Game Ratings and the responsibility of the Gaming Industy

First a disclaimer: I wasn't sure if I should put this in P&R or off topic but since a lot of these issues deal with politics I chose here.

Ionstorm and I had an interesting conversation on the hypacracy of the rating system. In the US Violence is ok but nudity is a sin....In the UK nudity is ok but violence is horrid.

I think at the end we both were on the same side in that violent video games should be ranked and held somewhat responsible by the industry to make sure they stay out of kids hands, but nudity shouldn't be held to that same standard (my opinion) Nudity should be ranked well away from the extreme violence ranking. Like I said in a previous post, which is more harmful seeing somebody getting their head blown off in graphic detail or a naked lady? lol once again if anyone says naked lady, please seek help immediatly.

I know this won't happen but I would like nudity in games to have a different ranking than that of Mature or Adults only. When did nudity become such a sin or evil act? You can make it evil by having violent sexual acts but nudity by itself is nothing to be ashamed of. It's like putting stoners in jail right next to the rapists and murders. Either way, they should be ranked only to be sold to adults, I just don't like them always being associated with each other.

My point with this is that it is the parents job not the industries job to do so. I use my own experience for my example. My mother wouldn't buy anything she thought was wrong for me to play. There wasn't that many back in that day but she shot down Leisure Suit Larry and a few others because she thought I should be a bit older before playing that. She didn't scream at the top of her lungs saying how could this store sell filth like that. No, she just said I could buy it when I was older and then I picked up a different game instead Either way I won lol.

This is my core belief in the word "freedom." To be free to say yes or no to something that doesn't hurt anyone or cause damage to your environment. You always get the media saying how horrible one thing is or that thing is or they shouldn't do that its not nice. Well, guess what America some people aren't nice and they have the right to be an asshole if they want to be. That's the great thing about freedom and the bad thing about freedom. You have to put up with people whose viewpoint you might think is wrong, dumb, rude, immature, cruel or just plain scary. You have to give them their freedom too as long as they don't hurt anyone physically or cause damage to their environment.

Ok that little rant started out about how it's the parents job to decide what to buy and ended up in a small little rant about Freedom lol. Sorry about that, I tend to go on and on and on and on about the virtues of a truly free society and the sins of those trying to break it down.

Any thoughts on this and should the industry be held responsible for the products they make or let the free market decide. IMO people aren't dumb or either naturally cruel. If they had a waterboarding game made I believe the company that made that game would file bankruptcy faster than you could say "dumb move genious"

Also you're thoughts on nudity in games. Does the media mesh both nudity and violence into the same pot on purpose just to cause controversy or does the media really think that nudity is as bad as violence?

You can probably thank us uptight Puritan Americans for that one. We're incredibly defensive about nudity. It's stupid, but it goes all the way back to our founders. Similarly, the overall failure of US parents to step up and raise their children has prompted many to want to pass that burden on to the government. It's a very disappointing abdication of responsibility, but not terribly surprising given the direction our nation is headed.

BTW, anyone with children can attest to the fact that people are, in fact, naturally cruel. The "dumb" trait is observable by anyone with...well...eyes and ears.

I think the topic is fairly at home here in politics, what with all the political grandstanding that goes on about violence and sex in video games allegedly nfluencing sociopathic behaviour, the desire of politicians to sound 'tough' and child-protective to their constituents on the subject, and the rise here in the US of a lobby interest. there needs to be some sort of guidline or standard, but I don't see why it couldn't follow existing formats for movies and so forth.

In it's simplest form, I would think games could say plainly on the labeling what kind of an experience to expect, and what the target age is of the gamer. If a game says Some Nudity, Strong Language, Ages 16 and up, or Graphic Sex and Violence, Adults Only, that should be enough to let parents make the decisions they need to make.

Obviously, some adult games(books, mags, dvds, etc) will always make their way to an inappropriate audience, but I'd rather see parents saying what's fit for their kids than the government.

