 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Add Forum to Favorites | Send Topic To a Friend | View Forum FAQ | Track this topic |
Last Thread Next Thread |
| A screed about game ratings |
|
 |
coldacid Member since: 6/4/2001 From: Pickering, Canada |
|||
 Posted - 7/3/2008 11:20:39 AM |
||||
| Continuing my tradition of ranting about things and sharing possibly unpopular opinions on the internet, I wrote about shafting countries with crappy rating systems in my blog this morning. It's great how there's Gaiiden's "Tales from Journal Land" to cover interesting bits from GDNet developer journals, but it'd be nice if someone could put together a list of external blogs and do something similar to TfJL with said list. (And no, I'm not volunteering, or you'd perhaps see one update every three days to six weeks, with no clue on when the next would be.) |
||||
|
||||
|
Wan Member since: 9/8/2004 From: Amsterdam, Netherlands |
|||
 Posted - 7/3/2008 11:38:46 AM |
||||
| Annoying as it may be, I don't think you can ignore the third largest economy in the world. Now if it was Liechtenstein*... * No offense to the wonderful citizens of Liechtenstein |
||||
|
||||
|
coldacid Member since: 6/4/2001 From: Pickering, Canada |
|||
 Posted - 7/3/2008 11:42:03 AM |
||||
| I can't see how I can't just go and ignore the third largest economy... After all, it's not like I'm making any money from there at the moment anyway. I feel like making a game called "This Game is Banned in Australia" and have it be all about censorship. And a sequel, "This Game is Indexed in Germany". Seriously, their shit pisses me right off. |
||||
|
||||
|
Wan Member since: 9/8/2004 From: Amsterdam, Netherlands |
|||
|
Posted - 7/3/2008 11:49:42 AM |
||||
Quote: O sure, you can. But you column said we, than who are we (in a non-philosophical way)? |
||||
|
||||
|
coldacid Member since: 6/4/2001 From: Pickering, Canada |
|||
|
Posted - 7/3/2008 11:58:10 AM |
||||
| Ok, you got me there. Thing is, except on the biggest titles, the North American publishers can still probably get away with ignoring Germany and Australia, although you shouldn't quote me on that as I'm working with a likely flawed economic model in my head. Perhaps before doing anything special for those markets, though, publishers and developers should look at the cost of localizing vs. the revenue gained from publishing there (if they don't already). And unless it's a sure thing (revenue being 150% or more of cost), avoid the market. Sure, it'll piss off fans there, but the more rational ones will at least understand it's because they live in an overly authoritarian nation, and most will likely smuggle in a copy or torrent it to get around the draconian restrictions that would otherwise keep the game out of their hands. Even better would see the publishers or developers being the ones making sure its available through underground channels. tl;dr: rather than kowtow to censoring governments, publishers and developers should screw them over. |
||||
|
||||
|
Mantrid Member since: 11/2/2005 From: Middlesbrough, United Kingdom |
|||
 Posted - 7/3/2008 12:07:47 PM |
||||
| thing is, would you rather someone from germany torrent your game, or spend a few man-hours putting if statements around blood-spatter functions, or make the frigging blood transparent and release your game to a whole other country!!! whatever you do in this thread, DO NOT MENTION ZE VAR! |
||||
|
||||
|
Wan Member since: 9/8/2004 From: Amsterdam, Netherlands |
|||
|
Posted - 7/3/2008 12:13:24 PM |
||||
Quote: Apparently they can't, I'm pretty sure they did the math. Not only because patching those games to satisfy the local authorities will lead to more sales, but if gamers turn against them for not publishing their games in their country (even though it's technically not their fault), customers may boycott other games released by that company. I think it's a delicate mix of economics and politics. Issues like this are normally resolved by lobbying rather than confrontation. Having said that, I wouldn't mind having an uniform European rating system. |
||||
|
||||
|
coldacid Member since: 6/4/2001 From: Pickering, Canada |
|||
|
Posted - 7/3/2008 12:22:43 PM |
||||
| Apparently, it's the UK and Germany that are holding back a pan-European ratings board. I don't remember my source on this, but the crux of it was that neither the UK nor Germany want to give up the ability to block out games they don't like, which they're afraid they would lose if they gave into an international body. That said, Germany's USK is still loads better than Australia's OFLC. What kind of country in this day and age rates and censors books? That's too f--ked up for me to just ignore. What's really needed is the replacement of government-run ratings boards with industry-run ones instead. Things like USK or OFLC reek of big government authoritarianism anyway, which is the diametric opposite to my political ideals. (Which, I'll admit, does play some part in my annoyance about this; but any form of censorship is much more offensive to my tastes.) |
||||
|
||||
|
d000hg Member since: 1/21/2002 From: Durham, United Kingdom |
|||
|
Posted - 7/3/2008 1:08:57 PM |
||||
| If films and games can be censored, I don't see why books can't be too, in principle. I agree it should be very rare a book merits any kind of censorship, but perhaps literature encouraging extreme violent behaviour? Rating of books would be more sensible... just because it's written down doesn't stop some books being just as unsuitable for children as some films. In fact books can describe things in much more graphic detail, for those with good imaginations. |
