November 20, 2007 -
For regular readers of GamePolitics, Labour MP Keith Vaz is a familiar critic of video game violence issues and the game industry.Vaz yesterday submitted a pair of written, game-related questions to Margaret Hodge, the U.K. Minister of State for Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism. Liberal Democrat MP Paul Rowen (left) joined Vaz in querying Hodge about game content issues. Here's the exchange:
Vaz: What representations [Hodge's] Department received about the link between violent video games and the actions of their users in each of the last five years?
Hodge: Records of correspondence are only available for the last three years. Since December 2004, we have received no representations from groups concerned about a link between video games featuring violence and violent behaviour in real life. However, we have received correspondence from some individuals—often through their constituency Member of Parliament—who are concerned about a possible link.
In December 2004, we received two letters. In 2005, we received 12 letters. In 2006, we received 10 letters. And so far in 2007, we have received 16 letters, eight of which related to the announcement of the review led by Dr. Tanya Byron. This review is considering the effectiveness and adequacy of existing measures to help prevent children from being exposed to harmful or inappropriate material in video games and on the internet, and to make recommendations for improvements or additional action.
Vaz: What factors are taken into account before a video game is released for sale?
Hodge: Producers first test their game using the voluntary Pan European Games Information classification system. This reveals whether it must be submitted to the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), under the terms of the Video Recordings Act.
It must go to the BBFC if it contains live action (rather than entirely computer generated images) or material that is grossly violent or sexual.
If submitted to the BBFC, it is considered and classified against the same publicly available guidelines used for cinema films or DVDs.
Rowen: To ask [Hodge] whether she has plans to include upgrades for video games in a review of the classification of video games?
Hodge: Under the current classification system, a producer's upgrade or addition to a video game means that it is a different product from a previously classified game. It therefore has to be classified separately.
Part of the review being led by Tanya Byron is to assess the effectiveness and adequacy of existing measures to help prevent children from being exposed to harmful or inappropriate material in video games and on the internet, and to make recommendations for improvements or additional action. The whole classification system for video games is being covered by this review.
GP: We're not entirely sure what Rowen means by "upgrades." Is he referring to add-on modules such as WoW's Burning Crusade? Official downloadable content such as one might purchase on Xbox Live? User-created mods? We'll try to pin this down...
Comments
Although, Hodge does specifically refer to "a producer’s upgrade or addition to a video game", so I would hope that that could be taken as meaning only boxed/official dowload products.
it should be http://www.bbfc.co.uk, Dennis's missed the http://
As for the "upgrades", i hope as well that its merely expansions, and not mods from the internet. thatll just about AO every game for the PC, and maybe even the next gen consoles with internet capabilities.
Yes, he means expansion packs, they can theoretically be rated differently to the original game, though I can imagine an expansion being rated lower age than the original program would be a bit silly, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it happened.
From what I can understand of what is being said there, they were given a non-answer to their non-question. There is no review on Video Game Classification going on as I understand it, I'm sure the BBFC would have something to say about it if the government stuck their nose into their affairs, the Byron Review is not about the classification system, it is about the availability and ease of access beyond the point of classification, i.e. How easy is it for under 18's to get 18 certificate media and what can be done to address the issue, and about the access of non-rateable media over the Internet etc.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
I know it sounds silly, but I can give you two examples of "upgrades" that could be rated lower than their original games.
Portal could be easily rated T (the original, Half-Life 2, was rated M)
The "Snake vs. Monkey" minigame could EASILY rated E (part of Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistance, an Upgrade of Metal Gear Solid 3, rated M)
But, when they're in packs (like those I mentioned), they have to give the highest rating on the box.
Yeah, that makes sense, I'm pretty sure that's how it works for box sets in the UK as well. I seem to recall that Warcraft 3 TFT got a lower rating than the original as well.
As for user created content, well, it's like home-videos, if people want to make them and release them to the world in general, it's not really the governments' business, they provide the infrastructure, but you can't change human nature by sweeping things under the carpet. Yes, some will be offensive and rude, that means, horror of horrors, that the government might just be forced to allow people to use their own judgement. That must be a horrible concept for certain politicians, actually trusting the public to make a decision for itself...
Oh, and in before people notice the "grossly violent or sexual" part: This means that if the PEGI people say that a game could potentially push it a bit, it has to go to the BBFC for approval. The BBFC *do* approve grossly violent or sexual games with the exception of Manhunt 2.
If that's the case, then we can assume that little pieces of the report will be taken out of context in order to demonize games, while the rest is ignored.