Adventure Game Studio

Believe it or not, this has nothing to do with if I agree or disagree with them, and in many cases, I do agree with the intent of these rating systems.

But there is a problem with them.

A few weeks ago, I emailed PEGI and the ESRB on how one goes about getting a rating for an amateur game.

PEGI returned an email saying it's a service for professional developers only, it costs money, and they don't deal with amateur games.

ESRB hasn't returned my emails, and it's been over a month. I assume that it is probably the same.

So I thought to myself, why hasn't anyone developed any sort of system like this for the internet. There isn't an ethical amateur gamemaking committee anywhere. So I thought, why don't I just make my own and see if it catches on.

It's still in very early stages, and once I get all my thoughts and ideas down on paper I'll post them to my website, but the basic idea is this.

1) COMPLETELY voluntary, you only put ratings on your games if you choose to (which is kind of a given seeing that I'm not an authority).

2) If you do decide to use the rating system on your game, it does not have to be in the game (the exe or the jar or what have you). However due to the nature of games being hosted on different websites, it is highly encouraged to put the ratings on the splash screen, loading screen, title screen, or similar.

3) The rating must be clearly posted by the download link or on the page the flash/java file is embedded in.

Just ideas so far, but I like the idea of an Ethical Amateur Gaming group, and those that take the responsibility to inform internet users what content their game may have to anyone that may download it.

As far as icons, I've only worked on one as a rough draft, simple grayscale png at 48X64 pixels.
1X:
(http://www.eagma.org/rating_icons/Violence.png)
2X:
(http://www.eagma.org/rating_icons/Violence.png)

So I guess if I were to fully develop a system like this, would any of you use it? If anything I will probably use it for my own games, but just as a slice of the internet, I'd like to see what others thought.

Thanks...

Well for adults, I think they can choose to themselves whether they can view those type of sites. As for children, AOL offers some security, and IE has its own security tab in Internet Options that can stop you from viewing these sites. But yes, I think the internet should have some of this "security" only because of work places, schools, and libraries. Frequently, at my school, fellow classmates have been looking up pr0n, which doesn't bother me in any way, but its the fact that these guys are doing this in a library, where little kids are around.

I like this idea. And we can make up our own letters.
Rated W for weird stuff that will scare the crap out of children

It isn't to rate the site, it's for those that choose to do so, to inform anyone that may download or play their game the content within...

I start with 3 categories Textual, Cartoonish, and Realistic which tells them the graphical type of the game. You then add the subcategories such as Violence, Blood and Gore, Sex, Language, whatever. So anyone thinking of downloading or playing your game will know when they see R:VBL that this game will have realistic violence blood and language.

I'm not even going to attach an age to any of these ratings. If anything they are for informational puposes only, because I know that people will download what they want, since there isn't a real way to regulate it.

Oh and I actually had the idea for S for scary, younger children may be frightened by content.

So in the end, it really is just an informational rating system.

Well, we do have (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/images/iconlang.gif), (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/images/iconsex.gif) and (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/images/iconviol.gif) already.

And besides, no offense, this sounds just so damn american again...

I wish they rated movie so that you coudl tell if there was any peril in them at all. I mean, my daughter gets upset at such horror classics as Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Madagascar, The Incredibles

Stop using your daughter as a reason you're hiding behind the couch.

Quote from: Ishmael on Wed 09/08/2006 10:40:42
Well, we do have (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/images/iconlang.gif), (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/images/iconsex.gif) and (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/images/iconviol.gif) already.

And besides, no offense, this sounds just so damn american again...

Yes but those are just for this site. What I am suggesting is an association of game makers that choose to place these on the game they produce. They do not even have to use the icons that I plan on making, they can make their own, as long as they are readable and easy to understand.

This will be used (if the producer chooses) throughout the internet as a means for individuals to have an idea of content before downloading and playing.

This system does NOT mandate appropriate playing age, it is only informational, the EAGMA (Ethical Amateur Game Makers Association) can not judge on what appropriate gaming age is, only as to the content of the product.

As I type I have word open and I'm typing up a draft of my vision in this regard. I'm not trying to make a stright jacket, I'm only thinking of a system that is comparable to the PEGI or ESRB that can be used for amateur game makers without them having to pay or just be completely ignored by those two orginizations.

Also, the PEGI is not an american orginization, it's actually European. While you may thing "this sounds so American" it is in fact just an idea for those that choose to accurately represent their games content to those that may wish to use that game.

As SSH said, his daughter gets upset at Cinderella, my daughter loves watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but any movie that has tons of gore and violence gives her nightmares for weeks. Every person is different which is why my idea is that this system does not mandate what is appropriate for those that use it, it only displays what they will find in the game once they play it.

Once I feel I'm at a good place with the document for my vision I will post it at a few amateur game making communities to hopefully get some constructive feedback.

Thanks for everyone's input thus far.

Yes, I think Alynn is on to something here.

I would like to help so here are my ideeas:
Let's set up a point-system, the more points a game has, the more unsuitable it may be for children, old people with bad blatters and/or squeamish people.
Also, let's divide the "bad" categories into subcategories, each having a certain number of points:
- Violence:
* Suggestions of killing or discussing about it -> 1 point
* Wielding of weapons without specifically killing anyone -> 1 point
* Specifically displaying killing of one person -> 2 points
* Displaying of genocide or mass murdering -> 4 points
- Blood and Gore:
* Displaying of false blood (ketchup) -> 1 point
* Organs shown intact with no blood sorrounding them -> 2 points
* Specifically displaying blood or corpses -> 3 points
* Bloody organs -> 4 points
* Spraying of blood and gore while killing -> 6 points
- Sex & Nudity
* Suggestive dialog -> 1 point
* Non-sexual nudity -> 3 points
* Sex scenes while covering sex organs -> 5 points
* Explicit sex scenes clearly displaying sex organs and the act itself -> 8 points
- Language
* Mild cursing (dang, dog-on-it, shoot, etc.) -> 1 point
* Mild cursing of extreme expressions (crap, damn, bitch etc.) -> 2 points
* Extreme cursing (f*ck, sh*t, god damn, etc.) -> 4 points

Also, adding the categories' points separately to judge whether each category is Mild, Average, or Excessive like this:
- Violence: 1-2 points is Mild, 3-6 is Average, over 6 is Excessive.
- Blood and Gore: 1-3 points is Mild, 4-6 is Average, over 6 is Excessive.
- Sex and Nudity: 1 is Mild, 2-4 is Average, over 4 is Excessive.
- Language: 1 is Mild, 2 is Average, over 2 is Excessive.

