Game ratings

Feel free to debate any issues you wish here. Warning: The topics discussed and their content may on occassion offend some.

Game ratings

Postby fraser » Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:18 pm

There's been quite a bit in the news about classifying computer games, and I wondered what people here thought. Personally, I think we should stick with the current games-only ratings, rather than letting the BBFC rate them as films. I think the PEGI ratings we use at the moment are clearer, but they should be legally enforcible (they're voluntary at the moment).
User avatar
fraser
Forum Master
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland

Postby druchi » Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:54 am

your kidding right?

i think they shoudlnt be classifed it would be like age rateing books with graphic content you can tell from the blurb wether a game is going to be too extreme for a 4 year old

and yoru nto going to give your 6 year old child 'Kiss the Girls' *james patterson* now are you? people are responsible enough to know these things and when the nany state realises this the world will be a better place

however i do not think rateings should be abolished i think they should remain voluntry not that its ever stopped me getting a game i wanted ever but it should still be there
I must find a truth that is true for me . . . the idea for which I can live or die.
druchi
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 897
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Scotland, Helensburgh

Postby fraser » Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:24 pm

Sorry, I don't think I explained it right. What I meant is that I think we should use the current PEGI games ratings - exactly as they are - but not selling them to kids. I don't think there's a problem with teenagers buying 18s, but some people do buy them for their kids. Like you said, you can tell whether a game's violent from the box, but it doesn't stop some parents from buying them. On the other hand, if someone tried to buy a restricted film and made it clear it was for a child, you couldn't sell it to them. That rule doesn't apply to games.
I don't think we should start classifying them the same way as films.
I don't buy into the "games cause violence" thing for a minute, but I think people's perceptions of game "violence" is giving the whole industry a bad name.
User avatar
fraser
Forum Master
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland

Postby intowiz » Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:11 pm

I think we should keep the current rating system. Most parents are not gamers and as such dont know one game from another. What the rating system does is make it clear for parents how adult the game is. It aids them to make the decision whether or not to buy it for there kid and if they do decide to buy it then its security for the games industry who can say haha told you so, you dont get to complain your the one who bought the game for your kid.
"Dance on, lads, you're young; I was once."
Old manx sailor, Moby dick
User avatar
intowiz
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:43 am

Postby Fortnox » Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:45 pm

Again, the rating system as it is is fine. The worry about violent video games is nothing but politicians finding an easy issue to pick on so they can get popularity and go up in the world, but the result of this is thousands of brainwashed "soccer moms" that want to ban video games.
Image
User avatar
Fortnox
Forum Master
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:17 pm

Postby Dan » Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:51 pm

druchi wrote:your kidding right?

i think they shoudlnt be classifed it would be like age rateing books with graphic content you can tell from the blurb wether a game is going to be too extreme for a 4 year old

and yoru nto going to give your 6 year old child 'Kiss the Girls' *james patterson* now are you? people are responsible enough to know these things and when the nany state realises this the world will be a better place

however i do not think rateings should be abolished i think they should remain voluntry not that its ever stopped me getting a game i wanted ever but it should still be there


I'm an avid fan of games but I don't think there should be no ratings, that's like a horror film having no rating. Games and Films can be just as violent as eachother, though I don't believe a game provokes violence, certain people can be affected by content in a game, books can affect people strongly as well but they lack the graphical representation that targets children.
Image
Dan
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: UK, England, Watford

Postby druchi » Wed Aug 06, 2008 2:13 pm

saying books laccks grapghical content is like saying a painting cant be vivid

what im saying is ive had people buy me games since since its not difficult it makes no diffrence at all its a useless law alltogether

and of course you can be affected by game content your supposed to like watching scary movie is meant to make you laugh

the point is i agree with FortNox

the rateing system and parents not being able to tell willy nilly from a games blurb is idiocracy in its purest form

fair enough maybe you cant tell if there is going to be adult content but you could say the same with books and movies

end of the day its poloticians jumping on a bandwagon to sooth worrying mothers who belive games are evil


in the be all end all people are not stupid and even if it is left the way it is its not going to make much diffrence at any rate as ive asked a few mates we all played quake marathon red alert etc... even as children we could have got a parent to but it for us

and saying the rateing is a secrutiy system then defeats the point of having a rateing system if its purely meant for the companies of games when its meant to be for us

but like i said it isnt important (:
I must find a truth that is true for me . . . the idea for which I can live or die.
druchi
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 897
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Scotland, Helensburgh

Postby Dan » Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:30 pm

druchi wrote:saying books laccks grapghical content is like saying a painting cant be vivid

what im saying is ive had people buy me games since since its not difficult it makes no diffrence at all its a useless law alltogether

and of course you can be affected by game content your supposed to like watching scary movie is meant to make you laugh

the point is i agree with FortNox

the rateing system and parents not being able to tell willy nilly from a games blurb is idiocracy in its purest form

fair enough maybe you cant tell if there is going to be adult content but you could say the same with books and movies

end of the day its poloticians jumping on a bandwagon to sooth worrying mothers who belive games are evil


in the be all end all people are not stupid and even if it is left the way it is its not going to make much diffrence at any rate as ive asked a few mates we all played quake marathon red alert etc... even as children we could have got a parent to but it for us

and saying the rateing is a secrutiy system then defeats the point of having a rateing system if its purely meant for the companies of games when its meant to be for us

but like i said it isnt important (:


Paintings are visual, books are imaginitive, kids can get througoughly affected by film/game because of this, books are different, I don't understand why you can't see that.

I'm certain ratings on games are "not important" they're needed for parents to make decisions about what games they should get their kids, if there were no ratings on films, what's the stop parents buying their kids Saw II? (aside from the bloody cover)
Image
Dan
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: UK, England, Watford

Postby druchi » Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:19 am

what stoppig your average parent from buying sawII for there kid now? if we applied the rules of parents have no sense when buying unless it has a rateing then there is still no point XD

and yes paintings art movies books all have diffrent ways of affecting someone but at the end of the day still the same contetn

think of the affects of porn for example a prime example actually

you could imagine it *reading 'art' etc...*

or you could watch it *game video etc...*

difffrent effects same result
I must find a truth that is true for me . . . the idea for which I can live or die.
druchi
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 897
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Scotland, Helensburgh

Postby fraser » Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:04 am

druchi wrote:what stoppig your average parent from buying sawII for there kid now?


A lot of the time, parents who buy adult games for kids have the kid with them. The child tries to buy the game, the shop staff say no, so the parent buys it for them. If you try to buy a film, and it's probably for a child (if you have the child with you, or mention it's for them), even if you're over 18, the retailer's breaking the law if they sell you it.
User avatar
fraser
Forum Master
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland

Postby Alice » Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:10 am

I think the ratings are to high on games and movies, and their far too inconsistent. I also think that by introducing all these regulations about what games, entertainment, meals, ect is going to cause a problem with parents feeling they don't need too or can't take responsibility for their children. If that happens then alot of children are going to be raised according to targets and a general model, not in the way that's best for them individually. I think if a parent thinks their child is ready to play a game, mabye pepole should just trust that they know their child.
User avatar
Alice
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1772
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Leicester

Re: Game ratings

Postby KILBAHA » Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:38 am

PEGI said starwars the force unleashed should be a 16. WTF
KILBAHA
Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 9:46 am


Return to Debate Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron