With all the flak that video games have gotten from politicians, we're tempted to think that two will probably never mix.

The latest one involves U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama and his comment about video games. You can read an excerpt of his statement n the full article after the jump.

Looks like the controversy isn't over yet. In fact, the manhunt has just started. Leland Yee, California senator who made the 2005 Video Game Law, is demanding an explanation for ESRB's decision to give Take-Two Interactive's Manhunt 2 (for the Wii and PSP) an M rating, joining the protests raised by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.

Yee is suspicious of the correspondence between ESRB and Rockstar, claiming that their rating system can't be trustworthy for as long as the decision to make it so was held behind closed doors.

Not only is Yee demanding the ESRB to reveal what had led them to change the rating, but also to reveal all the correspondence that was held between them and Rockstar. He stated in a press release that:

Parents can’t trust a rating system that doesn’t even disclose how they come to a particular rating. The ESRB and Rockstar should end this game of secrecy by immediately unveiling what content has been changed to grant the new rating and what correspondence occurred between the ESRB and Rockstar to come to this conclusion. Unfortunately, history shows that we must be quite skeptical of these two entities. [...] Clearly the ESRB has a conflict of interest in rating these games. It is time to bring transparency to this rating system and for the industry to be held accountable.

While we can understand his sentiment, Senator Barack Obama's choice of rhetoric was a bit stale. Game Politics notes an Associated Press report that mentions his use of gaming as an equivalent to slacking.

According to the Associated Press, Obama was heard saying this at a a recent promotional rally in Austin, Texas:

Obama told the Austin crowd that they should try to recruit their friends to support his campaign. "I want you to tell them, 'It's time for you to turn off the TV and stop playing Game Boy,'" Obama said. "We've got work to do."

It obviously wasn't meant as a literal term, as the senator's been somewhat vocal in getting newer voters to go out and rock the vote (for him, presumably). He previously criticized youth culture as "watching TV, playing video games, and avoiding tough classes in school." Whether or not he wins the elections, we just want to tell him one thing though: "The new handhelds are the DS Lite and PSP. Take your pick for your next performance."

Back in September, one of our MyQJ contributors talked about Kansas Senator Sam Bronwback (R) and his introduction of a bill called the Truth in Video Game Ratings Act. The gist of the bill is that the Entertainment Software Ratings Board's (ESRB) game ratings should be based on the game's entire content and not just on viewing a game's most offensive content.

Fast forward to today. Doug Lowenstein has relinquished his ESRB presidency and Senator Brownback is gunning to be the next top inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (that's the White House for those who don't know). He is also re-introducing the said bill. This is what he said in a statement about it:

Video game reviewers should be required to review the entire content of a game to ensure the accuracy of the rating. The current video game ratings system is not as accurate as it could be because reviewers do not see the full content of games and do not even play the games they rate. The Truth in Video Game Rating Act would also commission a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study to determine the efficacy of the... ESRB ratings system.

Former ESRB head Doug Lowenstein said in September that this bill will not succeed and that people would not be represented by the average American parents. With him out of the picture, what happens next?

For those of you who aren't already aware, in June, the US House of Representatives Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee came together to discuss the issue of violent video games. During this conversation, many politicians seemed to have a negative opinion about the way the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) rates video games. Cliff Sterns (R-FL) had then proposed that they correct that system, and initiated the "Truth in Video Game Rating Act" (H.R. 5912). What does this act mean to us? Simply that the Federal Trade Commission would determine the future ratings of the video games we know and love.

Currently, ESRB determines game ratings by viewing a video tape of each game's most offensive content, which is created by the publisher of the game. Sterns believes that the ratings need to incorporate the game's entire content, and there should be rules set up that forbid the publisher from disclosing any information (about the game) from the rating system. His bill would also require the US General Accounting Office and the General Comptroller to research the effectiveness of the bill, and develop alternatives to the current ESRB rating system. One of these alternatives includes a general rating system for all music, movies, and games, and TV.

Now jump ahead to present day...

Yesterday, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) followed up on Stern's bill and sent a similar bill to the Senate. Seems like this is a pretty serious topic. Anyways, the exact text of the bill hasn't been released just yet, but Brownback seems to have the same concepts in mind that Sterns brought up. He said that watching a video tape of edits simply isn't enough, and that his bill would "direct the Federal Trade Commission to require that reviewers consider the full content of a video game before issuing a rating." His thoughts are also shared with Sterns, with the ideas of a possible general rating system.

Don't think this is all going down without a fight though, the Entertainment Software Association has responded with President Douglas Lowenstein telling Sterns that his bill would not succeed, and that people would not be represented by the average American parents.

Since we are the gamers, we should have some input on what the ratings are, or how they work. What do you think? Should we incorporate more than just the basic "Everyone", "Teen", and "Mature" (besides some others)? Perhaps a "Pre-teen", "Mature Teen", or "Adult Only"? Are we ok with the current ratings, but just need to include more detailed research on games before the ratings go up? Tell us what you think!

---

The article above was created by a user on MyQJ and received enough Jumps to be automatically posted to PSP Updates. As such, it may not be accurate and does not reflect the opinions of QJ.NET or its staff.

It appears Take-Two Interactive's woes have only just begun. Apparently Jack Thompson is now attempting to influence Edward Johnson, chairman of Fidelity Investment (which, FYI, owns more than 20% of Take-Two) - that is, if this letter he supposedly sent Johnson is for real.

In his purported letter, Thompson reveals his knowledge of information concerning Take-Two - stuff that he claims even Fidelity doesn't know - and says that someone at Fidelity urgently needs to talk to him as soon as possible.

Take a gander at the letter and tell us what you think.

July 13, 2006

Edward C. Johnson, III
Chairman
Fidelity Investments (FMR)

Re: Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (TTWO on NASDAQ)

Dear Mr. Johnson:

As you know, Fidelity reportedly owns more than 20% of the above company's stock. In one year that stock has fallen in value from $28 to $9, primarily because of the "Hot Coffee" scandal which broke because of Senator Hillary Clinton's July 2005 press conference. I prepared Senator Clinton for that news conference, and here is a graphic depiction of the subsequent stock price tumble:

I was on CBS's 60 Minutes twice last year regarding Take-Two, and the August 2005 issue of Reader's Digest reported my efforts against this company. They didn't report a tenth of what I know.

Mr. Johnson, I know some facts about Take-Two that your company apparently does not know. The latest SEC investigation of Take-Two, announced Monday, comes as no surprise to me. It may come as a surprise to you and your analysts, however, that there may be some very significant problems with certain information in Take-Two's 10-K filed with the SEC months ago. I identified those potential problems immediately and shared them with the SEC. I also shared them with the lawyers who are seeking class action status for shareholders suing Take-Two.

One of the potential problems we have here (more accurately, that Fidelity has here, in my opinion) is the fact that the outside general counsel to Take-Two is the Philadelphia law firm of Blank Rome, which is also Take-Two's registered lobbyist on Capitol Hill. What I can tell you about Blank Rome and other aspects of Take-Two's problems might help explain why Take-Two's audit chair, Barbara Kaczynski, quit the Take-Two board, hired a top-notch criminal attorney, and wrote the SEC about Take-Two's alleged cover-up by senior management.

In short, without herein divulging all I know, I'll say this: Somebody at Fidelity needs to talk to me immediately if not sooner. You all owe that to your investors.

Regards, Jack Thompson

Jack Thompson, Attorney