PEGI/ESRB and Amateur game ratings

[Vince Twelve]

If your really want this to gain some degree of wide acceptance, you're going to want to make it as useful as possible.

This means:

A) Consistency.  If you're going to have six degrees on each individual (violence, language, sex, etc.) scale, you need to make it so that the game maker knows exactly how to rate his game.  One man's degree six might be another man's degree four, which will lead to confusion on the player's part.

B) Ease of use.  Again, the six degrees makes it more difficult to understand.  A parent who is unfamiliar with your rating system who stumbles upon a game that uses the system might look at it and think "Here's a game that has a language rating of orange.  I don't mind if my kid plays a game with a couple bad words, but I don't want any F-bombs in there."  Now, this unfamiliar parent can either go to your website to figure out what an orange rating means, or he can save himself the time, play it safe, and skip over the game.

C) Understanding of the target audience.  Who is actually going to be helped by this system?  Are you going for parents who download games for their kids?  Gamers who are particular about the violence, language, and sex that they see in games?  (In my opinion, two quite small demographics.)  What do they want in a rating system (or do they even want one.)

Here's a question to get you started: Has anyone ever downloaded an AGS (or other amateur-made freeware game) and regretted having played it based entirely on it's language, violence, or sexual content?

Personally, I've regretted playing plenty of AGS games for other reasons, but never because of their graphic content and I'd wager that I'm the norm rather than the exception.

Also, I do think that the six severity ratings, for the reasons stated enough are too much.  I think the system would benefit usability-wise from some simplification. 

[ManicMatt]

Here's a question to get you started: Has anyone ever downloaded an AGS (or other amateur-made freeware game) and regretted having played it based entirely on it's language, violence, or sexual content?

Well there was this one time many years ago, when I played this freeware game. It was a 2D side scrolling dizzy type game, but with larger sprites. So I'm this man, and I walk along the path. I find a flower and pick it up. "GAME OVER! YOU HAVE SINNED YOU BASTARD! GOD KILLS YOU!" or something stupid like that.

The game starts again. This time I DON'T pick up the flower and I walk on by. I find a house with a window showing a silhouette of a sexy woman. The game asks if i want to take a peek. Uh.. ok then. A crude drawing of a naked man will his willy flopping about comes on show and the game tells me I have sinned for thinking horny thoughts apparently and now God will punish me and kill me again.

Such a nice game!

I wished they'd put a warning on it: "WARNING! THIS GAME IS SHIT!"

[Alynn]

Again thanks for all that have participated. I'm here to inform all that with to know that the EAGMA forums are now up and running

http://www.eagma.org/forums

I'd like to thank CJ, and the AGS mods that allowed this to take place while I got things together on the EAGMA site.

Alynn

[Ishmael]

Those who are offended by about everything without or even with a buttload of stickers on the box shouldn't be playing games.

A content advisory system is not a bad idea, but it should in no case be driven fourth as a rating system, as some people seem to be doing here.

[Adamski]

Could someone explain why exactly such a content advisory system needed here? I've read over the thread a few times now and I can't see this as anything other than superfluous. Is this to protect children or to help catagorise games? If it's the latter then a game synopsis is much more useful for notifying a potential downloader as to what content they might run into rather than using icons to overgeneralise things (to whoever was mentioning DVD style ratings - have you ever picked up a DVD and been more influenced in your purchase decision by the plot blurb or the content advisory at the bottom?), and if it's the former then it's surely no hassle for an adult to come to the decision themselves whether a certain game is suitable for a child to play.

I'm not against content advisory in general, but in this context I find it completely pointless. If a creator is concerned about the content of their game offending then they'll take their own steps to warn people, and if they're not then an Ethical Amateur Game Makers Association won't make any difference.

[Ali]

Protecting children isnt the only purpose of content advisory information, there are adults who might rather play a game without swearing for example.

I agree that categorising games based on content advisory ratings would be silly and you're right that game makers will take steps to warn players of potentially offensive content. I do think that a standard series of easy-to-understand and easy-to-apply labels might make that easier.

[Helm]

there are adults who might rather play a game without swearing for example.

Even if you, as an adult don't like crass language, the moment you see it in-game you're free to turn it off, delete it, if you've got absolutely zero tolerance for it. Will a single bad word spoil your day?


This -largely american- desease of being pre-emptively shielded from 'objectionable content' just makes no sense for me. This isn't some product you bought and which doesn't meet your standards and therefore you're sad for the money you spent. This is free games on the internet.

And generally, being shielded in advance... example of why this is not a good idea:

In Gabriel Knight, on the first murder scene, one of the two forensic people goes 'What kind of sick fuck would do that?' or something to that extent. As far as I remember that's one of the only times that word is mentioned in that game. Would you say it would require any sort of warning? And also, more importantly, would you say that Gabriel Knight is the kind of game people who don't like bad words should steer away from? It being one of the absolute pinnacles of the adventure game genre and all...

MEANING overrides CONTENT.

I'd tell people to not play GK if they don't like adventure games on the whole. It'd tell people to not play GK if they don't like thriller storytelling on the whole. But I wouldn't tell someone to not play GK because it contains naughty words.

[Ali]

Even if you, as an adult don't like crass language, the moment you see it in-game you're free to turn it off, delete it, if you've got absolutely zero tolerance for it. Will a single bad word spoil your day?

The Gabriel Knight supports your objections well. One use of a well motivated expletive is far from gratuitous. In this case, to my mind, a warning is unnecessary. Some people would like to be told, though. I wouldn't object to Gabriel Knight having a warning label because I'm happy to ignore it.

One instance of swearing wouldn't ruin my day. Generally swearing enhances my day, that was just an example. I tend to play adventure games with my very squeamish girlfriend however, and a single unexpected exposure to extreme gore really could spoil her day.

You're absolutely right that meaning overrides content, but on occasion I like to be informed of 'extreme' content. That way I can warn her that a game will be gory, but ask her to give it a chance because the plot sounds good.

[ManicMatt]

Even if you, as an adult don't like crass language, the moment you see it in-game you're free to turn it off, delete it, if you've got absolutely zero tolerance for it. Will a single bad word spoil your day?

If they'd paid money to play it, yes. But then again they should have just asked someone if it's got swearing in it before they bought it. Problem solved.

[Ishmael]

This -largely american- desease of being pre-emptively shielded from 'objectionable content' just makes no sense for me.

For me neither.

The only thing I'd like to be warned about a game is if it has exessive swearing. Not that every other line containing a swearword bothers me, but every other line having shit, fuck or somesuch word does bother me.... Dirty words. But usually the game synopsis, the athmosphere it and a possible screenshot provide, and sometimes even the name of the game already portray that it contains such language. This same goes for violence. Not in all of the cases, ofcource, but as Helm said, if a game offends you, you can shut it off.

[Snarky]

Here's a question to get you started: Has anyone ever downloaded an AGS (or other amateur-made freeware game) and regretted having played it based entirely on it's language, violence, or sexual content?

Yes. I am a staff member on another adventure game site, and we received a complaint about an AGS game in our database. I won't name names, but the title made it easily confused with a popular, family-friendly series of Sierra games. A couple of minutes into the game it suddenly starts throwing around what I think most people would consider crude sexual references.

One of our readers downloaded this game for their children to play, and was about to give it the "OK" when the dirty stuff started.

The thing is, I don't think the "artistic intent" of the game's creator was to offend anyone. The game got positive feedback here on the Forums, and is a pretty funny parody if you take it the right way. I would probably enjoy it myself. It seems to just be a misunderstanding based on lack of information. While we told the person that we can't screen all the games in our database for potentially objectionable content, and that downloading a freeware, amateur game off the Internet is at your own risk, I actually think a ratings system would have been useful in this case.

Now, I don't think that it's bad for people to be exposed to things they don't like, or even that kids get screwed up by things their parents wouldn't want them to see. However, I respect the wishes and preferences of other people who disagree with this philosophy. And while I might not want to label a game I made, especially if I intended to give people a jolt, I don't see why anyone would want to stop other game creators from doing so, if they choose.

It's funny; ratings are often considered to be moralistic and imposed as a restriction on creativity, but in this discussion it's actually the people who oppose a voluntary ratings system who come across as puritanical and judgmental, with their "any concession to your audience is a betrayal to your art"-attitude. What if some people want to make games that will be enjoyed?

You have the freedom to not provide a rating on any game you make, and surprise and shock your players if that's what you want. Why not allow others the freedom to inform players, in a standardized way, of what their game is about?

[LimpingFish]

Instead of asking creators to include the ratings within their games (though I'm sure if a game was explicitly unsuitable for children that the creators would already have included, at the very least, a token warning screen), why not simply create a database of games where the original creator can post and rate their games, thus making the site itself a constantly updating guide for people to check.

I'm sure this site, and others such as Abandonia Reloaded or Adventure Gamers, wouldn't be averse to carrying a banner or link to the EAGMA site in case people want to check out the ratings on a game before they download it.

Though, as has been said, creating this whole ratings thing might be a little...unnecessary.

[Ishmael]

I'm sure this site, and others such as Abandonia Reloaded or Adventure Gamers, wouldn't be averse to carrying a banner or link to the EAGMA site in case people want to check out the ratings on a game before they download it.

Or if the EAGMA site would host a games database, alike on the AGS site, where authors can then rate their games easily on the submit form (and possibly get some free PR for their game.)