“A video game content rating system is a system used for the classification of video games into suitability-related groups.”
Often these systems are associated with, or sponsored by a government and are sometimes part of the motion picture rating system, such as the UK’s BBFC.

I have been asked to write a report to find out what the main ratings systems in the Games Industry are, how they compare with ratings in other countries, and how they are enforced in the UK.
We will also be looking at whether any legal proceedings have ever been undertaken to enforce the ratings, and to discus my opinions on said rating systems, and who I think should be enforcing them…

1         Self Censorship & Rating systems

During the early years of the game industry there were no industry ratings watch dogs and so most developers/publishers would often censor/rate themselves, although very much in a simplistic way, i.e. stating what type of game it would be.

1.1         Self Censorship

With self censorship a developer would often go all-out with Arcade games, most often having plenty of blood, gore and gratuitous violence, most notably the Arcade games Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse, when compared to other Arcade games (that were often right next to these) such as Donkey Kong and Qbert.

1.1.1       Splatterhouse

Sometimes the developers of these mature games would state on the cover the game was for a mature audience, with a ‘parental advisory warning’ sticker on the front, despite consoles and arcade machines being seen as a Child’s play thing in the early years.

An early example of this is from the game Splatterhouse, originally released in the arcades in 1988 before being ported to a number of systems, such as the TurboGrafx-16 in 1990.

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, as much of the game’s gory content was cut back as a self censorship by the developers.

Arcade                                                TurboGrafx-16

The developers even changed a later level in the game, known as the ‘Chapel’ in the Arcade version.

1.2         Rating Systems

There are about ten computer games age ratings systems in total throughout the world, but of these ten, only three are, or have been, used within the UK. These 3 systems include: the ‘British Board of Film Classification’ (BBFC), ‘Pan European Game Information’ (PEGI) and the ‘Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers association’ (ELSPA). The two systems currently in use are: PEGI & BBFC.

1.2.1       ELSPA

“The ELSPA was founded in 1989 to establish a specific and collective identity for the British computer and video games industry.

They used this identity 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 games ratings 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 had grown from only having 12 companies in 1989 to having the support of over 60 companies. However, from spring 2003 on, the ELSPA dropped its voluntary system and instead backed PEGI and the BBFC as replacement systems.

This change supports the local, legally backed UK system of BBFC but also brings in the expertise of PEGI, a European system created solely for games.

Due to the change, when a games content is rated it usually goes to PEGI, however, if PEGI rates the games content as being 12+ the game is taken to the BBFC to be given a further rating/ review.

This has resulted in a far superior rating system to that of the original ELSPA system, giving parents the opportunity to be better informed about the content of games they are purchasing for their children.

1.2.2       BBFC

The BBFC is the longest established rating association and was founded in 1912 primarily to classify/ rate films. But due to the advances in technology, computer games have developed more depth in terms of their realism and storytelling, dealing with more complex and mature themes, making them similar to films, even more so with the introduction of in-game movies.

These two associations decide if games are suitable for the public to see. So these rating companies, ELSPA and BBFC, greatly affect game companies because if they don’t find the games suitable for rating, then the game will be banned, which in turn greatly effects the publisher and developers of said game.

(Refer to ‘Manhunt’ under; Rockstar Controversy)

The BBFC uses the same two-tier rating system for games as it does for films. This involves placing a small coloured icon on the front and side of the game containing the suitable age for players; these range from U – 18.

The icon colour is unique to this rating system as it also represents the age, ranging from green for U up to red for 18. The second tier is a content descriptor on the back of the game, much like PEGI, which also contains another age icon.

1.2.3       PEGI

Pan European Game Information (PEGI) are very similar to BBFC in that they tell 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 unites the European gamers to a more collaborative 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 and is now used throughout most of Europe. PEGI uses a two-tier system, similar to BBFC, providing an age rating on the front of the game, to highlight age suitability, such as: 3+, 12+ and 18+. They also provide a content descriptor on the back, usually at the bottom. These highlight the reasons for the age restriction such as: violence, fear, discrimination, and bad language.

1.2.4       Other Rating Systems

PEGI, however, is not the only rating system within Europe. There are two others:

• Valtion elokuvatarkastamo (VET) – The Finnish Board of Film Classification, which rates games in Sweden.
• Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle (USK) which is Germany’s software rating organisation.

Both these VET & USK do, however, work alongside PEGI as additional systems.

Other system used throughout the rest of the world include:

• Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) used in Australia,
• 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 and…
• The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB).

The ESRB is North America’s main ratings system. Much like the UK systems the ESRB splits its rating system into two equal parts: rating symbols and content descriptors. Rating symbols are used to suggest the appropriate age for the game such as: Early childhood, Everyone, Teen and Mature.

The content descriptors are usually placed on the back of the game as additional information about the games content, such as: Blood and Gore, Comic Mischief, Fantasy Violence, and Mature Humour.

So while there are many other systems used throughout the world, and they seem to contain the same two tier approach, the difference may lie within what they view as unnecessary, and thus how strict they are with their ratings.

