February 29, 2008
From Prime Minister Gordon Brown on down, is there anyone in the British government who isn't spending (taxpayer-paid) time fretting about video game issues these days?Seemingly not.
With the release of the highly-anticipated Byron Report looming in March, Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee is among those who are also looking into the effect of violence in videogames. Content rating systems are, quite naturally, a part of that discussion.
Addressing the committee earlier this week, Microsoft exec Matt Lambert (left) told members that the Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) rating system is better suited to informing parents about games than the system used by the British Board of Film Classification. The BBFC is probably best known to the gaming community for its controversial ban of Rockstar's Manhunt 2 last summer. Said Lambert:
If there's going to be one ratings system, it should be PEGI. With PEGI, they think very carefully about age appropriacy… but the BBFC is set up to rate films, and it takes that approach for games when a different approach is required.
PEGI breaks it down to a different level. If there's bad language it will give you a specific symbol, if there's gambling there's another symbol, and some games will have a whole raft of symbols on the back. It's a different depth, it's more sensible, and it also has a European aspect to it.
Not surprisingly, a BBFC official who spoke to GamesIndustry.biz emphatically disagreed:
The fact is, we provide consumer advice about the content… and we do it in words, which people understand, they don't understand the pictograms...
Yes, we're using the same symbols that we use for films, but that's because parents understand what those symbols mean.
The unnamed source also told GI.biz that BBFC raters play games all the way through. In the U.S., some political figures have demanded that the ESRB do the same:
Unlike the PEGI system, which is purely a tick-box system filled in by the distributor themselves, the BBFC has very well-qualified games examiners - who are games fans themselves - to play the games right through all the levels, with the cheat codes, and spend a lot of time playing them so that they know what the content is.
-Reporting from San Diego, GP Correspondent Andrew Eisen
Comments
"Just because you BELIEVE that the government isn’t influencing the BBFC doesn’t mean it isn’t. The fact that the laws exist to manipulate the BBFC’s decisions is evidence that the government DOES influence the BBFC’s review process."
Non-sequitar. First off Just because YOU believe the government IS influencing the BBFC doesn't mean it is. We have a believe of innocent until proven guilty. It is up to you to provide some evidence before making such accusations. Furthermore the laws do not influence the BBFC's review process whatsoever, it just enforces whatever outcome they decide.
If resorted to any personal attack it was because repeating myself for the 5th time gets boring and you aren't listening to what I am saying, just repeating your illogical arguments without proof and without reason.
"You’ll note that to challenge a rating, one does have to go through a government controlled system (the courts) when it comes to the BBFC.
Why do you think that challenges don’t occur often?"
Maybe because the Film and Gaming Industries have a good working relationship with the BBFC and agree with the majority of their ratings? Also maybe because the BBFC doesn't refuse to classify many Films or Games.
You go on to claim again the bought and paid for molarchy. To be honest, I spent a good few minutes trying to find out how the BBFC is funded. As yet I have found nothing. It might be that it is given taxpayer's money from the government, or it might be that it is paid for by the Film and Gaming industries themselves. Tell you what, as I can't find it, and you are making all the accusations, you can come up with the proof they are being paid for by the UK government. Give me a webpage, link or Newspaper article that shows how it gets its money.
"The BBFC, on the other hand, is nothing more than an extension of the government legal system. It purports to be independant, but clearly looking at the links between law and the board show otherwise."
And in 2 concurrent sentences we have the whole reason why you are SO confused. The Government The Law. Repeat and learn.
this is obviously a lie. MMOs, infinite-replayability games, and easter eggs ftw.
True voluntary systems don't give in to politicial pressure. Only government bought and paid for organizations do.
You can post whatever propaganda from the BBFC you want. As I tell my own child "actions speak louder than words". The BBFC's own bending to various political pressures is evidence that they are NOT truly independant. No matter what the media format they review.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
It's not quite that black and white. The BBFC only prevent the sale of certain media to minors (under 18s), not the viewing. Plus, their ratings have no bearing on you once you're out of your teens.
