BBFC and the UK Games Industry move closer to agreement over Game Ratings.

Computer games and videos play a significant role in most Children and young peoples lives.  And as a result the issue of ratings on games is a recurring topic amongst the games industry producers and suppliers, and between political and social organisations.

Currently, PEGI is the system most used in Europe, whereby the games are rated from 3+, and guidelines exist as to what is suitable at each of the key levels.  PEGI is a European standard operated by the games publishers.

 

Currently the British Board of Film Classifications (BBFC) have no direct regularity authority over any ratings on any computer or video games.  However the Byron Report (described as remarkably balanced and no-political) suggested that BBFC logos be carried on the front of all packaging, as it’s ratings, images and standards are all very familiar to the UK public.

 

The rating system relies on a single recommended age box, along with a number of smaller boxes indicating what types of potentially objectionable content you may find in the game. These smaller boxes simply confuse matters – not least because the task of expressing an abstract concept like “horror” in a tiny black and white picture is the kind of thing you expect to find in a lateral-thinking puzzle game, not a sober attempt at implementing a rating system.

 

Arguments against the continued use of PEGI include the fact that it is Pan- European, and that cultural differences, religious and social differences all mean that what is “acceptable” cary widely between the European member countries.

 

After months of bitterly opposing the BBFC’s further involvement in game rating, however, Britain’s Games publishers seem to have changed tack. This week, UK games publisher association ELSPA tacitly acknowledged flaws in the PEGI system – and instead proposed a new “traffic lights” system, which would be much clearer for consumers, not to mention more visually striking.

 

In fact, what’s most visually striking about the new logos is how much like the BBFC’s they are. The rating system is admittedly different, but ELSPA’s new traffic lights really do bear a superficial resemblance to the BBFC’s own rating stamps. They even boast the explanatory text box on the right, replacing PEGI’s utterly awful content icons.

 

However, from this coming together of ideas springs a new issue.  Who should govern the ratings – the games industry (perhaps through ELSPA) or the BBFC.  The BBFC maybe do not have enough experience in this particular market, and could have a tendency to concentrate on the visual images in the games, as opposed to the underlying games strategy or the game playing. 

 

However, given the fact that the media are quick to draw links between computer games and our “broken” society, it would be a brave government that would give control of games rating to the games industry.

 

Fantasy Couriers is an online computer game that is played by under 18’s, and as such the company seeks to abide by, and exceed, all rating systems that are relevant to the games industry, whether they be regulated by the BBFC, PEGI or anybody else.

 

“We want parents to feel completely happy when their children are playing Fantasy Couriers” says director Sandra Patterson.  “Fantasy Couriers is about challenging the players to run a business, and as such there is no blood or gore, or any aspect or horror, or any other element which could make the game unsuitable for younger players.  We have always had this as a major underlying principle in the game development, and we continue this by ensuring that the sponsors and advertisers in the game are also only promoting products that are suitable for the under 18 year old players”.