New ratings system could delay releases News

:O

Ah so that's the real reason for Rockstar saying they're be no Wii Manhunt 2 in August then? LOL

Nintendo europe rubs their hands with glee as they have a new excuse to delay games

Translation:

We want PEGI only as a rating system and we're going to spell out all kinds of doom mongering stories until we get our way.


For other scare stories in this series see: "How the minimum wage will close millions of UK businesses"

And he urged the Government to ask gamers what they want to happen.

Well speaking as a gamer I want you idiots to stop passing through stuff that is clearly meant for 15+ rating in games with a 12+ rating. I guess that loophole is closing now hu!

This mean Europeans could get their games before UK? If so then would not be suprised to see mail orders for European releases being more popular! Importing from US or Japan is more usual but if the concerns of delays bear out then that could happen!

Bryon Report is largely a very good stuff for us gamers, and Daily Mail Readers have Dr Bryon on their 'NOT on our christmas card list'!

I wonder if the new system will be in place to ban Manhunt 2...again.... :/

We clearly need just one system and blatantly a EU wide system would be preferable. He's got a good point as handing this to the seesawing BBFC is not a good idea..

Every time you add a new standard, game developers have to guess what the censors are looking for

Well, that's only if you're targetting specific ratings, which is a very movie-like process. If you just want the game out and really, if it's an M in the US that means you're getting a 12, 15 or 18 over here... does it really matter which?

The answer, unfortunately like movies, is that it does if you want to sell shitloads. If you're targetting teenagers and you get an 18 cert - which, knowing the BBFC, is unlikely - then yeah, you have a problem. But I really can't see that happening that often; the BBFC have so far shown themselves to be pretty competent at reviewing games and taking the time to see all available material (for those who don't know: they request copies of cutscenes, samples of gameplay throughout the game, as well as playing the game itself).

Apart from the extra workload... there's no new standard! It's just more work for the BBFC, who are far savvier than PEGI, and more relaxed than ESRB. The development industry really does seem to be terrified of the idea of a classification system, rather than the practice.

-____-

/buys US 360

Until shops and, more importantly, parents understand and stick to the ratings (they are not just for guidance) they are just arbitary anyway.
How many very young voices have we heard on GTAIV online?

Like UK isn't used to games being delayed...whats a extra month or so added to the already year behind release? lol

hummm, surely the main delay is that they first send it to PEGI they play it, rate it and if it's 12+ or more it then goes to the BBFC (assumedly with obviouse 18 rated games they just send them to BBFC the same time as PEGI to save time)

Surely some time would be saved if the BBFC just rated every game released in the UK at least that saves weighting for PEGI.


Also will the BBFC be rateing every game 12+ or will it just be those deemed to be of a suitably realistic nature like the current system?

"Surely some time would be saved if the BBFC just rated every game released in the UK at least that saves weighting for PEGI.
"

Agreed, besides I've always found the way PEGI rates games to be a rather pointless exercise. Taking the publishers word for it isn't really the best way of rating anything, at least the BBFC actually play the games so they can be rated properly.

The BBFC is not a huge organisation, and its resources are limited. The concern is that the extra workload could result in significant delays

employ some more people maybe?

Every time you add a new standard, game developers have to guess what the censors are looking for

Is this censoring or classification? Or...is it just pejorative language?

I think that the ratings are perfectly "fine" as they are. I mean, the BBFC ratings (when applicable) are ALWAYS clearly marked (and actually physically bigger than the BBFC symbols on DVD) and the PEGI ratings, while not having the weight to be legally binding are also huge (releative to the package size) and allow the responsible parent to see what type of content specifically they may judge to be unsuitable for their child thanks to the icons.

Really, its not rocket science is it? A big BBFC rating the same as a DVD or cinema movie for 15 and 18 games (which are also legally binding) and for more appropriate content a big age plus a list of potentially unsuitable content, which while not legally binding allows the parnet to be aware of what the game contains in a quick, bullet point overview way. Of couse, some parents will not agree with the PEGI ratings, but some parents will not agree with BBFC U, PG and 12 ratings anyway. It's harder to certify "mild" content to everyone's satisfaction than stronger content.

Of course, I say that the current system is "fine" and it is for anyone with half a brain. Of course, its not fine for those parents who can't be bothered to monitor what their children play, how often they play it, and with who. They only have to pick up the box and cast their eyes over the front and back.

If people complain the current 2 tier system of PEGI and the BBFC is confusing, then forcing games 12+ to be BBFC rated is going to be just as confusing anyway. Making every game go through the BBFC seems more logical, but will ultimately be a waste of time, as the current ratings are not the problem. They're "fine" and do their job. It's the parents who don't give a shit about the ratings and can't even sacrifice 1 minute of their lives to scan the package of the game they're buying their "little angel" which is the problem. And that's not going to change just if everything has a BBFC logo slapped on the front.The current 15 and 18 certificates on games proves that.

I'm not sure they could delay UK releases any further...

What the FUCK!?

Haven't we suffered enough!?! :'(

Sorry, but I'm having another rant now. The fact that a big massive white box with something like "7+" or "12+" inside isn't sufficient to give parents a warning about the content of what they are about to buy is just crazy in the first place! How is that "confusing"?

There's sodding medicine unsuitable for children which don't have warnings/information as large and/or attention grabbing on its package.

Why are people making excuses for what is nothing more than bad parenting?

The last paragraph was, without any doubt, the funniest. Go Eurogamer, go! :D

Well then why not just release the games in the UK without French/Spanish/German etc localisation, and the games will be able to be submitted for rating earlier

its all borrox

Weasel.

I'm glad they're delaying games being rushed out on the other consoles outside of Nintendo.

'Bout time.

So, ah, hire more people!

It'd be fun to see more of the film-style content descriptions in games, to see why a game has been rated as such. What makes a game a 15 instead of a 12?

More warnings of mild fantasy violence, I say!

The problem with a legally binding pan-european system is that different contries have different cultures and therefore different classification expectations. Germany's attitude to violence in games is found laughable by most other european countries. Of course Italy's attitude to sex is more liberal than the UKs, but to homosexuality is less so, but probably more so than Poland's.

For this reason PEGI (iirc) rated Mass Effect an 18 where as the BBFC rated it a 12. Secondly PEGI works on a bunch of tick boxes, does the game have violence? are there any scenes of a sexual nature? ect. and it's created by the industry itself. The BBFC has general guidance on what is likely to get high ratings but actually plays each game and looks at the context in which anything controvertial is set. And of course the BBFC is independent from, the movie/game industry and government.

@Rex

But why do we need a legally binding system at all? The current 15 and 18 BBFC certificates are legally binding, but its not stopped this fuss from kicking off in the first place. Why will adding a legally binding 12 or PG make any difference what-so-ever?

The PEGI ratings are fine. They are guidence. You may disagree with the guidence, but you would no doubt disagree with a the difference between the BBFCs PG and 12 rating on some games.

The ratings are not the problem. They do the job. The problem is parents who don't give a toss about what their children are playing. And adding an additional level of expense, administration and delay isn't going to change a damn thing.

@2099net
Why have a 12 rating on games? Because we do on films for a start and if classification is to be taken seriously the only alternaitive is to put games that should be rated 12 as 15.

Why have legal ratings when it hsn't stopped the daily mail kicking up a fuss? Imagine the fuss if they were no ratings. Also yes irresponsible parents will buy inapproiate movies and films for their children (an some responsible parents who feel that their 17 yr old is mature enough to play GTA IV) but what about the children of responsible parents? No legal ratings and little Jonny could save up his pocket money and buy Manhunt 2.

Your question might as well be why do we have a law stating you have to be 18 to purchase alcohol it doesn't stop kids drinking?

Yes PLEASE a single pan-european rating would rock... at least for Germans^^

>And he urged the Government to ask gamers what they want to happen.

This.
This.
This.
This.
This.

Has any anti-game politician (specifically, Vaz, BoJo or Brown) had the balls to speak to the games media yet? Or are they too comfortable being sucked up to by The Daily Mail, Rupert Murdoch or any other element of the old media threatened by games?

@Rex

Well, we never used to have a 12 rating for movies (and is 12A still around?) It/They were only added so studios could grab more money from the teenage audience.

The point is, the PEGI ratings are there as a guide, just like the Watershead on TV is a guide. It's on the box. Its big, its not hidden and it offers guidence.

I'm sure there's stuff on TV which would be a 12 or 15 rating - in fact we know there is, because when they come out on DVD they are rated as 12 or 15. Some episodes of Doctor Who are 12 when released on DVD, yet "little Johnny" can program the VCR/watch in his bedroom/go round a friends to watch them. Hell, Little Johnny can watch programmes rated as 15 on TV quite easily. Where's all the fuss about that?

NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE LAW!

Yes, Little Johnny could save up his money and buy a PEGI 12+ or 16+ game. But Little Johnny's parents can take it off him! Christ, when I was a kid, my parents used to - you know - parent. They took an interest in my activities and at times, banned me from doing something or going somewhere.

But when parents take the 18+ rated game off little Johnny after they see him stab a prostitute what do they do? Probably complain to the Daily Mail or government to ban this sick filth. With a legally binding clasification system it protects the rights of adults to play more mature games. If Kieth Vaz's arguments to Manhunt 1 extendend to "any 8 year old child can buy this game" he may have actually be listened to by government and the game could have been banned paving the way for all games to be banned. No legally binding clasification system leads to censorship.