They're intended to be a tool for parents to prevent their children from buying stuff they're not supposed to - there's no laws to prevent a parent renting/buying an 18 rated film/game and watching/playing it with their 8 year old child. Furthermore, there's nothing to stop grown-ups buying adult rated games for minors for unsupervised use (which is part of the problem, IMHO).
Therefore, your statement "The BBFC dictating what you can see and think, violates human rights" is factually incorrect. The BBFC merely legislate what media can and cannot be purchased by minors.
Thinking of the PEGI icons, if a game is rated 18+ and has a language icon on it, I would assume that the language is bad enough to warrant an 18+ rating. Same with violence and sex.
I think that would help.
Sure the text saying that the game has Strong Language helps, but when it needs to be multilingual, it can be a pain for the game maker to have to region print the descriptors.
But of coursethat could be handled with a colored border around the icon. Green for mild language, red for extreme language.
"Bought and paid for", as you well know, is not limited to funding. However, as it is manipulated by government political demands, then the BBFC is, in effect, owned and operated by the government. Whether it receives money or must knuckle under to government say or face being rejected entirely by the government, it's still "bought and paid for".
MonkeyThumbs,
Yes. If any ratings system is affected through law or political pressure to make a particular rating decision, or not provide a rating, or the appeals process is handled through the legal court system in any fashion, then, yes, it is, in effect, an arm of the government and legal system and would then be viewed as being owned by the government.
The argument has been that if the PEGI system were used, that it would HAVE to make decisions the same as the BBFC BECAUSE of law and government influence. Others say that the PEGI, being independant, would make decisions contrary to what the BBFC make.
IF the PEGI were used and the government required they change any aspect of their policies and procedures to follow the demands of government instituted law or even that they must bow to political pressure, then that rating system would ALSO be comprimised, in the same manner that the BBFC has been compromised.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
The thing is though that we have to remember about both sets of ratings is that either one will be backed up by force of law whichever is the national standard.
You also have to take into account that what may be accepted in some other european countries, in terms of content and language, may not be as widely accepted here in the UK.. That is another major issue with the PEGI rating system.
If they tailored the ratings per country to conform to what was generally held to be the normal standard, how would they be any different than the BBFC in that regard?
To illustrate the point: Mass Effect is classed as a game for 15+ here in the UK, in the USA it's classed as Mature, which is a good 2 years age catagory difference... because both countries have different outlooks as to what is acceptable or not. What may be acceptable in the UK may be totally different in Germany or France, or vice versa and those issues have to be resolved...
Otherwise they'd be the BBFC under a different name with more confusing symbols.
and and I'm glad Deus, I'm a lurker here most of the time.. didn't want to offend you inadvertantly.
Whilst I don't care in the least about Manhunt 2, I'm becoming more and more convinced it was 'muscle flexing' by the BBFC, they have more or less admitted as such, and even the UK Newspapers and BBC are starting to admit that Manhunt 2 'wasn't nearly as bad as it was made out to be' (though, admittedly, as a game, it wasn't nearly as good as it was made out to be either), and their comments about 'risk of harm' were an uncomfortable reflection of some of the ridiculous over-reactions taking place in the US.
However, on the other side of the coin, the PEGI system historically gives lower age ratings for games than the BBFC does, and once you have a PEGI rating you are covered for most of Europe, you don't have to keep paying out for various countries' own ratings systems.
I'm not certain if I'm for or against the de-centralisation of the game rating system, there are pros and cons to each, but I do think the BBFC has a lot of hard work to do in order to repair its reputation with the members of ELSPA.
Not really. The ESRB wouldn't have found Hot Coffee even if they had played through San Andreas. The subsequent brouhaha would have happened either way.
Andrew Eisen
And secondly, there are a couple of guys here who appear to have an excellent understanding of how the organisation functions, probably because they have direct experience with it like myself. It's an independent organisation, period. Quit with the FUD.
It's not a cultural divide, it is just that Nightwing is wrong. Plain and simple. He can rant all he wants but he has provided no evidence of any impropriety from the UK Government with regards to the BBFC whatsoever. Given this, he is just making wild speculation and misinformed judgments based on his own extreme bias.
When he comes up with ANY proof beyond logical falacy and lies, I will listen to what he says. Until then, he's just another internet idiot with an opinion thinking it counts as fact.
Erik:
"But for those like Chuma, perhaps it would be best if you just admitted that the BBFC was a governmental body, the other option is that the government handed over your rights to some company."
You do realise that in the US, if it was proven that games had some degree of harm, a body appointed by the US Government could be assigned to rate games as well? The difference between the US and UK is that in the UK there wasn't a need to show harm before an independant ratings body was allocated the force of law. You may feel free to argue the rights and wrongs of this and I will listen in (I believe DeusPayne is one of those severely against such censorship - that is his opinion and he's entitled to it) but arguing that the ratings board is actually part of a government is to not understand what a government is, which Nightwing clearly doesn't.
Nightwing:
When you can come up with anything new, I will respond you you again. Until then I have said all I needed to about 5 times over and you have ignored it. Come back with proof beyond your wild speculation, or continue to look like an idiot. It's up to you.
All guns in the US are required to have a serial number on them, right? They're not allowed to be sold without a serial number. Who etches these serial numbers onto the guns? Is it a government agency?
All games in the UK are required to have a rating sticker on them. They're not allowed to be sold unrated. Who puts these ratings on them? Is it a government agency?
The fact that the BBFC can refuse to rate something doesn't change whether or not it is a government agency.
I also write freelance for selection of magazines and websites. (not all journalists cover politics)
My point is that like others before in this thread, you have simplified the UK's government system into some sort of boys club of winks and finger-ends. Seriously guys, put down the conspiracy theories and paranoia and get with reality.
They DO have independence from the government. (Someone has got to pay for them, after all.)
They have been around for decades and have built up a good reputation over that time with parents, and isn't that what we want?
From what I'm reading, a lot of people have decided that the BBFC is not "fit for purpose" because it banned one (rubbish) game. Big fat hairy deal.
Given that it doesnt matter where you were born, if you are demonstrating and hatred or discrimination of a nation's people then it is racism. It is possible to discriminate against your own race you know - this concept is not unknown.
Way to not understand what you are talking about.
Currently if a title is to be sold in the UK it MUST have a rating from the BBFC. It DOESN'T need one from PEGI.
FIGHT
THE BBFC wants to block and censor what adults get, even Germany's USK dose not do this.
On another note what are the main ratings boards now?
Aus:OFLC(sp)
Euro : Pegi
USA/Ca:ESRB
UK:BBFC
Germany USK
USA film MPAA
any others worth mentioning?
"Currently if a title is to be sold in the UK it MUST have a rating from the BBFC. It DOESN’T need one from PEGI. "
I think that's his point. The BBFC can use political power to actually BAN a game for ANYONE'S use by simply not rating it.
The PEGI system rates EVERYTHING, thereby not BANNING a game but rather giving it the appropriate content information and letting the CONSUMER decide.
The BBFC is the perfect example of "turning a blind eye" by essentially saying "we don't like it, we don't think it's appropriate for ANYONE, so we're going to pretend it doesn't exist, thereby preventing its sale".
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
The BBFC only rates the games it's paid to. Unless it thinks it can score some political points by refusing a rating. :D
More seriously, games in the UK do not need a BBFC rating to be sold- although if a game *is* submitted to them, they have the power to block it. PEGI, however, clear all games for release regardless.
/b
And you have proof that PEGI wouldn't have banned any games? Given that they would have to conform to the same guidelines laid out for the BBFC, do you have any written evidence that PEGI would have given an 18 rating to Manhunt 2?
Content descriptors are NOT ratings and do NOT conform to the guidelines on Games, Films, DVDs and Videos in the UK. Saying "they rate everything" is ignorant. *I* can rate every game if I want to, but that doesn't give it the force of law in this country.
If you want to debate if there should be censorship or not, do so, but do not confuse the issue with the job that the BBFC does compared to the peripheral job of PEGI. If the UK government suddenly gave PEGI the rights to rate games, they would have to conform to the guidelines of the UK and then the BBFC could rate every game. Your argument is fatuous.