And I agree, skavenhorde--nudity alone is a different element than suggestive or graphic sexual content.

Still, some human bodies are not the beautiful temple intended by nature and should remain firmly clothed.

Bah, those weren't nude.

And, if anything, the problem with nudity is that we get too much of the wrong kind and not enough of the right kind. Namely, the nudes we generally do see tend to put Roman god(desse)s to shame, courtesy of Photoshop and plastic surgery. Same goes for most clothed videogame avatars too, for that matter -- I remember the hue and cry when Half-Life 2 came out, and Alyx Vance looked more or less like a real person rather than... not a real person.

I agree with you that the "list of ingredients" should be enough, but there still needs to be some kind of mechanism that actually puts parents in the driver's seat -- if stores are allowed to sell any game to anyone of any age, parental discretion becomes a fair bit more difficult. So I think enforced age ratings are useful; however, I also think that the de facto ban of AO or unrated games is highly counterproductive and also stupid.

I think the Australian system does reasonably well here. It applies (in theory) the same standards as for TV and film and gives both an age rating and short descritption of the reason for that rating; looking at my box for The Witcher: MA 15+ Strong violence, sex scenes and drug references, while Mask of the Betrayer is M Moderate Violence. The classifications are supposed to reflect the context in which the material is found, so a sex scene integral to plot should be less highly rated than gratuitious pornography. Games can't however recieve a classification higher than MA 15+ so the occassional game that would be equilivent to an 18+ movie is banned (GTA III for solicitation and murder of prostitutes - later released with the content removed).

As for nudity, I doubt you'll find many who'll outright say nudity is bad there remains a social taboo (albiet one that has become more permissive over the last 50 years). We might not object but others do and I don't see any reason not to provide information for them to make informed choices with their entertainment.

V7 said:

I think the Australian system does reasonably well here.

Click to expand...

Wasn't Mark Ecko's Getting Up banned in Australia ... the *spraypainting* game ?!?!

Didn't even know about that one and had to look it up. You're quite correct, from the article I saw it looks like they misapplied the criteria and would be open to a legal challenge. Afterall I don't imagine a movie about spray painting would be rated 18. That said the list of games refused classification is short, and hasn't touched any Ive been interested in - while The Witcher was rated 15+ we got the no obscuring boxes UK version rather than the censored US release.

The game rating procedure by the German USK is nearly perfect. I would recommend to simply copy it if a country thinks it needs something better. It´s thorough, as precise as practically possible (-> many games can´t be "completed"), treats every publisher equally and tries to represent a consensus of the whole society.
I´m talking about the procedure, mind you. The process creates a very reliable data basis to base a decision on. The standards which have to be applied for the actual rating decision, for one reason or the other, are a completely different beast.

In short: All paperwork is checked, all games are played until the tester thinks he has seen everything relevant for "youth protection". This means a short time for obviously harmless games like EA Sports titles, and usually one complete run through the game for everything including violence. The tester collects the relevant parts of the game and presents them to a panel of 3 or 12(?) people, together with a summary and his recommendation. The panel can ask further questions, etc. Finally a decision is made.

Gorath said:

all games are played

Click to expand...

Well THAT is stupid ... why would they want to PLAY the GAMES they are rating?

When is "playing" actual "playing" ?

txa1265 said:

Well THAT is stupid ... why would they want to PLAY the GAMES they are rating?

Click to expand...

Yeah, it´s a bit shortsighted. They risk losing the big picture if they really play 1300 games every year. It would be both less risky and less controversial if they first made the yearly statistics and then assigned the ratings to the games.

The rating panel does not play the games, btw. They see a presentation by a professional gamer. That´s probably better. I´m not sure the catholic church´s representative would be happy to play Postal for 2 full days. .

The main point of the USK system is: It is possible to play every game either all the way through or at least for a reasonable time.
In combination with final print material this gives a solid data basis for a rating.