||||
|
||||
|
ukdeveloper Member since: 11/6/2004 |
|||
|
Posted - 7/3/2008 1:15:40 PM |
||||
Quote: Quite right too, people in the UK are fed up to beyond the back teeth of Brussels controlling absolutely fucking everything. Although I do notice some inconsistency here in that some games are PEGI rated and others BBFC rated without any obvious rhyme or reason, I can't see a hard and fast rule as to when PEGI ratings should apply or BBFC ratings should apply, for instance the BBFC has the following grades: E, Uc, U, PG, 12, 12A, 15, 18 (bolded ones apply to games and the other ones apply to films only) whereas PEGI has 3+, 12+, 16+ and 18+. Halo 3 was rated 15 by the BBFC and didn't have a PEGI rating, BioShit and GTA were both rated 18 by the BBFC and no PEGI rating as far as I can see. However my Forza Motorsport 2 has a 3+ rating from PEGI and no BBFC stamps on it at all, my Rainbow Six Vegas has 16+ but nothing from the BBFC. I don't get it. I agree that the system is flawed, inconsistent and seems somewhat strange, and I also agree with those who say that a more cohesive and obvious system would help parents plan game purchases for their kids. |
||||
|
||||
|
mikesc Member since: 4/26/2001 From: Augsburg, Germany |
|||
|
Posted - 7/3/2008 1:57:14 PM |
||||
Quote: You got a few things confused. First the USK is in fact industry-run and can not censor or ban games. All games rated by the USK may be sold everywhere, the only requirement is an age-check at the point of sale. So the USK has nothing todo with the government or censorship. When the USK is NOT rating a game, then it is passed on to the BPjM (a government agency), which can then put games on an index (not censor them), so they may only be sold by mailorder/internet/non-public places and can not be advertised. Still they are not censored or banned and can be bought by everyone who is 18 or older. The only "real" bans occur when games violate certain laws (i.e. display of nazi symbols), those bans are then carried out by the police. (Which I think, still is a very bad thing, but luckily this is pretty uncommon) Apart from the (uncommon) ban of games, the biggest problem in Germany is that games on the BPjM index must not be advertised (not even with ads appropriate for a younger audience) which is why many publishers censor their games, even if everyone over 18 could still buy them if they wouldn't censor them. They just could not advertise them. BTW I think a properly implemented compulsory EU-wide rating system would be a great thing and help publishers a lot. |
||||
|
||||
|
coldacid Member since: 6/4/2001 From: Pickering, Canada |
|||
|
Posted - 7/3/2008 2:09:18 PM |
||||
Quote: Duly noted about the USK, and I updated my blog post to note the correction. However, if a publisher feels the need to self-censor something it produces to ensure it can be successful in a market, the agents of that market are still censoring it, in my eyes, through coercion. Also, I don't agree with compulsory rating. Rating systems should be voluntary. |
||||
|
||||
|
zedz Member since: 2/15/2007 |
|||
|
Posted - 7/3/2008 5:46:07 PM |
||||
| ratings are a joke (+ not just in germany or the land of oz) wheres the logic of A/ a game where u can commit acts of extreme violence getting a low age rating B/ some minor nudity or sexual connotations getting a high age rating Im sure we all agree (biblebashing gunloving puritans excepted) that #A is more offensive/harmful than #B so why are they rated the opposite (rhetorical question btw) |
||||
|
||||
|
ukdeveloper Member since: 11/6/2004 |
|||
|
Posted - 7/3/2008 6:18:14 PM |
||||
| Without trying to cause offence to anyone here, I have often found the US to be hopelessly conservative having been there, and based on what people say and what I've read it sounds like Australia is pretty backwards with regards to that too. Disclaimer: I've never been to Australia. I mean come on, Australia, who the fuck censors books these days? My calendar says it's 2008 but I'll ask around to see if I haven't somehow ended up in 1948. I found TV in the US was heavily censored, "bad" "curse" words were bleeped out (never heard "crap" and "hell" being bleeped in the UK before), no nudity, big ass onscreen age warnings at the start of every damned show, very little in the way of violence or aggressive behaviour at all, let alone before or after a reasonable time of night... it all seemed so strange somehow. This was summer 2001 so I don't know if anything's changed since. In the UK it's a case of "This may not be suitable for children" then "FuckShitCockBuggerCrudArsehole" with nekkid ladies, armed nutcases and domestic abuse aplenty. I've even seen the watershed here being broken before with softcore porn and soap-opera violence well before 9pm, sometimes radio stations leave the naughty words in songs during the day although this is kind of rare (I've heard a fair few naughty words in radio songs during the daytime, on one occasion during a breakfast drivetime show, when a lot of people will be driving their kids to school etc. listening to this stuff). Also older "adult" dramas with swearing in may be repeated on cable channels during the day when the original broadcast would have been after the watershed, so I've also heard "fuck", "shit", "bullshit" etc. at 3pm being aired on TV without any kind of editing at all. This is technically illegal but I'm sure it's a simple mistake and oversight on behalf of the TV station broadcasting the thing. The UK is totally relaxed to the point where I find foreign censorship, especially in the US and Oz, completely absurd. The same goes for games; GTA IV was made in the UK and, as such, is full of poking satirical fun at the US. This is perfectly acceptable and common in this country and this is where the game was made, but some Americans took offence to it. What I'm trying to say is that a rating system should reflect the culture in which it's being used. What might get rated 15 in the UK might be M in the US, for example. The US and Australia blatantly have different behavioural and cultural standards to us, so their rating system should reflect that. The UK has turned so much into a politically correct nanny-state that people struggle to make their own decisions anymore, and I seriously doubt that anyone will dare deviate from the rating system. Having a uniform, compulsory system is ass; all it leads to is ambiguity, bickering over what constitutes what and how the system should be changed in the case of X but not Y/vice versa/throw in case Z, and people being generally indifferent to it due to it being fundamentally broken. Parents who don't necessarily understand the content of a game their kid wants to buy will look at the age rating and use it as a guide, so if this is how it's going to be then the rating system, should it continue to exist, needs to be flexible enough to take varying circumstances and scenarios into account. Sportsman's Bet says that'll never happen, sounds too much like common sense. |
||||
|
||||
 |
Trapper Zoid GDNet+ Member since: 5/20/2005 From: Melbourne, Australia |
|||
|
Posted - 7/3/2008 6:47:48 PM |
||||
Quote: Ooh, I know! It's this kind of country! *TZ starts singing the unofficial Aussie anthem Waltzing Matilda, somewhat appropriate as it's about theft and resisting authority. And, um, suicide (maybe not so appropriate)* In Australia, the OFLC has been around for a while so it's got cultural inertia: I can't imagine what it would be like to not have a OFLC rating stamped on everything. It does have one benefit: the rating system is the same for film, TV and games, so it's easy to understand. However the rules of how they apply are different for each category: publications only need to be assessed if they are "likely to be contentious", whereas it seems all computer games need to be assessed and anything rated R18+ or higher will not gain classification. I'm not entirely sure what kind of protest you're advocating. For publishers looking to sell their games in boxes at retail, I'm sure classification is just a small part of the Gordian knot of red tape you'd need to go through. If you're aiming for content that would lead you to be banned in Australia and Germany as some kind of protest, feel free, but I doubt the resulting pornographic neo-Nazi slasher game will be that good  .The thing that bugs me about Australia's OFLC is that the rules on the Australian Classification Board's website seem to be economic poison to local Aussie indies. It costs two grand to get your game classified, which is hard for a indie game developer to make in the small Australian market. If I go indie next year I'll be seeking advice as to whether there are any grants or loopholes for small businesses to get around this, but I might have to resort to being an Aussie indie who cannot sell games in Australia, which is totally ludicrous. David Shaw, a.k.a. "Trapper Zoid" | trazoi.net - visit my website and try my games! | Inkscape Adventures - a tutorial on Inkscape and art |
||||
|
||||
|
iNsAn1tY Member since: 12/18/2001 From: Guildford |
|||
|
Posted - 7/3/2008 8:39:06 PM |
||||
Quote: Aye, that's because it's a voluntary measure to submit a game to the BBFC unless it contains "mutilation or torture of, or other acts of gross violence towards, humans or animals", Part 2b (see also parts a and c) of the Video Recordings Act (1984). If you publish a video or a DVD, it must carry a BBFC classification under the VRA unless it's exempt, but the same isn't true for games. PEGI was introduced after the old ELSPA ratings were phased out (remember them?), but it isn't legally enforcable in the UK, and is generally taken only as a guide. Ask a random member of the public whether it's legally enforcable or not, or what most of the PEGI symbols mean, and I guarantee most won't be able to tell you. It's a joke of a ratings system. Censorship in the UK and in other countries with more restrictive ratings boards will always be contentious. Personally, I don't agree with the very conservative ratings systems in Germany, Australia or particularly the United States, and I like the relaxing of the BBFC's classification criteria in recent years. I think it's one of the best ratings systems in the world - it filters out what is absolutely unacceptable to be released to the general public, but still permits me, an adult living in a democratic nation, to make an informed decision as to whether or not I want to watch a certain film or play a certain game. |
||||
|
||||
 |
Andrew Russell Moderator Member since: 11/23/2000 From: Brisbane, Australia |
|||
 Posted - 7/3/2008 9:25:22 PM |
||||
