because as far as those publishing were concerned, that scene no longer existed in the game at all. They couldn't exactly know that it was left intact, and they certainly couldn't know that it would be found by enterprising modders in such a manner that the uninformed political sorts would circle the issue and tear it apart like sharks drawn to blood in the water.

So the individuals who made the decision to keep the scene in the game in any form are at fault (did they somehow miss the thriving mod community and bloodthirsty, ignorant, and vote-seeking politicos who like to harp on video games in their doddering old age?) and all the legislation in the world wouldn't have had any effect at all on the Hot Coffee scene, nor would R* be in toruble for lying about game content because they didn't--they just didn't make it fully inaccesible to the resourceful. When politicians can't see that their efforts and abuse of the public's trust and funds wouldn't have a lick of benefit in the situation that sparked their bleating and apocalyptic fearmongering, it's hard to even imagine that somehow the parody versions of them on the comedy channel aren't utterly accurate.

--Speaking of stereotypes, does anyone with actual law background know how it is that Jack Thompson hasn't been disbarred yet? Even a first year psych student could easily identify precisely which mental disorders he fits to a T. I mean, honestly, he fits the bill for paranoid delusional so aptly he could be a case study into the condition, and is there any doubt about his narcissistic tendencies and delusions of grandeur?

Any psych who actually LOOKED AT his conspriacy theories would have to realize that this man is off his rocker and well past the "sanely funtional" stage of paranoid delusional, down into the "woe is me, everyone is trying to get me no matter how unrelated to me their efforts are." I mean , just look over the man's statements here plus his filed complaints (everybody is out to get me; they're all working to gether to make me look wrong; everything they say/do is targeting me; fantasy situations will result in real harm to me).

I'm just wondering if somebody knows what about the process has so far prevented Jacko from being canned. It seems like he should already have been kicked out with all the mounds of evidence from his efforts to tarnish the names of games, game companies, and gamers. It just looks to me as if all the evidence leaves basically two options, neither of which should allow him to continue practicing law for reasons that basically boil down to his inability to perform rational thought and respectful actions toward anyone he views as against him:

1) he honestly is nuts and needs serious psychiatric help;
2) he is too full of self-righteous fervor, and incapable of objectivity in regards to any subject or client that involves or even tangentially mentions video games.

So, the question, for those who are educated in such matters, is why they haven't realized Jack's unfitness for duty yet? I mean, what does it take for any law institution to decide it has legal reasons to cut from its ranks a man who would cheer when somebody is contemplating suicide?

@Jack Thompson

You may not.

edit

*Sin City... off by one letter when there right next to each other.

Like Asshole Thompson never mis spelled a word or anyone else had a typo

[...] Representative Bobby Rush from Illinois thinks stereotypes are a serious problem in today’s media. To that effect, he’s chairing a special hearing entitled “From Imus to Industry: The Business of Stereotypes and Degrading Images” before the House Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection next Tuesday, bringing together executives from all facets of the entertainment industry, including Strauss Zelnick, the chairman of Take Two Interactive. Zelnick will be joined by representatives from Warner Music, Viacom, Universal Music, Radio One, and quite possibly rapper Master P. Sounds like a party to me! The hearing will explore the way the media portrays people in general, possibly finally clearing up the popular misconception that prostitutes replenish your health. Lawmakers focus on media effects [The Hollywood Reporter via Game Politics] [...]