Of course, when rating you must also take into account the frequency. And, about age, you should make some categories of age, if not displaying specifically what age is the game recommended for, something like Children, Teen, or Mature.
Also, indeed whether the game is cartoony or not should be indicated.

How come showing a willy is worth more points than horrific mentally-scarring mass genocide with extreme blood and guts and dismemberment etc?

Cause it will ROT YOUR BRAIN.

Quote from: CaptainBinky on Wed 09/08/2006 13:04:28
How come showing a willy is worth more points than horrific mentally-scarring mass genocide with extreme blood and guts and dismemberment etc?

Because nine out of ten psychologists agree that while it's perfectly fine to teach kids how to dismember or brutally shoot one another, it will scar them for life if you teach them how to procreate.

I think this is a really good idea, and I would be quite impressed if you got it spread out to amateur developers outside the AGS community. Even if it doesn happen, I think it would be great to get some easier to read icons than the current AGS site ratings. (I also do enjoy the competitive aspect of it - I can't wait for someone to go for a maximum score  ;D).

As for the icon, I think it's a good beginning. But I think there are too many shades. Ideally, it should be done in strict black-and-white (possibly with one tone of gray like the background on the PEGI icons). And the pixel art style of the icon (including the font) wouldn't suit higher resolution games. If you do want it to be spread outside the AGS community, I recommend going for a very stylized vector-graphic style that can be resized for any resolution and for print, as well as one or two different pixel versions (say one at 64x64 another at 128x128) for use in lo-res games and on websites.
Also, the white border is very intrusive if you try putting the icon on a black loading screen. If you succeed in designing icons that are communicative enough you won't even need the text (also good for non-English language games).

(off-topic - I always thought it would be funny to make censorship icons that really showed what was offensive about the game, so you'd have PEGI-like icons of erect penises and exploding heads)

Dan: if that is how you choose to rate your games then that is fine, but this is a self rating system. I'm still working out the "severity" of the "bad" categlories. However there will be NO age categories. The idea is to give any consumer a truthful idea of game content, NOT to tell them they aren't old enough to play it. That is for them to decide for themselves. I write about why this is in the documentation.

Speaking of which, I have completed an alpha draft version of the EAGMA documentation... The following link points to another message board where I would like discussion of the document to take place, as I can moderate the topic and keep the spam down, and it gives everyone a central place to put ideas to cut down on multiple suggestions of the same thing.

I also ask that if you belong to other amateur game making communities to point them to the post on Skytower Games, I want as wide of discimination as possible among amateur game making communities so I can get as much feedback as possible. This includes IRC channels, or even word of mouth.

EAGMA Documentation 1.0a thread (http://skytowergames.com/forums/index.php?topic=82.0)

Thanks again for your comments.

Couldn't we suggest to PEGI and ESRB that they both include a new Blue Cup Rating Icon meaning "This is an AGS game. Anything can and probably will happen"Ã,  :=

First of all, scoring isn't perfect and is added, but since that ideea has been discarded, i'll be off.

Dan_N_GameZ, I like your point list. I'll use it for the witch night sequel.

Ok, jet, i have no ideea what that witch thingy is so, uhm, thanks, i guess.

Dan - I was only taking the mickey, I appreciate that what you posted was only work in progress :P

I like the idea conceptually. I think it'd be a nice thing to do, given how amateur games are completely unregulated, it'd be another bit of proof of the maturity of amateur games.

So yeah, register www.eagma.org and go for it, I say. We'd be happy to support such a system for The Forgotten Element (provided that "having character with large boobs" doesn't make it "TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR UNDER 18s" or something :D)

Cheers,

Cap'n Binky

edit: Just read the doc. All cool and everything. Except... I really think you would need a defined set of symbols, and not allow EAGMA affiliates to make up their own for their games. You need to have a set of standards so that games can be compared, and users are familiar with the meaning and context of each symbol. Or have I misread that?

I think it's a cool idea, go for it :)

Can't wait to see the "May Contains Baps" logo :D

Although it is a VERY GOOD ideea, i don't think i will.

I prefer to rate my own games my own way, by posting warnings in reviews and on websites and in the actual game the first screen asking whether the player wants to continue after writing something like "This game contains graphics violence, blood and gore, and might not be suitable for children and light-hearted people. Do you wish to continue.". Although maybe an EAGMA icon would make it look more professional.

I don't know. Besides the link doesn't work... ;)

In the end Dan, you are rating your own games, you are just using icons that are standardized for use by all amateur game makers.

The document was updated to 1.01a... I decided to make it a standardized set of icons since I kinda thought the whole make your own was silly, but at the same time I wanted flexibility.

Anyway thanks all that participated so far... I'm working on getting a domain registered, and a few other things...

EDIT: Actually I'm going to wait on the domain, if there doesn't seem to be any interest, then most likely I'll just subsite it off my current web domain.

I like this idea.

Quote from: EAGMA Document•   EAGMA markings should be used as is. Current icons (which as of the writing of 1.01a have not entirely been created) will be used until a volunteer is able to make easily scalable icons that can be used in multiple resolutions.

If you want, I can create some vector icons for you.

EDIT:

Something in this direction:

(http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/5830/violenceeq6.png)

If you already got the icons covered, nevermind.

Actually something like that would be great...

However I'm still working out how I would label them, which I have a decent idea. But I'm doing some cross referencing and research and what not...

I'm thinking of going with a color/symbol system Green:Mild, Yellow:Moderate, Orange: Severe, Red: Extreme. Which would be easier than coming up with a seperate icon for say mild violence, to Extreme Violence. I've also been thinking about things like sexual conduct in text as compared to visual acts... So I was thinking of a primary category, like Text, Cartoonish, or Realistic, then Violence, Sex, Drugs, Scary, Suggestive Themes, Sex, Crime, etc.

I'm also developing a rating guideline such as:
If the game uses mild swear words (hell, damn, ass) that can normally be heard on Broadcast television, minimum rating for language is mild.