| In Australia we have three unrestricted ratings: G (general), PG (parental guidance) and M (mature). And we have three restricted ratings: MA15+, R18+ and X18+. The classifications themselves make a lot more sense than the nonsensical arrangement of ESRB cut-offs: at ages 13 then 17 then 18. The Australian system also has a RC (refused classification) that bans the sale, hire, exhibition and importation of the material (but not possession). I'm under the impression you have to try pretty hard to get something rated "RC". Where this system falls apart is that the OFLC (office of film and literature classification) is unable to assign R18+ or X18+ ratings to games. So "adult" games either end up in the MA15+ bin (either through self-censorship by the developer or the OFLC "being generous") or the RC bin - the latter effectively banning the game. If I recall correctly, the reason for this is that changes to the rating system have to be approved by all of the state attorney generals, and the one from South Australia happens to be "particularly christian" and keeps blocking the introduction of those ratings for computer games. Bastard. You can get an idea of the practical impact of the OFLC's inability to apply an R rating to games by looking at this list. As well as the not-unexpected banning of games like Postal and Manhunt, there are plenty of instances of developers (particularly the GTA series) self-censoring in order to get a MA rating. There are also several instances of the OFLC changing their mind on several games (in both directions: banning and unbanning games). Trapeper Zoid does raise an interesting point, too. Certainly one I care more about than simply being unable to make an offensive game: Getting a game rated in Australia is expensive. How does this affect indie developers? Particularly when they rely on things like low-cost digital distribution and frequently released and/or episodic content? |
||||
|
||||
|
Trapper Zoid GDNet+ Member since: 5/20/2005 From: Melbourne, Australia |
|||
|
Posted - 7/3/2008 9:53:06 PM |
||||
Quote: That's what I've heard too, although I strongly suspect I heard it from either you or boolean so I'm not sure a cyclic reference backs you up on this. I wish the other state AGs would twist his arm over this, but unfortunately the issue just isn't that big enough in the national sense to drive them to do this. Quote: It's an issue that's been subconsciously bugging me for the last year or so. I'm aiming to earn some cash by going indie next year and have been considering various approaches, one of the more sensible appears to be making three or four small cheap games a year. But that becomes less feasible if I'm spending eight thousand dollars just to get a "G" or "PG" stamped on my digital downloads; I really doubt I'd recoup that much money out of the profits from Australian sales. And a philosophical problem rears its head: what if every country had a similar scheme? No way could an I as an indie pay two grand to every country just to get their own particular flavour of rating. Why should Australia, with its paltry market of twenty million, be a special case? I honestly don't know what the law says for Aussie indies working with digital downloads. The classification board site says that digital downloads can be submitted for assessment, but it doesn't explicitly state it should. It's an issue that eventually I'll have to speak to a lawyer about. Given I'll almost certainly be hosted on a US site selling products in US dollars using a US based payment service, I'm sure there's a loophole around local insanity, even if I do have to put in a really silly "Not for Sale in Australia" clause to be legal (which would really stick in my throat, let me tell you). |
||||
|
||||
|
caffiene Member since: 8/8/2005 From: Melbourne, Australia |
|||
|
Posted - 7/3/2008 10:36:25 PM |
||||
| FYI on the Australian system - The State Attorneys General met earlier in the year to discuss the introduction of an R18+ classification and it was indeed met with chief opposition from the south australian attorney general, Michael Atkinson (and had strong support from the victorian attorney general, Robert Hulls). The result of that meeting was a stalemate, and the decision was made that the issue would be put to the public and submissions would be taken "in the middle of the year". Unfortunately, though, after the original news articles about the meeting the trail goes dead, as far as I can see. Neither the OFLC website nor the Attorney General's website give any information about how to be involved in that process or even whether it is still expected to take place. The closest I can find, for anyone wanting to have an input, is a few suggestions in the news articles to use the OFLC enquiries form. Or perhaps to enquire to your state's attorney general. Personally, I want to have an input to make the point to the SA attorney general that the lack of the rating leads to inappropriately rated MA15+ games and therefore puts more inappropriate material in young hands than I believe the higher rating would. I still remember buying... Half Life: Opposing Force, I believe it may have been... and realising after I got it home that it was in fact rated MA15+, when I had purchased it with no problems or parental presence at age 14. edit: I found more specific minutes of what was discussed and what is being done in the "Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (March 2008) Decisions to be Publicly Advised" PDF |
||||
|
||||
| All times are ET (US) |
Last Thread Next Thread |
|
