ELSPA Not Giving Up the Fight over U.K. Game Ratings
ELSPA Not Giving Up the Fight over U.K. Game Ratings
October 1, 2008
ELSPA, which represents U.K. game publishers, has vowed to fight on in its bid to have content rating chores assigned to PEGI rather than the British Board of Film Classification, gamesindustry.biz reports.
The PEGI-BBFC debate has become rather a long-running sideshow in the U.K., where government officials seem to prefer the BBFC, the industry wants PEGI and no one seems in the mood to compromise. ELSPA boss Paul Jackson spoke to gi.biz of his organization's determination:
Nobody is saying for a second that if government brings in a regulation for a videogames act of parliament that our members won't fight it. Of course they will. At the end of the day we're a very law-abiding industry and we'll fight our corner right the way through. If there's a legislative process we'll fight that as well.
I think [government officials are] listening now. I have a real sense that the arguments we're making are so well-founded in fact that they're impossible to not listen to...
Fifteen years ago when we set up our own age ratings without anybody asking us to, we did it entirely off our own backs to make sure there was child protection. I don't think there is the slightest doubt that this industry isn't serious, coherent and of one mind of where we're going.
Comments
I hope PEGI wins. :)
Second.
I think PEGI is better - they don't arbitrarily ban games.
They just arbitrarily rate them instead. Don't settle for the lesser of two evils; regardless of the BBFC's ability to refuse a rating, PEGI doesn't require the examiners to play the game or even see it in action. "Does it contain boobies?" "Yes." "Greg, put the boobies icon on the box."
The ESRB does not play any games either.
This is regarding the UK, so the ESRB doesn't do anything. The BBFC plays the games.
Your reasoning is flawed. Ill let you read one of the multitude of other articles in which people explain at great length, including myself, why this is the case. Can't be arsed correcting every American kiddie that posts here anymore.
This comment sums up the BBFC/PEGI debate to a point.
Cheater87 represents PEGI, he is assuming that the industry are telling the truth and thus is just blindly ticking the box that says "I Love PEGI"
However, if you look into the methodologies and actually understand whats being debated you are taking the BBFC appoach and actually perfoming a critical analysis. Thus with full knowledge you are better able to make a reasoned decision and are more likely to tick the "I Love BBFC" box.
Why not both again? Have them both have to ban a game for it to be banned, and have the ratings be side by side, even have a banned ranking for one if one bans it and the other doesnt... is that a win or no?
That is why I like them. They believe adults can play games unlike teh BBFC which babies them.
So if we were to disregard your misinterperatation of the BBFC and PEGI ideologies for a minute. Which of the two do you feel has a better approach to assigning ratings and I don't mean which has the prettier pictograms, I mean the actual methodology between rating games?
Well for a start BBFC frequently downgrades the age-rating on games. The amount of times I've smirked at a box that has a PEGI rating of 18+ and a BBFC rating of 15 is too many to count.
How do you mean downgrade? Do you mean they alter the rating to be lower than PEGI or just that they have different ratings?
No, he just means the BBFC are more leniant and liberal. Mass Effect is a case in point, PEGI rated it as a 18, BBFC were happy to give it a 12. If you then compare the ME content to similar content in films, you'll see that the BBFC certificate is far more reflective. Unfortunately the Manhunt incident has led to massive amount of misinformation in the videogame community, many of whom are happy to believe the portrayal of BBFC as an evil, banhammer-happy organisation. Thankfully, this portrayal is wrong.
THey aren't 'evil', they aren't 'ban happy' but they are out-dated. It's a yet another typically British hanging onto something for the sake of hanging onto it out of fear of change.
Yes, that sounds about right.
~You Could Be Mine, But You're Way Out Of Line..~
Okay, TIME OUT, First off no matter what your opinion is throwing out flagrantly inflammatory comments about a nation is just plain offensive, I could respond by insulting america (assuming you are american) in turn for similar national problems without any thought for logic or fact but I won't, you know why? because its petty and has no place in a rational discussion.
So either you discuss the topic in a civil manner or troll elsewhere.
I'm British brainiac. Lived here 24 years, since the day I was born. (Funnily enough, I had a feeling you'd try the nationality smokescreen, shame it's backfired.)
Backfired? You think I'm not still offended because youre british? It makes it worse that youre overgeneralising your own view of the country to the views of everyone.
I must have missed the memo that said Britain has now been classified as perfect and is no longer above scrutiny. That IS my view of the country. The younger generations are being suffocated because of the older generations fear of change and preference for living in the 'glory days' of the past.
Pft, typical american response. ;)
Damn redcoat! :P
if you love the constitution so much, why don't you marry it. :)
I didnt say it was perfect or that you werent entitled to your own opinion so try and make an actually counterpoint next time. What I said was overgeneralisation of minority opinion to the majority is offensive to those excluded by it, its not a 'typical brit' thing to hang on to things for the sake of it, you can call specific people out for it, but generalise it to the populace at large and youre making broad sweeping remarks without regard to facts.
You mean like your doing?
I said before to try making a full counterpoint, were you not paying attention?
How escatly was I ignoring the facts?
For a start you seem to be representing yourself as speaking for a quite possibly non-existant majority, whereas I was just stating my own personal opinion.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Thats not how I'm representing myself, go back and look at my first response.
All I was saying is thats you were the one making assumptions about the majority of the population for stating that its a 'typical brit' thing to do such and such. thats making generalisation about an entire country, not outlining personal opinions. Now if you levied that critisism against individuals then there wouldnt be as much of a problem, nor would it be a problem if you said it as you did in the shotbox and aimed the remark toward the government or even the bbfc, thats not the issue, the issue is thats you generalised it to everyone in the country by stating it was a typical brit thing, and thats just untrue, and thats the only case where either of us were trying to make a sweeping statement representing the majority.
You feel it is untrue does not equal it is untrue, any more than my opinion does. Every time you look at small town newspapers, you see locals (usually in a higher age demographic) fighting changes. Everywhere I look in Britain I see the older generations desperately trying to keep Britain as it 'used to be' rather than move it forwards.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Still, those opinions, while being more vocal are no more representative than yours or mine and making the assumption they are is just as flawed. the majoraty are not always the vocal groups. This is the problem, and making generalisations based on assumed majorities only serves to stand in the way of rational analysis of the situation as it really is. And thats the point I'm trying to make.
And the point I'm trying to make is that I shouldn't have to say 'In my opinion' before everything I say, since it should be a given that any broad statement is self-evidently my opinion.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
An opinion on something like beverage preference needs no amending, making statement thats attribute beliefs and attitudes to others based on your assumptions is something not in the realm of opinion.
Maybe in your opinion.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
YAWN
I vote PEGI, because it's what the industry wants.
--- Official Protector of Videoland!
That's cool, go through your entire life being told what to think.
Baaaaaa. ;)
BBFC ftw, PEGI are conducting the worst kind of smear campaign full of lies and dirty tactics. Ironically, it's exactly that fact which has shown is they don't deserve the responsibility.
I disagree. THe BBFC was a body created to deal with (that is to say, ban or certificate) the unregulated video nasties in the 80s. They are rooted in making judgement calls on what grown men and women can and can't handle in their entertainment of choice.
Then kindly explain why the grand total of ZERO videogames are currently banned in the UK?
Because they got taken to court over their last ban, lost and were forced to change the decision. It's certainly not because they haven't banned anything.
Need we get into the fact that game was intended for adults only, and they decided part of their job was to decide what adults can and can't handle, instead of just agreeing that it's for adults and rating it as such.
Beautifully put.
You are wrong. No party took the BBFC to court. The BBFC applied for a judicial review because they believed that the report produced by the VAC was not correct with regards to the Video Recordings Act. The judicial review found in favour of the BBFC and the VAC were required to resubmit. The subsequent resubmission was correct with regards to the Video Recordings Act and the BBFC, as a result, were required to assign the classification.
Take your misinformation somewhere else.
Take your pedantry over semantics somewhere else.
Its a little bit more important just 'semantics'. Dismiss that all you like but the major difference is that in your story the BBFC was forced to give it a rating whereas the reality is that no outside pressure, becides the appeal by Rockstar, was required for Manhunt 2 to get a rating. The system is working and adapting.
Lets put it in terms even you can't try and shout down shall we. Stop me if you get confused.
*The BBFC ban Manhunt 2.
*Rockstar edit Manhunt 2 and resubmit it.
*The BBFC ban that version too.
*The ban is appealed by Rockstar
*The ban is overturned.
*The BBFC appeal against the over-turning through a judge.
*The judge requests the appeal commtee look at it again.
*The appeal is turned down and Manhunt 2 is released.
At NO point did the BBFC willingly accept that it was a game for adults, and at no point did they think they were in the wrong. So my original statement is not wrong. The BBFC has no banned games not because they don't ban anything, but because they were eventually forced to rate and release the game.
And if PEGI were in charge they would have to abide by the same code of conduct and laws that the BBFC are party to. It is not the company rating the games you dislike, it is the laws imposed upon them by the Government. If you don't like that, well you are free to change country or get into politics or appeal to your local MP or start a campaign etc etc.
Your misinformation on the subject perpetuates the myths that Americans on this site have about the BBFC. I would have hoped someone who has lived here all their lives and is old enough to have witnessed games going from unrated to rated on the back of Mortal Kombat and other "controversial" games in the 90's would have a better understanding of the subject before commenting.
Guess what, Nintendo used to make playing cards, Sony used to be in telecoms. There is no denying the origins and original intent of the BBFC but the organisation has modernised and liberalised.
Laughably incorrect. The BBFC has been going for nearly 100 years. To suggest it was set up for the 80's only displays your ignorance on the subject.
"That's cool, go through your entire life being told what to think."
Wait, that's my line. Why don't you think for yourself, IE decide what media is appropriate for you, and say fuck PEGI and the BBFC. What purpose do these organizations serve other than to take these decisions off yourself.
"Why don't you think for yourself, IE decide what media is appropriate for you, and say fuck PEGI and the BBFC."
I do. I'm 20. I play what the hell I want. ;)
You mean after the bans are overturned right?
Hey Erik, can you go out and buy porn in America at your age? No? Even though there is no proof whatsoever that it has negative effects even when Reagan funded a study on it specifically to find such a link?
What about saying 'Fuck' on TV after 9pm? No? Sexual content on TV? That neither huh... I guess really this just shows that the 'moral standards' and the 'acceptance of governing laws' vary between our cultures yes? Then again, it's not like you have a self appointed body decide that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to TV and Radio and then set itself as the body to oversee fines and content of these, even though it is clearly against the constitution...
Can I buy porn? Lets see, the age to buy porn is 18 and I believe 21 in some states. As I am 28, yeah, I've been buying porn for over a decade.
But hey, drawing a parallel between porn and videogames is par for Thompson's course. And I really don't see you or any other BBFC control fantatics as being all that far removed from Thompson.
And to your other points. Fuck the FCC. Can you bring yourself to say "fuck the BBFC?". I'd imagine that saying so would be rather difficult while you are tounge kissing it eh?
You're 28?!? Fuck me...
Yes. And apparetly I must have missed the memo when a person turns 18 that they have to become a book burner like yourself. If you can find said memo for me I'll happily join you and Thompson in your freedom-icide witch hunt. Until then, I think I'll think for myself thank you.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
No apparently all your books would have blank covers and anyone who complained about not knowing the content would be villified as not thinking for themselves by reading through it all first and finding out if it was relevent to them.
Blank covers is a better proposition to never being able to see the cover because your Big Brother decided that you are not adult enough to see them.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Bored now. It's no fun running circles round someone when they don't realise it. This will be my last response to you.
To have a last response you would have to have a first. You have never responded to me, it has been thos who think for you all along. You are an uninteresting middleman
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Also its not a self appointed body. It is a, and I know you all have trouble grasping this, GOVERNMENTAL BODY.
It is now, AFTER they made the report deciding that the 1st amendment didn't apply to TV and Radio. Oh wait that sounds like an incidious way to make your own business doesn't it? Why yes... yes it does.
As for the porn to games comparison, it was made purely to point out that something that causes no harm has had excessive sanctions placed upon it by the US as well. Porn, like games, does no harm. The only reason for sanctions is that there are moral standards that are adhered to. Sorry you didn't get that.
And yes, me and the BBFC are having babies together. When they grow up they will be Adult Only though so you won't get a look in.
Once again, since you fail to pay attention, FUCK THE FCC. Just what makes you think I support them?
Furthermore the FCC has always been, you know, a governmental group. Or did the Federal in F throw you off?
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
It is TRYING to point out that different cultures censor things in different ways, but ALL cultures censor people. You clearly aren't mature enough to understand this and instead just want to bang on that "All censorship is bad and evil". Well I have a suggestion - buy an island and move there or get into politics so that higher ranking politicians can rip you a new one instead. Until the world ends and either of these two options happen, trolling on a forum whenever ratings boards are mentioned is neither productive nor helping your cause.
Fuck the US and UK culture. Is that simple enough for you to understand or do I have to boil it down more?
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
"Fuck society" is just the calling card of an idiot or a criminal, not a rebel or right thinking person. Anarchistic society doesn't work.
This is growing tedious. Fuck anarchy.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Wait, that's my line. Why don't you think for yourself, IE decide what media is appropriate for you, and say fuck PEGI and the BBFC. What purpose do these organizations serve other than to take these decisions off yourself.
So you're saying that you should experience the content so that you can decide whether or not the content is suitable for you to experience?
All of these organisations are there to give guidance over content. Whilst their primary reason is to state what is and isn't suitable for children of certain ages, the certificates are also used for adults to gauge the explicitness of the content contained, but the BBFC and PEGI can also decide on whether some content is suitable at all for anyone to view.
Which box would you tick if you wanted to play an untouched version of Madworld
What has Madworld got to do with the BBFC? They have not made any decision over the content. Also I highly doubt that they would want to game cut as they have been quite outspoken on comical looking content (such as Killer 7 and Dead Rising) and their decisions to rate them uncut. Statements have only come from Sega and look to be PR to make the game sound like the most violent ever in a hope of generating better sales and to generate interest.
""So you're saying that you should experience the content so that you can decide whether or not the content is suitable for you to experience?"
DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winnah! Tell him what he's won Johnny!
A lifetime's supply of common sense!
"All of these organisations are there to give guidance over content."
That is all well and good, but when they step over the line of guidance into either saying what people can and can't buy, or dictating to the designers what should or shouldn't be in the game then that goes FAR beyond guidance.
"What has Madworld got to do with the BBFC?"
Sega has stated that they are working with the BBFC to keep the game within whatever rigid pansy structure that the BBFC will dictate to them. To put it in perspective it is like Galileo working with the Catholic Church to come to a "compromise". That compromise being a geocentric universe.
Still banging the same drum even after people have proven it doesn't have a skin.
The "think for yourself drum"? I'll never stop.
Given the level of some of your thoughts, it might be time to let someone else think for you.
Well I'll tell you what. If I ever want pointers in being told how to defer my thinking to another person YOU will the first person I'll come to for advice.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Of course by coming to me for advice you would have already defered your thinking.
Sorry to break it to you but in EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of your life, someone else knows better than you. If you shut up long enough to accept this fact you might realise that listening to others HELPS improve your own thoughts. It is by listening to other peoples opinions and justifications that we obtain new directions of thought and ideas and help to have a more rounded knowledge of a subject.
If all you are ever going to do is listen to yourself then you have nothing but a fool for a teacher and a student.
And this is how you justify censorship?
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
The Banking industry was super keen on self regulation. Worked really well for them too.
Oh please. Fannie and Freddie, easily the largest part of the problem, are government run companies. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, while noble at heart, was hijacked by leftists and big government types to force banks to make loans to low income and minority communities, neither of which are known for being able to pay off their debts. The "affordable housing" push by Bush, Clinton, and the Democrats is what led to this.
Your grasp of economics is as sound as your grasp of the BBFC.
Here's a little story all about how Banks decided that as the house prices were rising at a huge unsustainable rate they would give mortgages to everyone under the sun, even offering 110% mortgages at low interest rates because they knew that the house value was constantly rising. If people couldn't afford to keep up the interest rates, then they could repossess the houses and sell them on at a profit. They also allowed people to fill out "self assessment" mortgages where they proved their employment themselves, not by doing background checks etc so that people could lie about their employment status.
These mortgages were then sold on as investment opportunities to other banks and institutions by rating them good to bad and getting the FSA to rating them AAA products fo the best and BBB for the second best and the really bad mortgage investments were taken off the balance sheets and put in offshore companies, something that meant the transparancy of the bad debts was kept away from prying eyes.
Ultimately as mortgage rates started to rise, more and more people failed to keep up their repayments and these investments were not yielding any returns. This has led to banks having no liquid assets, not trusting one another with loans, and with the house market collasping, they have houses as assets not worth what they originally lent and an inability to sell them on to regain the cash.
When a bank starts to run out of liquid assets, even if it has an abundance of money tied up in other things, it has to ask for help, which gets reported by the media, which causes a 'run' on the bank. This means eveyone pulls their money out of the bank and the situation for it esculates. Ultimately it then has to announce insolvancy and those banks who are more healthy pick up a sizable asset for a steal and noone in government or the FSA opposes the creation of a monopoly because they care more about the public who have invested within the bank.
The provisions to shore up the banks that will probably get passed early friday will need to be done, not just to protect joe public who has savings in the bank, but also for the pensions. Because everyone in the US hates the socialism ideals we have in the UK, failure to assist the banks means the stock market collasps and noone gets to retire and that ladies and gents is a banking and ideology problem, not a partisan issue.
hmm hard to say since i dont know much of two but i would rather have them regulated them sefts, but like i said it could be something total differnt then the ESRB here in the states. either way you have one of the two telling you the rating.
Thanks Zaruka
oh and lets try to be mature with someone choise, dont want this to turn into gt fourm
Which box would you tick if you wanted to play an untouched version of Madworld, or if you were a Brit who wanted to buy Manhunt 2 during the time it was banned? Try as you might you just can't sweep these things under your blind faith in the BBFC.
I'm curious, what would be your ideal outcome? If you had control and could implement and repeal at your leisure, what would you do?
Go insane with power probably.
Seriously though, I don't know. I'd probably give the job to PEGI just to annoy the die-hard BBFC fans. I'm like that.
First off, things have been too hostile between us and i'm the one at fault. So i'm sorry for that.
But I am genuinely curious about your take on classification in the UK.
I'll state where I stand, I think media classification is correct. I agree with the enforcement of BBFC ratings for films and games. But then again, I also think anyone who talks at the cinema should be shot and their corpses should be paraded thru the streets as a warning to others.
EDIT: also forget about the pros and cons of PEGI and BBFC for this. Imagine it in the context of a hypothetical regulator.
I have no problem with a ratings body that says 'This is suitable for kids, so it gets a Universal rating' 'This is not suitable for anyone inder the age of 18 so it gets an 18 rating'.
My problem comes when they start saying 'Adults aren't responsible enough to play this adult-themed game, so we wont let it be released.'
But like you said, that problem is part the larger one in that I think the Video Recordings Act is out-dated and in need of over-hauling.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
I think this is more of a culture issue between the US and the UK than anything else. Those that say "I don't like the idea of banning games" I can understand, but probably cannot see it from the UK perspective as most people are okay with things as they are now and have been for 100 years. Those that say "I like PEGI because PEGI doesn't ban games and BBFC does" is just either not listening (Erik) or doesnt realise that if you put PEGI in charge, they would HAVE to change the way they do things because there are laws in the UK that govern this; it's not the ratings board that dictates some games shouldn't be rated but the laws that govern them. Sure ultimately they get the say in what the ratings are and could decide that all games deserve a rating, but that would lead to the media finding examples of "unacceptable content" and the government would have to intervene and appoint a new ratings body.
I hope that makes sense.
When have I EVER stated that I like PEGI? So those who haven't been paying attention: FUCK THE BBFC AND PEGI. Think for yourselves, rate your own damn media you lazy slobs.
And if I were talking to you then it might be relevent.
You are getting increasingly thoughtless in your rants. Now you are suggesting that critics and raters should not exist and everyone should "think for themselves". Well excuse me, mr no-job-money-bags, but some of us have busy lives and limited funds and would like NOT to buy and play every game in existance to find out if we want to play it in the first place, or if it is suitable for our nephews and nieces.
Do you even hear yourself talk anymore or do you just type whatever comes to mind as an when? I think there should be a rating on your comments ranging from 12 (IQ rating) to M (Massively stupid)
It doesn't matter if you were directly speaking to me or not. You misrepresented me as actually supporting PEGI.
Furthermore, if these groups existed soley for giving their opinion on the content I could grudgingly ignore their existence. But when they start wielding the power of bannings, or the industry apporaches them for self-censorship THAT is when your reliance on these people to do your thinking for you becomes caustic to the industry as a whole.
Now go wait for the BBFC to tell you what you can watch/play. I really shouldn't waste my time on puppets such as yourself.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
You're right. I unfairly misrepresented you as not listening. I SHOULD have suggested you were a moron.
No, you really did try to imply that I was a PEGI supporter.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
I rest my case.
You have no "case". You've defered that to the BBFC LONG ago.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
The adult 18 rating is not an anything goes rating, this is a common misinterpretation. The BBFC regularly bans films too and the ERSB forces games to be cut to get an M rating. The comments from the BBFC time after time go on about gaming being a legitimate artform and one that has an adult audience. PEGI constantly talks about protecting "the children" from these games and its rhetoric comes out sounding like something from the Daily Mail.