Gorath said:

The rating panel does not play the games, btw. They see a presentation by a professional gamer. That´s probably better. I´m not sure the catholic church´s representative would be happy to play Postal for 2 full days. .

Click to expand...

So how is that different than the US system where they see a presentation of someone playing a 'reasonable amount' of the game?

I don't much about how the ESRB or the USK rates games but I know I was very surprised when I saw this at PEGI:

"In the drafting of the PEGI assessment form and the shaping of the system organisation, society representatives such as consumers, parents and
religious groups have been largely involved." (bolding mine) http://www.pegi.info/en/index/id/176/ )

Maybe it is just me ? but I do think that we need to get all & any religious groups out of the game ratings, the movie ratings etc. This could actually mean that the Catholic Church or some other religious groups get to decide what rating Mass Effect gets (or has gotten). And while not directly contributing to the 18+ rating, the socalled *lesbian sex scene* in the game might at least in part have contributed to the 18+ rating it got from PEGI. I'm still baffled at the BBFC's rating of 12+, though. But that's not the point. The point I am trying to convey here is that I don't think any religious should be involved in anything in society, besides of course the obvious services of religious functions.

Anyway, here's a link to an article (or a blogentry?) on gamepolitics

http://gamepolitics.com/2008/03/02/...-the-negative-hype-about-video-game-violence/

that discusses (or talks about) a new book that hopefully will prove that videogames do not cause violence in real life and that the young people (12-14 year olds) really can distinguish between a game and real life. They have a veru high degree of fictional competence (which is a term I first heard coined on Danish Radio program in his week). I guess it means something like they can easily distinguish between the real life e.g. outside the computer and the life that's goes on inside the computer. It's just a game to them - which means that in say GTA they can try out stuff they'd normally wouldn't do - in real life.

As for the USK and the BBFC playing every game, I think that both the USK and the BBFC have several testers that play games all day ? I guess then you just play a little of an EA sports title while Mass Effect gets played all the way through (or nearly) or the tester just plays to see the *questionable* content such as the *alien lesbian sex scene* or other highly controversial scenes from Mass Effect.
The same goes for Bioschock or GTA or Halo 3 or Half-Life 2 or Hellgate London. And why Hellgate: London got an 18+ rating from the ESRB still beats me? If I were to decide, the game Hellgate: London probably would get a 12+ rating or a 16+ rating. I hope this is not a start of a trend in which every M-rated game in the US gets re-rated as 18+ at the PEGI-level, because then I would be worried, very worried. I don't want the the ESRB to decide what ratings games in Europe should have. And while I know that PEGI technically assigns the ratings, if it is so that they just copy the M-rated rating for a game and then just turn it into an 18+ rating for that particular game. If it is so, then I think it is (very) sloppy....

I just wonder how the BBFC or the USK will review games like Oblivion, Mass Effect,
Stalker or the Gothic games. I mean these games are huge and would reqiure several hours of gameplay just to see a fraction of the content.

txa1265 said:

So how is that different than the US system where they see a presentation of someone playing a 'reasonable amount' of the game?

Click to expand...

The last time I looked the ESRB watched a 30 minute video presentation submited by the publisher.

The difference is that "a reasonable amount of time" is only the choice for trivial cases and the fallback for endless games.
The guy who plays is a full time employee of the USK. He has no direct contact to the publisher. He is skilled in the necessary parts of the German law. The amount of time he plays depends on the game. Playing FIFA Soccer 200X for more than a few hours is a waste of time because he can say with 99.99% certainty which rating it will receive. (Or the other way around: The USK resources are focused on the critical cases.) If a game includes violence it will be played all the way through. If that´s impossible it will be played until the tester is convinced he has seem everything relevant. It´s hard to say what the criteria for the last one are. I would assume he plays every level in a MP shooter a couple of times, for example.

Gorath said:

The guy who plays is a full time employee of the USK. He has no direct contact to the publisher.