Of course the debate is over whether the UK should use PEGI or BBFC ratings. The government chose the BBFC ratings as people already know what the mean (a white 16+ in a box could easily refer to the dificulty level like board games), the legislation is easier as it already exists for films, it's independent and finally it's relavent to the UK's moral ideas not a european average. Of course the industry would prefer their own streamlined (read basic) system which works across several countries, but they chose the BBFC because it was what's best (or possibly easiest) for the UK and her government.

>With a legally binding clasification system it protects the rights of adults to play more mature games.

You mis-spelled "gives parents an out when somebody asks how their kid got hold of a game they shouldn't".

>No legally binding clasification system leads to censorship.

Apart from the UK one, which has seen two games and numerous films banned. The games were later unbanned, yes, but after changes were made, and even then that does not mean they were never banned.
Oh, and the German one, which prevents the use of decapitations in games.

Also, bear in mind that no unclassified game can be legally distributed in the UK- dangerous when you get into the issue of mods and User Generated Content.

But Rex, we already have BBFC 15 and 18 certificates. They are legally binding. I'm not saying we should dump the BBFC entirely, but I'm saying do we really *NEED* BBFC 12 certificates? Do we?

Is some poor kid going to run around stabbing people after playing a game rated 12+ by PEGI but not worthy of a 15 by the BBFC? Of course not. And if one does, you the game itself will be the least of the reasons.

Look, no parent is going to agree on what is a 12 anyway. Like I say, some Doctor Who DVDs are rated 12 by the BBFC, but it doesn't stop the programme from being viewed by younger children at home. It doesn't stop stuff like Peep Show (DVDs 15 certificate) being viewed by children at home either. What do you want next? An American style V-CHIP in every TV? Of course, that's not stopped complaints about TV content in the States, because people now complain the V-CHIP ratings are incorrect in the first place - just like people would complain about games being rated PG rather than 12 or whatever.

I'm sick to death of people either having no responsibility or making excuses for people with no responsibility. If you are a parent then [a] you take an interest in your child's interests and hobbies and become informed and [b] you monitor what your children are doing.

No ifs and buts.

No "two rating systems are confusing" arguments. No "people think games are for kids" excuses. No "but he told me it was Okay" pleas. Parenting rests with the parent, not with the government or the industry, both of which already to more than enough to let responsible parents parent.

All forcing all games to go through the BBFC will do is add extra expense to game development and let the enable the BBFC employ more people.

@2099net

To be honest no we don't really need a 12 but do we "need" a 15? It is a bit of a daft situation when films have that rating and when games that fufil certain requirements meaning it could be a 15 or 18 have to be submitted to the BBFC and could eventually be rated 12. Think of it more as "unsuitable for younger children, parental discretion advised", in otherwords "it's upto the parent but we're going to stop it being sold to children under 12 to make your life easier (if you like you can take them to the cinema to see it as it will be 12a but we won't let them go by themselves)". It's also crazy that a game that should be a 12 can be sold to 11 year olds if it hasn't been submitted to the BBFC but can't be if it has been.

The ultimate goal is for the BBFC to classify all games Uc through 18 but quite sensibly there starting with the one where there is some legal descrepensies and allow the BBFC to build up capacity slowly rather than dump everything in their lap at once. To me the fact that games are essentially being treated equally to films shows how recognised and mainstream the industry has become.

@beemoh

For a start Germany =/= UK.

Secondly is your point is that the BBFC has succesfully banned a grand total of 0 games in over a decade? I really don't have a problem with that. Also there will always be some films that aren't suitable to be released to the general public, and after living in Japan for a while I'm pretty sure that there are several games that will never be, and should never be released in the UK (even if certain areas of the human body remain pixulated out).

Finally the BBFC's remit does not cover downloadable content (which may change in the future if it was at all posible to regulate) so mods and user generated content is currently a non-issue.

But rex, doesn't the whole Manhunt fiasco show that even if the BBFC were to classify all games, there would still be disagreements? So if "Heroes : The Game" was rated 12, some parents would still complain, just as the BBFC wanted to ban Manhunt 2 and failed (meaning the BBFC themselves are unhappy with Manhunt 2's rating)

When all is said and done, although retailers face legal concequences on BBFC ratings, once they are bought there is no law stopping anyone from viewing or playing the game. It's like The Evil Dead - this was actually banned in the UK for years, but now even Channel 4 can show it unedited, as long as its on late enough at night (which is just as open to abuse from youngsters working around the system as videogames)