The fact that games get lower ratings from the BBFC than PEGI shows that they are more in tune with games than PEGI themselves are. BBFC ratings for games and films closely match, PEGI ratings on the otherhand are over the top in many cases, and as has been pointed out Mass Effect is an example of this.
The latest comments from PEGI go further to show that they are not up to the job of not only rating all games for the UK but any games at all. The latest comments talk about how labels need to be recognised across Europe, but they forget that the British government is looking at games classification in the UK only.
I can deal with most of your points but need to point out one thing:
The ESRB forces no one to edit their games. No one. The people forcing game companies to edit their games in the US are Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and the retailers. They are the problem. They are the ones saying we will not have AO rated games. ESRB is fine with AO rated games.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
The ESRB M rating argument is flawed though, since they DO have an AO rating, and games are quite welcome to aim for that rating if they want. It's just that none of the main console companies allow AO games to be released on their system.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
The ESRB forces no one to edit their games.
Like I said, games have to be cut to get an M rating, I was very specific over that point.
since they DO have an AO rating, and games are quite welcome to aim for that rating if they want. It's just that none of the main console companies allow AO games to be released on their system.
Again the uncut Manhunt 2 was essentially banned as it was rated AO and no one wanted to carry it. As well as Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, many shops do not carry the AO rating. The AO rating was created for pornography (the reasoning behind why so many companies wanting nothing to do with the rating), but the usage has expanded. The ERSB knows full well the consequences that the AO rating has and so uses it (in a heavy handed manner) on many decisions.
PEGI has used the argument that they have the power to ban a games company from ever getting a game rated again (although as it is an internal body this would never happen), so I find the complaints over the BBFC refusing to classify Manhunt 2 pedantic when considering that PEGI could possibly ban all games from a particular company.
Here's the difference: The BBFC HAVE banned games (both Manhunt 2 and Carmageddon waaaay back), PEGI hasn't. The BBFC were forced to change their decision, PEGI wasn't.
You shouldn't judge based on a hypothetical situation PEGI has said COULD happen in the future, you can only go off past evidence, and on the matter of banning games for very poor vague reasons it's BBFC 2 - PEGI 0
-------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
First off, comparing the amount of games the BBFC have banned to the amount that PEGI have banned is unbalanced. The BBFC have been rating games for twelve years whereas PEGI have been rating games for five.
The BBFC is actually more liberal than PEGI over game classification, as PEGI give just about any game containing a smattering of sex an 18+. How are the British public able to decide on the content in games if an organisation routinely rates games too highly meaning that the ratings end up losing their effect?
You don't want to talk about hypotheticial situations, yet you base your arguments on the hypothesis that the BBFC will ban games in the future.
What is worrying about PEGI (apart from the fact that it isn't independent and not publicly accountable) is the fact that a rating has to cover the whole of Europe. Germany is very strict with violent games, and no doubt game certificates have had to be increased to accommodate some countries. The makers of Fallout 3 alluded to this fact that each country has a different perspective over game content. Another area that needs to be mentioned is that of censorship laws in every country (all countries have these laws including the US), Britain for example has laws over instrutional drug use, violent pornography, terrorist material etc. Games would have to be reviewed by a censorship board other than PEGI if they were found to contain such censored content, the BBFC handles the certification process and the censorship process, it would seem that PEGI would have to pass such content onto an external party for review. So it would seem that then PEGI would be looking at the certification on a country by country basis and we would then have defeated the point of the system. The Pan-European system does seem to be flawed and in many cases unworkable.
2 Problems with the ESRB argument 1 AO is baned by console makers because of the politcail vibe in the US and 2 they don't have to because generally games are not BANNED or have the threat to be banned if released under the guise of Mature, yes it would be great if they allowed AO but the console makers will have to let it be a usable level first..
The BBFC is a body that directly handles most if not all physical media rating in the UK it badly needs to stop banning media and get down to just slotting it.
The BBFF might rant things within the levels it rates more matruly than most but like Australia it gets dumb when things leave its supposed comfort zones.
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
(in need of a bad overhaul)
The BBFC cannot just decide to 'slot' media.* The BBFC operates within a legally mandated role which requires them to refuse classification under certain circumstances. The only way that can be changed is for the UK Parliament to amend the VRA 1984. Abusing the messanger doesn't solve the problem.
* I'm still not sure what y