For example, Germany may instantly ban any video game with certain content such as Nazis in War games and excessive amounts of blood and gore. These types of games are often accepted through out the world, within moderation (with the exception of Australia which will likely ban a game that is seen as 18 in the UK because they don’t support that rating, although Australia supports a R18 movie category any game seemingly suited for this group is banned).

1.2.5       Enforcement

Within the UK there are no dedicated legal proceedings in place to enforce the ratings given to games, for example: as PEGI is a voluntary rating system, it is not illegal to sell to underage children. This is due to them not having any legal backing. 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). However, the VRA is not strictly dedicated to games.

In 1985 the BBFC was designated as the classifying authority by the home office. This act made it an offense to supply video media to individuals under the age of the videos’ classification. It wasn’t until an amendment in 1984 that the act redefined ‘video recording’ to any device capable of storing digital media, such as: Beta Max, VHS and CD-ROM, with DVD, HD-DVD and Blu Ray now under this as well.

Video games are exempt from this. However, if the game shows specific themes or content, namely that of a criminal nature, they can fall under the VRA, allowing them to warrant a legally binding rating through the BBFC. Nevertheless, the BBFC does not have a direct role in enforcement. Instead, the BBFC provides statements of evidence in support of Trading Standards and other enforcement agencies such as Police and Customs.

If a member of the public believes that an offense is being committed under the VRA they should report this to their local Trading Standards.

The BBFC can, on the other hand, refuse to classify a game if its content is too extreme, meaning that it cannot be sold in the UK, which can be argued as 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 games 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 which they believe to be more efficient than current systems.

The BBFC, however, dismisses the ELSPA’s effort saying their own colour-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 are doing so in a 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 into 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, in essence, what is happening currently. ELSPA’s proposal would continue with the PEGI system, but says it’s influenced by the food industry, in terms of adding ‘traffic light’ colours (i.e. higher age limits would be red, whilst lower age ratings would be highlighted green).

The government consultation will finish late in November, with a final decision expected in the New Year.

1.3         Rating System: Effect Upon The Industry & Controversy

Despite all of the above, research shows that parents tend to ignore the warnings placed on games. A study commissioned by the UK games industry found that parents let children play games for adults, even though they knew they were rated 18.

The report  concerns children playing violent video games. “Most parents think their child is mature enough so that these games will not influence them,” Modulum researcher Jurgen Freund said at a games conference. This furthers the belief that parents should accept more of the blame for children playing violent games.

While the ELSPA does represent the software publishers within the UK, protecting them with game rating systems, the video game developers are represented by the ‘Independent Games Developers Association’.

A legislation was amended in the ‘Criminal justice and public order act 1984’ to take in hand the growing issue of video violence

1.3.1       Rockstar Controversy

The most recent case of rating controversy would be against the developer Rockstar and their publisher TakeTwo, for such games as Bully, Manhunt 1 & 2, as well Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

1.3.2       Manhunt

With Manhunt the objective of the game is survival, although some would say its killing, as you are being hunted by a group of psychos for their enjoyment through a sick game of hide and seek.

It wasn’t the blood that the game was controversial for, however. It was considered controversial because of the way you could kill these people within the game, using literally any object.

The game was quickly given an ‘M’(Mature) rating by the ESRB in America, and the game was given an 18 by BBFC in the UK. A month after the release the game was banned in the UK and America.

The second game, Manhunt 2, was given an immediate ‘AO’, Adult Only, rating in America and banned in the UK. The developers appealed to overturn the decision and even edited the death scenes by having a filter over them as the killings happened, hiding them. The game was then given a Mature rating in America but was still banned, despite the changes, in the UK until earlier this month. Just in time for Christmas.

1.3.3       Grand Theft Auto (GTA)

With the release of GTA 3 in 2000, a certain lawyer named Jack Thompson came to the forefront as instant opposition.  He never liked these free roaming games that allowed the players to do whatever they wished, including killing anyone within the game, even the police.

He saw this as training or a simulator for wannabe killers and sought to see these games were never sold to children despite the game being rated M, Mature 17+.

With the M rating, it was illegal to sell to a minor.

1.3.4       “Hot Coffee”

In 2005 the latest GTA game was released, GTA: San Andreas. The game was well received by gamers, however, Jack Thompson soon found what he was looking for to get the game banned.

By early 2006 the game was released onto the PC and Mods were freely made for the game. A Mod was released titled  “Hot Coffee” which allowed the player to play a sex mini-game. The modder was quickly questioned about this and they soon revealed that this mini-game was already in the game and all the mod did was unlock it.

It was quickly discoveredt that the console versions of the game also had data of the mini-game.

The game’s rating was quickly changed to AO (Adult Only) for all platforms. Undaunted, the Rockstar team began work quickly on GTA4, which was released earlier in the year.

1.4         Conclusion

What really needs to be done is not a new or different system being put into place. The responsibility needs to fall squarely with the parents.
I’ll cost the UK Government and the tax payers millions to make any changes to the system now as well as confusion to the general audience. Where as if they only create a few adverts, even posters on the street, it’ll get the word out much quicker and be more cost effective.
Releasing new logos, which will confuse the general audience, and cost so much money, seems like such a waste.

Hit up the forums and share your thoughts on this hot topic.