What is bloated and pompous about giving games a U, PG, 12, 15 or 18 certificate? *5* options.... is that too many for you to handle?
Strangely this appears to be the EXACT SAME criteria used for films, dvds and videos in this country.... strange that isn't it? Maybe it is because THE BBFC ARE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES!
Half the time I wonder if anyone here from the US has ever actually SEEN the BBFC ratings system in the UK before they comment.
Have fun with the 100 hours in GTA IV. Or how about the 80 hours of Lost Odyssey. How long did it take them to rate Oblivion? Or how about MMOs. What a retarded assumption to make that playing games all the way through is something that's needed, or that it even gives them a better idea of the game.
If the PEGI had to conform to the BBFC, then there would be no need for the segregation. The point to having the PEGI is to distinguish between the media formats.
Do YOU have written evidence that indicates that the PEGI follows the BBFC method 100% of the time? Indeed, do you have evidence that all other rating systems follow the BBFC 100% of the time?
The BBFC claims its reviewers are game experts. But the evidence is clear that the BBFC is bought and paid for by the government, influenced by the government, and adheres to the ignorance of the government. It has NOTHING to do with what is appropriate for the consumer or citizen. It is solely a paid arm of the government to dictate the personal and/or religious beliefs of politicians. Politicians I'd hardly call all that honorable or ethical themselves, therefore in no position to decide what is or is not appropriate for anyone else.
With a non-government rating system, you only have to deal with the potential bias of the reviewer, not the bias of the demands of the government and politicians. Even political pull against a particular company could play a part in the BBFC's decision making process.
Would the PEGI give a rating that would limit sales? Maybe. But unlike the BBFC, it WOULD give a rating.
Certainly articles such as this one show that while the BBFC will choose banning a game through "turning a blind eye", the PEGI will may choose to rate a game, even at a high level.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7233408.stm
Disagree with it all you want, if the BBFC has control over any voluntary system of rating, then that rating system is compromised by government influence.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
"The BBFC claims its reviewers are game experts. But the evidence is clear that the BBFC is bought and paid for by the government, influenced by the government, and adheres to the ignorance of the government."
What absolute trash. The BBFC are an independant organisation. How many more time do people have to shout that at you before you get it through your thick skull? Just because you don't agree with their opinion on Manhunt 2 does NOT mean it has been told to do something by the Government. Period. Here. Go read:-
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about/index.php
"With a non-government rating system, you only have to deal with the potential bias of the reviewer, not the bias of the demands of the government and politicians."
So you exchange the BBFC for PEGI. What then? You think that means we end censorship in the UK? THAT ISN'T HOW IT WORKS! If there is a NEW system, they they STILL get the force of law behind it in the same way as the BBFC did. The 1984 Video Recordings Act was amended to cover computer games. Which brings us nicely to...
"Disagree with it all you want, if the BBFC has control over any voluntary system of rating, then that rating system is compromised by government influence."
Except it ISN'T voluntary. It is required by law to sell in this country.
THIS IS NOT AMERICA. Do your bloody research before you make any more inane and stupid comments on the way the UK deals with Games, Films, DVDs and Videos. I've even TOLD YOU several times and you STILL don't get it. Either it is stupidity or just plain stubbornness.
Those of you shouting about how BBFC is a bastard company, taking away our rights etc, there have only been two games banned by them EVER - one of which they changed their minds. I wouldn't call that the work of an evil dictator.
Seemingly not."
Oh shut up with your FUD. Perhaps if you weren't so myopic in your outlook of british politics you would realise there is a whole other world out there.
I'm sure they try their best, but really, the BBFC doesn't have THAT much time on their hands...
Patriot Act.
Next?
1 bad act >>>>>> BBFC banning 1 game that I didn't plan on playing anyways
"The fact is that the BBFC has been influenced time and again by political agendas."
And you have proof of this? Or is this another Jack-Thompsonesque assertion that because you claim it is true it must be?
The BBFC have been in charge of film classification since the early 1910's. They have over 90 years of experience with the UK cinema classification. During those 90 years there have been a lot of censorship cuts made to films but generally very little outright bans, and you are a fool if you think that the UK is alone in that. Usually they just view the material and classify it. Cuts are made usually a distributor wants a lesser rating than they were given, which is true of computer games too. It's DEFINITELY true in the USA as well where the ESRB work with the gaming industry to advise on what to change to ensure they get an M rating rather than AO.
Aditionally you might like to know that attitudes to censorship change over time. "Last year it asked for cuts in just five films, compared with almost 60 in 1989." There is also an example of a film that in 1951 received an X Rating (the same as an 18 rating today) but received a U rating when re-released in 1999.
You can argue that the Manhunt 2 refusal to rate was unjust. Hey guess what? That is why we have a legal process and appeals committee in place which is ALSO under the force of law. Strange how you don't complain that the Video Appeals Committee is biased and influenced or paid for by government...
There was more repetitious ranting, ignoring the facts and making claims of truth without any proof and infact with only mal-informed opinion at hand, but I don't think I need to keep repeating myself. I'll let everyone who actually bothers to read the comments see what was said and make their judgment on your blind blithering nonsense.
And you're whole argument that the BBFC is not government run is just laughable. If they're there to provide a rating that is enforced by the government, THEY ARE INFLUENCED BY THE GOVERNMENT! Just because their website says "zomg, we're independant of teh governemnts!" doesn't mean crap when the laws say otherwise. They provided the government the means to legally ban a piece of media.
But regardless, even if the BBFC was COMPLETELY separate from politics, what gives them the right to determine what I can and can't watch? As adults, you should be empowered to make your own decisions. Any body, government or not, has no right to interfere with anyone's personal preferences.
All governments have censorship, it is just a matter of degrees. You cant say 'Fuck' on TV and have to have sexual content of films removed thanks to the government backed FCC, yet despite the provisions we have, these are routinely allowed. Infact last night channel 4 continued to show the highly informative and interesting 'Autopsy' series showing a series of disection of human bodies and explaining how systems work in the body (first series), common forms of death and how people can avoid them (second series) and now how to treat life threatening injuries and why they are life threatening. A program of this nature would NEVER make it to air in the US. I'm dubious it would make it to DVD either, but that is purely conjecture.
As I brought up the Patriot Act, maybe a little unfairly and flippantly instead of replying to the above, I will just say the following:- If you are trying to suggest that banning a game (which is currently being overturned on appeal) is worse than prevention of fundemental human rights, you have some series perspective issues.
"A program of this nature would NEVER make it to air in the US. I’m dubious it would make it to DVD either, but that is purely conjecture." AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH *HUGE BREATH* HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Yeah... you're just completely uninformed. Argument over.... impossible to talk to you.
Last bit: so.... banning media is not a fundamental right? They're both violating human rights, but one hasn't been in service since 1910. If the patriot act hasn't been completely destroyed by the time 100 years have gone by, I'll concede the point. But until then.....
You are clearly against censorship. Sorry, but I don't agree with your ideals. Also just because you think it is unacceptable doesn't mean society as a whole does. I don't think smoking pot should be illegal as long as people do not drive afterwards but my opinion isn't going to change the stance of UK law.
"And you’re whole argument that the BBFC is not government run is just laughable."
You clearly have no idea what the concept of government run means. Furthermore, it is the law that is enforcing the BBFC's rulings, no the government directly, the government merely has the powers to change these laws but has no direct say in any rulings the BBFC comes to make.
"But regardless, even if the BBFC was COMPLETELY separate from politics, what gives them the right to determine what I can and can’t watch? As adults, you should be empowered to make your own decisions. Any body, government or not, has no right to interfere with anyone’s personal preferences."
Yes, yes it does. That the whole point of a governing body. If you do not like your countries attitudes or ideals, you have the option to emigrate or seek asylum elsewhere. One of the drawbacks to a society is that you have to conform to laws within that society and only a majority rule (where you have democracy) will change those laws.
However that is a seperate argument here and again I point out that even if you get rid of the BBFC and replace it with PEGI, you will still have the law in place that gives that ratings board's word force of law. Personally, I prefer the BBFC's ratings. They are clear, concise, universal (with film, video and dvd) and obvious.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Ben Franklin