And so on.

What I think I will do is by this weekend go ahead and create a subsite of yelloweyedstudio and create a forum in there so we can discuss this without bothering the rest of the community that aren't as interested.

Here's what I think:

Rather than letters or colors, what about numbers?

Each rating would be a degree. 1 would be pretty much kiddie stuff, 10 would be extremely gory, with lots of swearing, sex, drugs, etc.
I also like the idea of vector images for each things.

This game is rated Degree 10:
(picture of bloody knife) Violence
(needle) drugs
(toilet) foul language
(bed) sex

something like that, perhaps?
In any case, this is a great idea, and I hope this goes through.
It could be called...the AGRS (Adventure Game Rating System)

Like I said on STG, it's a really good idea.  ;D

I think this is really a good idea. Of course, you would need to work hard for it to succeed out of the AGS community and probably need to work hard for it to succeed in just the AGS community as well.

I fully support and endorse this idea.

just a note, if you're going to do this I wouldn't make the icon for violence more violent than the game possibly could be. Showing blood in games is enough to knock it out of an E rating... Then again an icon for "sexual content" with 2 people screwing like mad would be awesome...

NEVERMIND ME!

Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 10/08/2006 03:40:48
Then again an icon for "sexual content" with 2 people screwing like mad would be awesome...

I like that idea.
It would also rock if the rating and picture got mixed up...so Violence would show two people screwing, Sexual themes would show a needle, Drugs would show a man with a toilet mouth, and extreme language would be a bloody knife.

Quote from: EAGMA Document
(http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/5830/violenceeq6.png)

This icon has been rated PG-13 by the Game Icon Rating System. HAND.

By the way I don't see any need to be this politically correct - young children don't play retro games anyway.

But it's interesting to note that the first computer game ratings were also done voluntarily, such as the PC-13 rating on Wolfenstein (which IIRC was truly the first).

Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 10/08/2006 03:40:48
just a note, if you're going to do this I wouldn't make the icon for violence more violent than the game possibly could be. Showing blood in games is enough to knock it out of an E rating...

I thought the same thing. But since it was just an example I was like... whatever. 8)

The concept of a toilet icon for bad language doesn't really work in other languages (not to mention that I find the word "potty mouth" a lot more offensive than the word "fuck"). And it's also rather ambiguous unless people already know what the icons represent, it could easily mean "this games show people urinating" a la Hitman, Mafia etc., which I'm sure is also covered by censorship rules.

I think the cartoon cursing symbols, like they are used in the PEGI logo, is the best way to represent foul language.

http://www.eagma.org is up and running (if you cannot reach the site please give your DNS time to update). It is still being built, and later today I will add a simple forum to it for discussion.

Thanks :)

I see that you went for colors to represent severity. I really think you should consider a monochrome alternative, for print and for people who don't want a technicolor rainbow on their title screens. How about a system where the severity is measured in notches at the bottom of the icon (a la the volume display on a stereo)?

Well wait for the full document to be finished, they generally will be monochrome, the color will be more of just an outline.

Look at the example icon I made, the outer white ring that surrounds the entire Icon will be color coded, the icon itself will be monochrome. At least this is the plan for now. Someone sees a knife with a red outline, they are going to know that it's an extremely violent game.

I'm working on getting a SMF board setup on the new site. Most likely I won't worry about doing a theme for it at least not at first. This way we can start using those forums instead of hijacking others :).

Thanks

I'm not sure that amateur games need this, but since no one is requiring us to use it that it's not really hurting anybody.

One thing that strikes me as odd, however, is that your rating system for amateur games is more complicated than the rating system for professional games, movies, tv shows, and music.  Does your rating system need to be this complicated.  I'm certainly not going to use anything on a volunteer basis that requires me to ugly up my beautiful game page (http://xiigames.com/anna) with three or four multicolored icons.  A simple single monochromatic icon that displays the games rating, however, I might consider.

Taken into consideration, the simplist way would to put a game rating the way the ESRB does with an age category, however since this is the internet putting age categories is pointless.

Howver even PEGI (http://www.pegi.info/pegi/index.do) uses multiple icons for the content within.

While it may seem complicated, I am trying to be as complete with it as possible so with a quick glance a consumer will know the approximate amount of content held within the game.

Quote from: GarageGothic on Thu 10/08/2006 10:58:30
I see that you went for colors to represent severity. I really think you should consider a monochrome alternative, for print and for people who don't want a technicolor rainbow on their title screens.

And the people of my kind - colourblind.

Since you're already using degrees of content, couldn't the number of icons be reduced? Blood and gore would usually be involved at a higher level of violence, and suggestive themes, nudity and sex couls also be part of the same scale.

QuoteThe idea is to give any consumer a truthful idea of game content,

But game content is there to flesh out concepts, ideas, story and aesthetics. What use is it to anyone to know 'this game contains images of knives, drawings of people having sex'. Take anything worthwhile you've ever experienced in art and break it down to the signifiers contained therein, regardless of the conceptual element they serve, what do you have?


I don't see any point to this, besides possibly it being fun to do for your game, to go through all of it and find the signifiers and put warnings for everything for them as some sort of post-modern statement.

WARNING, THIS GAME CONTAINS:

PEOPLE
DISCUSSIONS
COMBINATORIAL ITEMRY
COLORS
MOUSE POINTERS (6)

I can see the point in doing it. Some people get offended easier than others - good lord we found THAT out with that blinking picture of Mia in our game :)

But I think it should be simple. I see no problem with logos for Language, Violence, Sex and then beneath them the words "mild", "occasional", "frequent", "extreme" or something. I can't see the point on rating things out of 10, or having more than 4 or so categories because the whole thing would become too subjective and difficult to accurately compare.

FREQUENT EXTREME SEX

here are some more

WARNING: THIS GAME HAS BEEN RATED
WARNING : YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
WARNING: THIS GAME HAS BEEN DEVELOPED
WARNING: YOU ARE PLAYING A GAME
WARNING: WARNING
WARNING: GERMANS
WARNING: THIS GAME MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN OPINIONS
WARNING: AMBIGUITY AHEAD

QuoteSome people get offended easier than others

let them be offended. Your choice to engage them in discussion or not.

Quote from: Helm on Thu 10/08/2006 12:04:41

QuoteThe idea is to give any consumer a truthful idea of game content,

But game content is there to flesh out concepts, ideas, story and aesthetics. What use is it to anyone to know 'this game contains images of knives, drawings of people having sex'. Take anything worthwhile you've ever experienced in art and break it down to the signifiers contained therein, regardless of the conceptual element they serve, what do you have?


I don't see any point to this, besides possibly it being fun to do for your game, to go through all of it and find the signifiers and put warnings for everything for them as some sort of post-modern statement.

WARNING, THIS GAME CONTAINS:

PEOPLE
DISCUSSIONS
COMBINATORIAL ITEMRY
COLORS
MOUSE POINTERS (6)

Maybe I shoud reword it "Possibly objectionable content"

I maintain that anything is possibly objectionable, and that you're not doing anything good in further promoting that type of thinking.

A quick and dirty edit of Hillbilly's icon, but how about something like this to display the grade of severity:

WARNING: MAY CONTAIN A GAME

The way I see it, is sooner or later an amateur game is going to be released that is truly sick. It may not be now or in a year, or five years. But at some point it's inevitable. Since amateur games are completely unregulated when that happens, somebody somewhere is going to sit up and take notice.

I can't see a problem with implementing a system such as this. If you don't think there's much point to it, then don't be part of it, your call. I think it's a nice thing to do. I think it's good PR for the maturity of amateur games. Just keep it simple and consistent. Black and white images that are still recognisable small.

Just because what people find objectionable varies isn't a reason not to adopt this kind of system. There are general trends that can be copied such as what you get on the back of a DVD or commercial games. Whether or not anyone cares that they're there or not isn't the point. They are there, and it sends a good message out about amateur games (that adopt this, of course).

Quotesomebody somewhere is going to sit up and take notice.

Then that person should sit down when they realize the game isn't made by industry, but by amateur enthusiasts and they can do whatever the hell they like without any regulation since they're not selling product. In fact, this is one of the biggest strengths of the medium we're working on: that we can make whatever we want regardless of ratings.

And here we are talking about implementing self-censorship.

It's not self-censorship of any kind. Nobody is suggesting that you can't make the game you want to make, just that you label it clearly if you choose to be a part of this.

Just because you're not selling the product doesn't mean that you should take no responsibility for it.

No not once does it say anything about censoring. And in fact it clearly states that the producer can make whatever they want. They just make sure they inform anyone that might use it the content that may be objectionable.

Here is the quote
"The Ethical portion of the title does not preclude any content from any game or project by a Producer in the association; it only pertains to truthfully depicting the content of the project or game to the public."

If you want to have mothers eating their own babies while being sodomized by an alien Ã, that is exploding cows with a microwave ray, then go right ahead, just make sure you have it labeled as having sex,violence,blood and gore. So someone doesn't download Fluffy Bunny Makes a Movie when the movie Fluffy bunny is making involves the above scene.

Quote from: GarageGothic on Thu 10/08/2006 12:39:26
A quick and dirty edit of Hillbilly's icon, but how about something like this to display the grade of severity:

(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/eagmagrades.gif)

SHOCK!! HOW DARE YOU!!! THIS KNIFE GOES AGAINST MY RELIGION! PREPARE TO ENGAGE LAWSUIT!

Quote from: Alynn on Thu 10/08/2006 14:03:36
"The Ethical portion of the title does not preclude any content from any game or project by a Producer in the association; it only pertains to truthfully depicting the content of the project or game to the public."

Also, whether intentional or not, the name subtly implies that any Amateur Game Maker who for whatever reason does not wish to participate in this content labeling system, is Unethical.

I stand by my position. Wait... how can I do that? I stand... BY my position?

WARNING: LOGICAL FALLACY

Anyway. Just by inviting this 'here are the potentially objectionable parts of my game, regardless of meaning or content, lol!' aspect of political-correctiveness into our amateur games, and to do this most of all, ourselves, we are sabotaging the vitality that exists in enjoying a piece of art for what it is on the whole, not as parts of a whole. And that's a luxury I'm going personally to continue to retain. I don't want to see small pictures of knives and penises, when I check out a game. I want to play a good game.

The word 'fuck' or a couple fucking are means to an artistic end. Do we really want to promote people gathering instead of this, just that there is the word 'fuck' and some fucking in our game? It's like looking at the finger instead of where it's pointing. It's silly.

I can understand your position and I respect it. Nobody's trying to force this on anyone. But since I respect your stance on this, then please respect mine. I think this is a good cause, and not:

'here are the potentially objectionable parts of my game, regardless of meaning or content, lol!'

This isn't a joke to me. If I'm going to support Alynn's idea (and I will) then I do so in all seriousness.

Go ahead and do what you want to do. From my point of view, it undermines your own credibility if you have big boobs in your game, and also a warning for big boobs. If you can't see that, it's fine.

We're not going to have a "big boobs" warning. That's ridiculous and simplifying the concept for the sake of a comedic point. There are other concepts in our game beyond that one character. Some of those ideas and imagery may be unsuitable to certain people.

Besides, what credibility exactly? We don't have any credibility to begin with. We're making a game, some people may like it, some people may not. I fail to see how having a couple of icons next to it undermines anything. I don't look at DVDs and think "Tsk! As if they have to have this on Schindler's List. Those ratings totally undermine that film's credibility".

I wasn't making a comedic point. Most of the ratings discussed in this thread amount to 'knife' or 'big boobs' as I see it.

The credibility someone automatically has and should try to retain when they're presenting their art with honesty and conviction.

The ratings how I've been suggesting would be more in line with what you see on DVDs. I.e. Violence - mild, Language - strong. etc. No, I probably wouldn't be happy with too much detail in the ratings because a) it'll get too subjective and b) it'd all get too confusing. It has to be simple. If you notice, this is what I've been saying all along.

QuoteThe credibility someone automatically has and should try to retain when they're presenting their art with honesty and conviction.

We're making a game that we quite like, and we wouldn't pretend to have any other motivation or conviction other than "we want to make it". It's not art. It contains themes which you could say are satire, or social commentary, but we're not making a big deal out of that. It's just a game, and we hope people enjoy it.

