During the early years of the game industry, no rating system existed. As a result, most developers would censor and rate themselves, in the most simplistic way possible, simply stating the type of game they had created.
3.1 Self Censorship
Developers would often go all out with arcade games. Most of them would have plenty of blood, gore, and gratuitous violence—just look at Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. However, this was a problem when when compared to other Arcade games (that were often right next to these) such as Donkey Kong and Qbert.
3.1.1 Splatterhouse
Sometimes the developers of these mature games would voluntarily state on the cover that their game was intended for an older audience with a parental advisory sticker on the front, despite consoles and arcade machines being seen as a child's play thing in the early years.
With the porting of the game to a more family/child friendly system, the front cover hosted a warning stating that;
“The horrifying theme of this game may be inappropriate for young children… and cowards.”
However it wasn’t a straight port—much of the game’s gory content was cut back by the developers in self-censorship.
The developers even changed a later level in the game, known as the ‘Chapel’ in the Arcade version.
3.2 Rating Systems
There is a total of about ten computer game age rating systems throughout the world, but of these ten, only three been used within the UK. These three systems include the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), the Pan European Game Information (PEGI), and the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers association (ELSPA), but only the first two are currently in use.
3.2.1 ELSPA
According to wiki, "The ELSPA was founded in 1989 to establish a specific and collective identity for the British computer and video games industry. This identity was used to provide a basic age rating system for the games industry between 1994 and spring 2003. Their ratings system was voluntary and thus exempt from the legal classification by the BBFC.”
The current rating systems and supporting companies have changed over the years, but not in a dramatic way. The original system belonged to the ELSPA and was used until 2003—it eventually gained the support of over 60 companies after starting with only 12. However, ELSPA dropped its voluntary system in 2003, choosing to back PEGI and the BBFC as replacement systems.
Due to this change, when a game's content is rated it usually goes first to PEGI. However, if PEGI rates it as being 12+, the game is taken to the BBFC for further rating/review.
This has resulted in a far superior rating system to that of the original ELSPA system, giving parents better information about the content of games while purchasing for their children.
3.2.2 BBFC
The BBFC is the longest established rating association, and was founded in 1912 primarily to classify cinema films. However, due to advances in technology, computer games have developed more depth in terms of their realism and storytelling which allows them to deal with increasingly complex and mature themes, making them similar to films.
The BBFC uses the same two-tier rating system for games as it does for films. This involves placing a small colored icon on the front and side of the game containing the suitable age for players; these range from U – 18. The icon color is unique to this rating system as it also represents the age, ranging from green for U to red for 18. The second tier is a content description on the back of the game, much like PEGI, which also contains another age icon.
3.2.3 PEGI
Pan European Game Information (PEGI) is very similar to BBFC in that it tells you specifics about what the game contains, such as drugs, violence or abusive language.
PEGI is supported by the three console manufacturers (Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo), as well as many other different European game design companies. Some people think that this organization could be what binds the European gamers to a more unified rating system.
PEGI was established in spring 2003 with the purpose of aiding European parents in making informed decisions on purchasing computer games. PEGI replaced some national ratings systems with one system which is now used throughout most of Europe. PEGI uses a two-tier system similar to BBFC, providing a rating on the front of the game to highlight age suitability (3+, 12+ and 18+), and a content description on the back, highlighting the reasons for the age restriction(violence, fear, discrimination, language, etc.).
3.2.4 Other Rating Systems
There are two other European rating systems in addition to PEGI:
* Valtion elokuvatarkastamo (VET) - The Finnish Board of Film Classification, which rates games in Sweden.
* Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle (USK) - Germany's software rating organization.
However, both these boards work alongside PEGI as additional systems.
Other systems used throughout the rest of the world include:
* Game Rating Board (GRB) used in South Korea
* Computer Entertainment Rating Organization (CERO) used in Japan
* Department of Justice, Rating, Titles and Qualification (DJCTQ) used in Brazil
* The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB).
The ESRB is North America’s main rating system. Much like the UK systems, the ESRB splits its ratings into two equal parts: rating symbols (Early Childhood, Everyone, Teen, and Mature) and content descriptions (Blood and Gore, Comic Mischief, Fantasy Violence, etc.).
So while there are many systems used throughout the world, they all seem to use the same two-tier approach. As a result, differences lie within what they view as appropriate and how strict they are with their ratings.
For example, Germany may completely ban any video game with certain content, such as the glorification of Nazis, and excessive amounts of blood and gore. Australia is far more strict, banning most games that would fall under the 18+ category in the UK. Although Australia supports an R18 movie category, this does not extend to video games.
3.2.5 Enforcement
Within the UK, there are no dedicated legal proceedings in place to enforce the ratings given to games. For example, since PEGI is a voluntary rating system, it is not illegal to sell games to underage children. While some games retailers make PEGI ratings mandatory as part of their company policy, the ratings are still no more than recommendations. However, the BBFC’s ratings are backed by legislation, under the ‘Video Recordings Act 1984’ (VRA). Nonetheless, the VRA is not strictly dedicated to games.
In 1985, the BBFC was designated as the classifying authority by the Home Office. This made it an offense to supply video media to individuals under the age of the video's classification.
While video games are exempt from this, if a game depicts certain themes or content, namely that of a criminal nature, it can fall under the VRA, forcing a legally binding rating through the BBFC. Despite this, the BBFC does not have a direct role in enforcement. Instead, it provides statements of evidence in support of Trading Standards and other enforcement agencies. If a member of the public believes that an offence is being committed under the VRA they should report this to their local Trading Standards.
If the BBFC deems a game's content too extreme, it has the power to completely ban a game, meaning that it cannot be sold in the UK. This is a form of direct enforcement. Such a case occurred last year with the game Manhunt 2, although the ban was subsequently lifted due to an appeal.
There is currently an ongoing dispute between the ELSPA, BBFC, government, and Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS), regarding a solution to the age ratings controversy (that age ratings are not clear enough and do not have adequate enforcement in place).
The ELSPA supports a traffic-light type system (higher age limits would be red while lower age ratings would be highlighted green), which they believe to be more efficient than current systems. However, the BBFC dismisses the ELSPA’s effort, saying their own color-coded system is already well established. The government consultation on the issue aims to standardize a legally enforceable ratings system in the near future. The DCMS is also in consultation to decide a standardized ratings system, but is doing so in response to a government-commissioned report earlier in the year by child psychologist Tanya Byron (highlights from this report can be found in the REFERENCE section of this report).
Byron’s report appealed to the games industry to facilitate parents in their understanding of age ratings and to place more parental controls in games. A report which has already been released from the DCMS stated that the body that provides ratings for films should be in charge, although the games industry should continue to support its own voluntary system.
This is essentially what is happening currently. However, ELSPA’s proposal would continue with the PEGI system in terms of adding traffic-light colours.
The government consultation will finish in late November, with a final decision expected in the New Year. http://jugar-online.blogspot.com/
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario