UK to change videogame ratings

[Zagzag]

My mum just lectured me about how S.T.A.L.K.E.R being set in Chernobyl was wrong and I'm 16. "Games shouldn't need to use real places as a setting" she's convinced that setting the game around Chernobyl is some kind of marketing ploy so that the game gets more attention, why must people frown upon things they have no clue about.

Tell her the games are adaptations of a Russian book [http://www.amazon.com/Roadside-Picnic-Rediscovered-Classics-Strugatsky/dp/1613743416/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336741491&sr=8-1/], even though the name S.T.A.L.K.E.R comes from the film that was made of that same book, [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/] the games are actually licensed from it.

This is a typical example of there being one rule for games, and one rule for everything else. Will you mother object to a book or a film being set in the real world "just to get attention"?

 

[Woodsey]

Barely a change from how it was done previously.

The rating system only changed from PEGI to BBFC a few years ago, thanks to the Byron Review 2008, and wasn't that supposed to be for the better? If so, why are we going to PEGI when we previously rejected it? This is very strange. And I'd have thought the BBFC would have more authority and be more recognisable, considering they're the UK's film rating system as well.

The PEGI is an industry standard and is better qualified to be the organisation doing the rating, the bbfc have had to try and make film rules apply to games, which obviously isn't the best way.

And it brings us in line with most of europe. The PEGI being universally accepted is a good thing to aim for.

It's a fairly shit system. I seem to remember them rating the GI Joe film tie-in game 16+ because they don't take context into account. Lots of shooting = high rating regardless, kind of thing.

 

[Idocreating]

Wait, we've had PEGI ratings on most of our games for years. I am confused.

 

[Woodsey]

Wait, we've had PEGI ratings on most of our games for years. I am confused.

they existed alongside the bbfc.

Barely a change from how it was done previously.

The rating system only changed from PEGI to BBFC a few years ago, thanks to the Byron Review 2008, and wasn't that supposed to be for the better? If so, why are we going to PEGI when we previously rejected it? This is very strange. And I'd have thought the BBFC would have more authority and be more recognisable, considering they're the UK's film rating system as well.

The PEGI is an industry standard and is better qualified to be the organisation doing the rating, the bbfc have had to try and make film rules apply to games, which obviously isn't the best way.

And it brings us in line with most of europe. The PEGI being universally accepted is a good thing to aim for.

It's a fairly shit system. I seem to remember them rating the GI Joe film tie-in game 16+ because they don't take context into account. Lots of shooting = high rating regardless, kind of thing.

no systems perfect. But i truly believe pegi to be more effective at the role and more open to common sense.

Why? If people claim they don't understand the already far more well-known BBFC system then how does a comparatively unknown one appeal to common sense?

 

[Woodsey]

Wait, we've had PEGI ratings on most of our games for years. I am confused.

they existed alongside the bbfc.

Barely a change from how it was done previously.

The rating system only changed from PEGI to BBFC a few years ago, thanks to the Byron Review 2008, and wasn't that supposed to be for the better? If so, why are we going to PEGI when we previously rejected it? This is very strange. And I'd have thought the BBFC would have more authority and be more recognisable, considering they're the UK's film rating system as well.

The PEGI is an industry standard and is better qualified to be the organisation doing the rating, the bbfc have had to try and make film rules apply to games, which obviously isn't the best way.

And it brings us in line with most of europe. The PEGI being universally accepted is a good thing to aim for.

It's a fairly shit system. I seem to remember them rating the GI Joe film tie-in game 16+ because they don't take context into account. Lots of shooting = high rating regardless, kind of thing.

no systems perfect. But i truly believe pegi to be more effective at the role and more open to common sense.

Why? If people claim they don't understand the already far more well-known BBFC system then how does a comparatively unknown one appeal to common sense?

Im not saying it doesn't need a big marketing push to get it into the collective concious, im just saying their more qualified to know about games than the bbfc were.

Again, why? Everything the BBFC's rated has always seemed pretty much spot-on to me. The BBFC has been used for an awful long time. At the start you might argue that they're not qualified. Now? Not so much.

 

[Woodsey]

Wait, we've had PEGI ratings on most of our games for years. I am confused.

they existed alongside the bbfc.

Barely a change from how it was done previously.

The rating system only changed from PEGI to BBFC a few years ago, thanks to the Byron Review 2008, and wasn't that supposed to be for the better? If so, why are we going to PEGI when we previously rejected it? This is very strange. And I'd have thought the BBFC would have more authority and be more recognisable, considering they're the UK's film rating system as well.

The PEGI is an industry standard and is better qualified to be the organisation doing the rating, the bbfc have had to try and make film rules apply to games, which obviously isn't the best way.

And it brings us in line with most of europe. The PEGI being universally accepted is a good thing to aim for.

It's a fairly shit system. I seem to remember them rating the GI Joe film tie-in game 16+ because they don't take context into account. Lots of shooting = high rating regardless, kind of thing.

no systems perfect. But i truly believe pegi to be more effective at the role and more open to common sense.

Why? If people claim they don't understand the already far more well-known BBFC system then how does a comparatively unknown one appeal to common sense?

Im not saying it doesn't need a big marketing push to get it into the collective concious, im just saying their more qualified to know about games than the bbfc were.

Again, why? Everything the BBFC's rated has always seemed pretty much spot-on to me. The BBFC has been used for an awful long time. At the start you might argue that they're not qualified. Now? Not so much.

because 18 on its own doesn't actually inform anything. If its an 18 because you can shoot people in the head than my teenager can play it, if its an 18 because of some weird mind-fuckery then no.

The 18 on its own isn't especially handy. It gives parents the tools to make the choices they want. Whereas a raw number can only say "this is the number because we say so".

The BBFC already specifies that. Mass Effect 3: "Contains strong language, infrequent strong violence - 15".

 

[mad825]

Old news.

Still the PEGI system is shit for one main reason. Culture differences. At least the BBFC knows British culture therefore the ratings are akin to the UK sociality rather than a foreign party judging.

Yeah in tiny writing, opposed to a big honking icon. I know which i'd rather be reading.

The argument is about getting the level of detail across to the parents. A generalised icon does not get the message across.

Nevertheless, this is a decision made by politicians rather than actual experts. Dr.Byron tanya who did a case study on the effects of computer games in the UK disagreed on the PEGI system for the same reason above.

 

[paislyabmj]

heyheyheyhey.did I just read that pegi are taking over and the bbfc are not going to rate video games any more .pegi are TERRIBLE or at least terribly strict and game ratings are bad enough any way.
I mean they gave skyward sword a 12. Does this mean that the guy at chips could go to jail for selling skyward sword to my eleven year old sister? that's BS. I am going to be angry in a corner for a moment.

 

[Woodsey]

Wait, we've had PEGI ratings on most of our games for years. I am confused.

they existed alongside the bbfc.

Barely a change from how it was done previously.

The rating system only changed from PEGI to BBFC a few years ago, thanks to the Byron Review 2008, and wasn't that supposed to be for the better? If so, why are we going to PEGI when we previously rejected it? This is very strange. And I'd have thought the BBFC would have more authority and be more recognisable, considering they're the UK's film rating system as well.

The PEGI is an industry standard and is better qualified to be the organisation doing the rating, the bbfc have had to try and make film rules apply to games, which obviously isn't the best way.

And it brings us in line with most of europe. The PEGI being universally accepted is a good thing to aim for.

It's a fairly shit system. I seem to remember them rating the GI Joe film tie-in game 16+ because they don't take context into account. Lots of shooting = high rating regardless, kind of thing.

no systems perfect. But i truly believe pegi to be more effective at the role and more open to common sense.

Why? If people claim they don't understand the already far more well-known BBFC system then how does a comparatively unknown one appeal to common sense?

Im not saying it doesn't need a big marketing push to get it into the collective concious, im just saying their more qualified to know about games than the bbfc were.

Again, why? Everything the BBFC's rated has always seemed pretty much spot-on to me. The BBFC has been used for an awful long time. At the start you might argue that they're not qualified. Now? Not so much.

because 18 on its own doesn't actually inform anything. If its an 18 because you can shoot people in the head than my teenager can play it, if its an 18 because of some weird mind-fuckery then no.

The 18 on its own isn't especially handy. It gives parents the tools to make the choices they want. Whereas a raw number can only say "this is the number because we say so".

The BBFC already specifies that. Mass Effect 3: "Contains strong language, infrequent strong violence - 15".

Yeah in tiny writing, opposed to a big honking icon. I know which i'd rather be reading.

It's pretty clear, and more descriptive than a catch-all icon.

 

[laggyteabag]

huh, most of the games I own are PEGI rated anyway, not that I buy many boxed games now, most of the games I play are through steam, or I buy them from Amzon where there is a box that says "Are you over 13 years old" for ANY game.

 

[Darth Sea Bass]

These age ratings are only as good as the stupidest parent!

 

[Batou667]

Huh? I was under the distinct impression that in the UK games were already rated by PEGI (albeit alongside BBFC - buggered if I know how they decide which rating to use, does the publisher get to decide or something?).

 

[chadachada123]

Eh, I don't even think that government-funded/enforced ratings are needed in the slightest.

The MPAA/ESRB work fine in the US, and with games there is an EXTREMELY high rate of success for preventing underage kids from buying games without any threat of fines. It's all voluntarily enforced by Gamestop, movie theaters, etc.

New ratings aren't going to help parents that already ignore them.