Of course we have credibility. It comes from interacting with a community and giving out expectations. For instance, if a random forum n00b wants to recruit people, nobody is interested - whereas if a longtimer (especially one who has demonstrated skills in the past) asks the same question, people offer help. That's credibility.

I think it rather makes sense to state that if you think the content of your game is offensive to people, you should reconsider whether it should be part of your game. Disclaimers are pretty much a weasel way out.

If you make a game that's for adults, what's the problem with saying "it's for adults"? Saying "if you think the content of your game is offensive to people, you should reconsider whether it should be part of your game" is basically saying "you should reconsider making an adult game".

It's not about whether it's offensive to everybody. If it were offensive to literally everyone, then no-one would play it and there'd be no point making it. I can't see why anyone would have an issue with this. You (as an adult) can choose to ignore the icons and play what you like. Whereas you (as a parent) can see what may or may not be suitable for your children. Where's the harm in that?

QuoteIf you make a game that's for adults, what's the problem with saying "it's for adults"?

Because it's condescending? Who is an adult? I saw Videodrome when I was 15. And it scarred me, I thought 'that is too much! This movie is too much! I LOVE THIS MOVIE'. People should make up their own minds if they want to play something or not without such warnings. Robbing art of it's bite is such a wrong thing to do. And if it's the issue with someone being a minor, don't do the parenting in place of the parents.

Quote from: Helm on Thu 10/08/2006 16:24:08
don't do the parenting in place of the parents.

I'm not. I'm merely informing them that they may need to check that this game is suitable for their children. That's helping.

Anyway, I think the upshot of all of this is that we can agree to disagree on this one.

While I understand - and appreciate - the concept of an 'unofficial' rating system for games (amateur, non-amateur, who cares? - as long as they use it right? Ã, ;) ), there are some remarks I would like to add to the discussion.

For a change I think that the Dutch rating system for movies http://www.kijkwijzer.nl/ (click the British flag for an English translation) is quite elegant. Ã, An overview and account of the various principles underlying Kijkwijzer can be read in this PDF http://www.kijkwijzer.nl/upload/download_pc/24.pdf.

First of all, the icons used are actually quite nice and simple:
(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/Kijkwijzer.PNG)

Top (from left to right):
* Not harmful/All Ages
* Watch out with children under 6
* Watch out with children under 12
* Watch out with children under 16

Bottom (from left to right):

* Violence
* Fear
* Sex
* Discrimination
* Drugs- and alcohol abuse
* Coarse Language
Thanks to Ishmael for pointing it out (maybe I shouldn't write (copy-paste) posts in the last few minutes before I went home from work...Ã,  :-[ ). Correction:

* Violence
* Sex
* Fear
* Drugs- and alcohol abuse
* Discrimination
* Coarse Language


Sure, there is no distinction between sex and nudity but do we really need that?

There's also no gradient in the icons used. There's either coarse language or not. That doesn't mean that you have to add that icon if you use the word 'smeg' one time throughout your game. It's rather an indication of your games general 'atmosphere'. To get an idea of how it works, just go to: http://www.kijkwijzer.nl/classificaties.php and enter your favourite movie in 'zoekwoord'.

So you might have a game that has none of these warnings, and you could just show the 'AL' icon, and everyone would know that the game is safe. But I really don't like to adding eight icons (not taking into account any icons that could be used to clarity the genre, like those stickers they use(d) in libraries) on my opening-screen. Furthermore, the advantage of using a two-colour-scheme is that you could allow the user the right to chance these colours to match the scheme used in the game/website. They are easily adaptable if you have a download on your website (in .EPS or .AI preferably).

Anyway, summarizing what I said above:
* Use simple 2-colour (vector based) icons.
* Don't use a gradient-system but rather a boolean-system (yes or no).
* Allow the adaptation of colours (but not shape!) to match the scheme of the medium.

Misj'

Ok.... This is getting silly...

We aren't doing the parenting for the parent... We aren't being concencending to anyone we are saying...

THIS GAME HAS SEX, VIOLENCE, AND FRIGHTENING IMAGES
And you can Download it here

I'd rather let them know up front before they just say, oh this sounds interesting, they down load it, and suddenly the tenticle penis alien is raping the schoolgirl and they say "I didn't want to play this!!!"

We aren't saying you shouldn't play this... we aren't saying that anyone that isn't this age shouldn't be play it. All we are saying this is what this game has in it. We give the parent a tool to help them decide for themselves if that game is appropriate for their children BEFORE it is downloaded and seen. We believ that the person downloading the game is responsible enough to handle the content within.

And in fact WE aren't saying it about anyones game but the ones we make, host, or rate... AND ONLY IF WE CHOOSE TO DO SO.

If you still don't see what we are doing, and no I don't mean agree, I mean actually understand what I and the EAGMA are trying to accomplish, then I don't know how to make it anymore clear.

If you just don't agree, then you don't agree, I'm not going to try to convince you it's a good thing. Hell I don't eve know if it's a "good" thing, but it's an idea I had and an Idea I would like to see take off, so I am persuing it.

Quote from: Misj' on Thu 10/08/2006 16:40:43
Bottom (from left to right):
* Violence
* Fear
* Sex
* Discrimination
* Drugs- and alcohol abuse
* Coarse Language

So spider means sex, and syringe means discrimination?

This just confirms my impression of the Dutch even more.

Quote'd rather let them know up front before they just say, oh this sounds interesting, they down load it, and suddenly the tenticle penis alien is raping the schoolgirl and they say "I didn't want to play this!!!"

Why?

Because he doesn't want people to play it who don't want to play it because he respects their desire not to play it?

Because if I was offended by some sort of content, it doesn't matter what the content is, but I'm offended by it. And someone let me know before I downloaded something (which takes time, and in some cases costs them bandwith or money (depending on the ISP)), Ã, that particular type of content is in their game before hand, I would appreciate them taking the time to let me know and saves me the time of having to download something that I wouldn't enjoy playing to begin with, and lets me move on to other games.

I thought about starting this because this is something I'd like to see, because it is something that I would appreciate, and quite possibly others would appreciate as well. So I decided to start it. Ã, That's the long and the short of it. I think it would be nice to have.

This reminds me very much of Frank Zappa's statement to congress and donnybrook with the PMRC.

On another note, this whole rating system idea, it seems to be very unnesessary.  Before you download something, especially on the internet, you propably have a general idea of what's going to happen in the media presented to you.  How often do you find a blank, undescriptive link to an executable and think, "Boy, I'd like to try this!"  Look around for a brief summary, or a screenshot, or even the title for crying out loud,  I know what I was getting when I downloaded '5 days a stranger' or 'Alien Rape Escape'.  If people go around downloading random things with no knowledge of what it might be, I'm all for it having explicit images of the Pope donkey punching several gay men with tatoos of "bad words" all along thier bodies while orphans shoot up drugs and have Mexican knife fights.

In the long run, this rating system is a nice pipe dream, but in the end it will just show that parents will care, just as long as they don't have to try really hard and shiny rating doodads keep thier attention (for a short period of time anyway).

What earlwood said, really.

Yes.

Here, Helm and earlwood. You can have my 2 cents.

Quote from: Ishmael on Thu 10/08/2006 17:23:19
So spider means sex, and syringe means discrimination?

This just confirms my impression of the Dutch even more.

My excuse is that I was tired from work when I wrote it...Ã,  ;D

thanks for pointing it out, I corrected it in the original post...Ã,  :-\

---------- back to the topic ----------

The reason for a rating system has nothing to do with censoring. Except of cause you are ashamed to show that you have made a game in which there are acts of sex, and thus wouldn't do it if people knew. Well, then don't. If you do, you might as well tell. Or is anyone here affirmations that they will remove scenes to gain the PG rating?

Does it have to do with knowing what you will get? - Well partly...Sure, I hardly ever press random links. But on the other hand, when I go to the movies, or rent a DVD I rarely watch the trailer, read the summary, or the back of the box. Why? - Because frankly I want to be surprised. If you watch 'the Island', and you know beforehand that those people are ***** (censored not to spoil anything ;) ) you will miss the best part of the movie. I think the same way about games. I care more about the screenshots and the GUI (playability) than about what I will truly get. I like to be surprised. But that really doesn't mean I'm interested in whatever earlwood said.

Is it for the protection of our children? - Well, I don't have any, but that doesn't mean yours don't need protection. But will they be protected? - No, probably not, since the download is free anyway. And the chance of them deciding NOT to download a game containing sex, violence, drugs, and the discrimination of the English is relatively small. But if the parents download a game for their kid maybe they will have some reference.

Anyway...I think a rating system is a good thing. I agree with Alynn and CaptainBinky. And if nothing else, it will add a sense of professionalism to the game. Furthermore, I haven't read any good argument why such a rating should not exist, which the exception of people being afraid of whatever.

QuoteAnyway...I think a rating system is a good thing. I agree with Alynn and CaptainBinky. And if nothing else, it will add a sense of professionalism to the game.

This is exactly the sort of "professionalism" we need to steer in opposite of, in terms both of concept and ambition. We are not professionals. We should be filling the niche that professionals are not. It's one thing to make boxes for your games because boxes are awesome, one thing to found 'design studios' where only one or two people are making the game (come on, we've all done it) and quite, quite another to adopt self-imposed rating systems just so we seem more like the big boys.

Have people forgotten how ratings in art originally came to be? They were imposed by idiots!

Generalization (i.e "there is sex in this" "there is violence in this") is the death of art. I can put Citizen Kane, or the Oddysey in terms of ratings, who does this help?  Art lives in the particulars between the cracks of signifiers like that.

But we're not making art. We're making adventure games, right?

I'm kind of torn on this. On the one hand, I do agree that these kinds of labels can potentially degrade art, and I do consider creating computer games to be an art (or a conglomeration of them; whatever...) to be taken seriously. But on the other hand, as an artist who takes himself and his art seriously, my primary interest is not in shocking people or stepping on anyone's toes, and if people don't want to see or hear certain things, I respect those feelings. So if by putting a little symbol on the box I can help someone out in that small way, then... well, I guess I'd have to weigh things. What's more important? The sanctity of my artwork, or the feelings of that other person, whether they are right to feel as they do or not?

I don't know. I don't know how much it would actually degrade the artwork to label it that way. I don't know whether it's actually better for people to get over their sensitivities than for others to do simple things like label their artwork to avoid wounding them.

Blah.

Helm, I'm curious about some tangential aspects of your philosophy, but I'm not sure this is really the place to discuss it. Actually, I think I need to go back and read this whole thread, but then I might send you a PM. Do you mind?

I don't think anyone is afraid of the rating system, it's very probable that it will not evolve into some e-concership juggernaut, I'm not paranoid.  But come on, part of the beauty of being part of such a keen underground clique is not having to worry about this elusive hidden "peoples" that get the vapors at the drop of a hat, are emotionally scarred for life by pixels of the red persuation, and turn stark white if I was to show a little nip.


And to pretend it's for the common good is a bit outrages as well, in case you haven't noticed, we make Adventure Games, not exactly the number one search prerogative for children, Fundamentalist, and people of frail constitution.

I really don't see the issue. I can see how people might be anti-regulation groups, but the point of this one is that its rules would only apply to its members. Therefore only the people who support it are regulated by it. In which case it's completely irrelevent to everyone else.

Helm - are you this vehemently opposed to the ratings here at AGS?

I think, for younger kids, it's understandable.
If some little kid plays a game like Quest for Glory 4 1/2 on his brother's computer, then there should be some kind of warning on it. Doesn't have to be a sybol, it could be a warning in bright bold letters on a black screen saying "This game is not for kids."

But the rating system only "works" on a commercial level.  Someone at ESRB has decided what's morally exceptable for everyone, and when a 10 year old kid wants to play something like F.E.A.R, a greasy kid in a vest will say, "Sorry, I cannot sell this to you." at which point the child gets his unattentive mother to buy to for him and the world is a much better place.

On the internet, especially on an amateur level, the rating system is a failure from the beginning.  Mostly because the the web is a faceless, ageless environment, I'm in a kid's chatroom, POOF! I'm an innocent 12 year old girl, I'm looking for raunchy backdoor action, BAM! I am a 68 year old war veteran, and so on.

The point here isn't to censor anything or keep it away from certain people, which is as you say impossible on the internet. Rather it is to allow people to make informed decisions about the games they want to play (and possibly games they choose for others to play).