Click to expand...

Cool - that was the distinction I was missing

aries100 said:

I don't much about how the ESRB or the USK rates games but I know I was very surprised when I saw this at PEGI:

"In the drafting of the PEGI assessment form and the shaping of the system organisation, society representatives such as consumers, parents and
religious groups have been largely involved." (bolding mine) http://www.pegi.info/en/index/id/176/ )

Maybe it is just me ? but I do think that we need to get all & any religious groups out of the game ratings, the movie ratings etc. This could actually mean that the Catholic Church or some other religious groups get to decide what rating Mass Effect gets (or has gotten). And while not directly contributing to the 18+ rating, the socalled *lesbian sex scene* in the game might at least in part have contributed to the 18+ rating it got from PEGI. I'm still baffled at the BBFC's rating of 12+, though. But that's not the point. The point I am trying to convey here is that I don't think any religious should be involved in anything in society, besides of course the obvious services of religious functions.

Click to expand...

That´s normal. Just about every "important" social group is involved in the media rating process. The reason is simple: politics. The only way to make sure no group representing an important part of the voters can complain about a certain rating is if they were involved. Of course officially they´ll tell you something about trying to find a great consensus by bringing every part of their society to the table.

As for the USK and the BBFC playing every game, I think that both the USK and the BBFC have several testers that play games all day ? I guess then you just play a little of an EA sports title while Mass Effect gets played all the way through (or nearly) or the tester just plays to see the *questionable* content such as the *alien lesbian sex scene* or other highly controversial scenes from Mass Effect.
[...]
I just wonder how the BBFC or the USK will review games like Oblivion, Mass Effect,
Stalker or the Gothic games. I mean these games are huge and would reqiure several hours of gameplay just to see a fraction of the content.

Click to expand...

The USK has professional gamers. The amount of play time needed per year is probably far less than it seems, according to my guestimations.
Let´s say they have to look at 1500 games in 220 work days. Now subtract multi-platform releases (-> the same game), re-releases (-> already rated -> just paperwork), compilations (-> rating = highest old rating). Then assign 0.25 work days to trivial cases like EA Sports or licensed children crap like Barbie or Sesame Street, but also (stand-alone) add-ons maybe. Next are really short games, like some stuff for cell phones or episodic adventures. Then we have a few dozen SP shooters which can be finished in one day, especially because the testers have a walkthrough and cheat codes. Then there are long SP games like the typical RTS or RPG. Okay, these can take a week. Maybe they can save a few hours here and there by cheating but it´s still a lot of work. And finally MP games with an unclear time requirement, but hardly more than 1 or 2 days until they´ve seen it all.
I guess the amount of time they need on average per game is somewhere between 1 and 2 days. So they need enough capacity for ca. 2500 days. That´s 12 people. Not that much.

edit: I just read an interview with an USK tester. They have 10 work days to run through the whole process. Publishers can present their game if they are going for a 0 or 6. Nowadays a gremium has 4 members and a chair. The chair has veto right. The gremium members can play the game if they want. Game-haters cannot become gremium members. They have wireless infrastructure to play MP games. Especially MP shooters are played with gremium and tester.
One day per week they have to work on small stuff like cover disks, new planes for a flight sim, etc.
The costs are between 250€ (conversions, no new test) and 1500€ (new product). Fast cycle (5 work days) costs 50% extra. All print material needs to be final, the game can be late beta if the publisher signs that no new content will be added. Compilations can be more expensive.
"Complex games [...] must be played all the way through."

Here´s the USK statistic for 2007:

Rating .... %
0 ... 44.0
6 ... 16.1
12 ... 20.5
16 ... 12.6
18 ... 5.3
refused 1.5

txa1265 said:

Cool - that was the distinction I was missing

Click to expand...

After reading that interview I´m no longer sure about, though.
So now I´m saying the publisher has limited access to the tester - if any - and they can not influence who tests their game.