Believe it or not, but I've heard adult people say that they don't want to play this-or-that game because it's too gory. There was even some guy posting here who asked if my game was going to be scary, because he didn't like scary games! Does anyone but me recall a certain member of this forum - I won't name names - who was very upset about a scene in Flashbax of an old man masturbating? With just a few rating categories, these people would be prepared for what to expect from the game and could choose to play it or not.

And the rest of us can avoid wasting time on boring games without sex, violence and drugs...

Quote from: Helm
This is exactly the sort of "professionalism" we need to steer in opposite of, in terms both of concept and ambition. We are not professionals.

Just because we're not professionals doesn't mean our games have to of a lower standard. It just means that we have to work a little harder on it.

QuoteWe should be filling the niche that professionals are not.

You mean we should be making games people want to play? - Last time I checked that was excactly what 'the big boys' try to do. We're in the same niche: we want to make something other want to play and like. We have the same medium, the same audience, the same goal. Biologically we have the same niche (and yes, I am a biologist).

Quote... and quite, quite another to adopt self-imposed rating systems just so we seem more like the big boys.

It has nothing to do with 'seem more like the big boys'. If you think that, than I'm sorry, but you have no idea what I'm talking about.

QuoteGeneralization (i.e "there is sex in this" "there is violence in this") is the death of art.

I'll say it with the words of the late Douglas Adams: "I think the idea of art kills creativity."
You appear to think that this rating system puts things in little boxes killing art. Well, I happen to disagree with the fact that we make art, and that games are art. You can discuss long or short about that, but I happen to be proud of the fact that I don't make art. I'm creative. You want to make art, go ahead. But I have a different goal. And for that goal a rating system is not a limitation. Do you consider it a limitation that to 'art' (or creativity) to have AGS awards? - That's a rating. We have a quality remark regarding the visuals of the games. That's a rating. Did any of those ever cause the death of the art? - Or did they motivate, and be some kind of quality control?

QuoteBut we're not making art. We're making adventure games, right?

I'm not making art no. I'm better than that...people actually like what I do. ;)

But no, I don't want this discussion to be about games being art or not. People have discussed about that far too long, and all it showed was that people have a misconseption about art.

My appologies if I sound all too annoyed. But Helm, your posts have a very negative ring to it, and I feel personally affected by that negativeness. I have no intention of attacking you, and I assume that neither have you. However, I would like you to look out side of the box you're currently in. And therefor, I would like you to humor me, and give me two arguments in favour of a general rating system for ((non)amateur) games which describes the kind of general content one can expect in such a game. If you do that for me, than I'll try and think of two (equally valid) arguments to support your case, why such a system should never see the light.

Quote from: Alynn on Wed 09/08/2006 08:05:53
It isn't to rate the site, it's for those that choose to do so, to inform anyone that may download or play their game the content within...

I start with 3 categories Textual, Cartoonish, and Realistic which tells them the graphical type of the game. You then add the subcategories such as Violence, Blood and Gore, Sex, Language, whatever. So anyone thinking of downloading or playing your game will know when they see R:VBL that this game will have realistic violence blood and language.

I'm not even going to attach an age to any of these ratings. If anything they are for informational puposes only, because I know that people will download what they want, since there isn't a real way to regulate it.

Oh and I actually had the idea for S for scary, younger children may be frightened by content.

So in the end, it really is just an informational rating system.

So what would C:L look like?

QuoteDo you mind?

No.

QuoteHelm - are you this vehemently opposed to the ratings here at AGS?

No because an abstract 1-10 scale doesn't make moral judgements nor does it fragment 'potentially offensive' sequence from meaning. It's just an average of how the general public felt the game stood up to their expectations of play. Therefore,  useful on that level.

QuoteAnd the rest of us can avoid wasting time on boring games without sex, violence and drugs...

See, is it about this? Is it just a bit of harmless fun just to see what we can rate in our games? If you're going to make a statement, make it properly, you don't need anyone else to condone a whole semi-formal rating system for you to do it. Are you only hardcore if there's a sticker on the game making you hardcore?

QuoteJust because we're not professionals doesn't mean our games have to of a lower standard. It just means that we have to work a little harder on it.

Where did you get lower standard from what I said? We are not professionals, we are something else. Aping what the professionals do might not be the best idea if we're to take advantage of the unique apportunities available only to us.

QuoteYou mean we should be making games people want to play? - Last time I checked that was excactly what 'the big boys' try to do.

First of all, you're mistaken. There's a whole lotta difference between designing something that'll be very playable, and designing something that will sell well. If for example, you put a busty 20 year old female as a protagonist, you've immediately made your game more sellable, but not more playable. This is very basic, I don't want to make a big deal out of this, as it's off-topic, but you're wrong. Sure, being very playable will probably make you sell a few pieces more, but then again, a huge PR campaign and careful target-marketing will do you much better. Guess what the big boys are doing?

And no, I don't mean make games that people want to play. I mean make games that fit our individual visions without compromise. Just make what YOU'D like to play, and there'll be people to like them.

Quotebut I happen to be proud of the fact that I don't make art.

keep on rocking with your bad self.

QuoteI'm not making art no. I'm better than that...people actually like what I do.

Who are you and why are you telling me this as if I care?

Quoteand I feel personally affected by that negativeness.

Sorry, let me slap this WARNING: MAY EXTRUDE NEGATIVE AURA sticker on me. It's ok! I drew it myself!

QuoteI would like you to humor me

More talking to me as if we're engaged in some sort of personal discussion me and you. I don't know you, did I perhaps by accident talk about something you said in this thread previously? Seriously, do we know each other? I am partaking in this discussion to exchange views on the subject, not to convince you personally of anything.

Hello. I was just - eek! evil twin personality taking over... must attack... eek!

..

Ok, helm.
I'm going to slag you now and hose you down with no content restraints (maybe just cencorship) so i hope i don't get my ass kicked out of here...
What the f*ck is your problem?
You may be Mittens, whatever the f*ck that is, but i don't give a damn!
Just what the hell do you think art is?!
What the f*ck do you understand art IS?
If it's drawing then go suck a pencil!
If it's music, good for you, but go suck a microphone!
If it's writing, better for you, but you can still go suck a keyboard!
Game making is supposed to ENTERTAIN, dammit!
That's what the romans did!
That's why games were invented!
To freakin' entertain the masses, dammit!
I ask you this, would you take your kid to the roman games? Hell, if games are art, then the freakin' gladiators cutting themselves up are the manifesting of the freakin' human f*cking condition!
Games are ENTERTAINMENT and through ART they are PORTRAIED.
And you probably would take little ol' Junior to show him how the nice blood patterns on the floor resemble the joining of the human personalities!
Dammit! I'm going back...
Sh*t!
Smacktar-

Oh, hell-o. Much better.
What apparently my evil twin was trying to say was that games entertain and people should know what kind of entertainment they're getting. This might sound awkward now, given my previous statement, but i fully support the ideea and commend alynn on working hard to make this ideea be feasible.

Thank you.
(P.S.: you're a smacktard, oh, damn, evil twin!)

WARNING: INTERNET BATTLE

Games are supposed to entertain. Yes.

You should know what kind of entertainment you're getting. Y... es. I guess. If you want.

But you know what, that's what reviews, word of mouth or even a synopsis on the game's box/website is for! Not stickers that say WARNING: SEX!

Quote from: Ghormak on Fri 11/08/2006 00:21:50Not stickers that say WARNING: SEX!

But it looks cool!  :(

You know, I can understand if we rate our own games. We can do that any way we want to. Or we could just say the game is not for kids right on the downloads page.
Now, if this was being sold at a store, I'd understand the need, but this is the internet. No greasy faced vest wearing man will tell you "No, you can't play this." on here.
I see both sides of this arguement, but all I have to say about it now is this:
Do whatever the hell you want with your own games.

Bring it on, helm, you freakin smacktard pus- blerghh...
Oh, poo, there he goes again.
That damn evil twin personality.
What?
...

EVIL TWIN: Hey f*ck you, man i wanna get this son of a-
GOOD TWIN: Hey cut it out with all the swearing, will ya?
EVIL TWIN: But he gets me so angry (foam at mouth) ...
GOOD TWIN: But that's no reason to start harrasing the man and then slagging him.
EVIL TWIN: Oh yeah?
GOOD TWIN: Yeah - Hey, what're doing? Why are you opening a new window? Why are you trying to find his adress? Why are you loading the shotgun and making plane flight arrangements? Hey, stop that!!
(fight with self)
EVIL TWIN: (more foam at mouth) Damn you, good twin!!! .... blerghh ...
GOOD TWIN: Phew.
(wiping foam from mouth)

Anyway, mr. helm, i do not wish to do battle with you, although i'll kick your ass you sma- hey, shut up Evil!

So, i was just wanting to prove my point in an intelligent an civil way to provide you the chance to respond in an equal fashion, but obviously my evil twin fucked it up, so sorry.
(besides the whole warning thing is getting annoying and makes you look like a smacktard; first it was cute and witty and now it just makes me wanna use the damn plane ticket. On that we both agree.)

(off topic)
Dan, I like what you're doing with the Good twin/Evil Twin

Back on topic:
At this point, it doesn't really matter with this rating system. Developers can just say "screw that" and get on with their lives.

but what if people tell you you can't play your own game.  :P

Why, what kind of people would say such a thing?

the scary ratings people.  :'(

Quote from: Mordalles on Fri 11/08/2006 00:36:27
the scary ratings people.  :'(

Well they can go f*ck themselves. Ratings don't make or break a game (unless it's Rockstar Games, they know how to push the limits there)

Begin off-topic
Thank you, alliance, i try to be funn-
(foam at mouth)
Yeah, you find that funny mister hardy-har, and now i suppose you'll be copping it and using it to make other people laugh at your pathetic smacktardy jokes! You little f*ck! Why I'll sue your little dicky off you- blergh... f*ck!...
(wipe foam)
Oh, sorry. I actually hope no-one is really offended.
It's supposed to be innocent humour and fun, but then again it may not be that innocent.

(p.s.: you're a smacktard- damn you Evil!)

End off-topic;

Begin on-topic

What do you mean you couldn't play your own games?
You have on your harddrive, you freakin' made it!
Unless you were some kind of smacktard that deleted the crap right after downloading. Well that would be very shitty now wouldn't it be?

(p.s.: you're all smacktards and i hate the world)

End off-topic

I have a task for you: guess whether Good or Evil wrote this last on-topic segment.

WARNING: BAD CODE

Um... Seriously guys, calm down. The fate of the universe does not depend upon this conversation.

Helm, if I may be serious again... One thing I'm wondering that I suppose is relevant to this discussion... I'm curious about your opinion concerning ethics. You've described robbing art of its bite as being a wrong thing to do. But this makes it seem as though you're viewing the purpose of art as a ubiquitous objective standard, because otherwise it would seem that you'd simply disregard what other people want to do with their own artwork. And if there is such an absolute purpose for the creation of artwork, from where is this derived in a deterministic worldview?

I'm sorry if I misunderstand what you mean by wrong, or if I misunderstand your beliefs concerning the nonexistence of free will.

Hi Dan. Can you calm down a bit please? We don't want to put you in the naughty corner with all the other bored kids on their summer break.

Primate vessage coming your way soon, Eneran

Yeah, what he said.

But seriously, you can do whatever you want with YOUR OWN games, but don't tell other people what to do (unless you criticize artwork and then offer improvement because that's healthy) with their games.
But I see that you have your head so stuck up your ass that you don't see what alynn is really trying to do here: inform, dammit and help.
Fine, don't use the system, express your "art" by showing dicks, tits, asses, and by saying fuck every two words, but please go to the "oh, look my head is up my ass and i excuse it with philosophy about art" thread and leave those who give a damn alone. Thank you.

And we both agree on that and you can quote us on that, smacktard!

EDIT: i found that remark before helm condescending. Please refrain from other such comments. Thank you.

LAST EDIT:Besides, age doesn't matter (much) and i am more mature than all you sm- erm, people might think. Well, I gues i should head off and dwell on it while my unconscious self lies on my bed. But I will be back and my evil twin will be here. (he is now sleeping so my good twin is about to do the same)
Tune in tomorrow for an exciting new episode of pointless discussions that i get worked up about. Thank and good night. Love and Peace.

Let me pull something from behind my monitor.

A world of crime, sin and greed.  Delve into the mind of Agent 47 and encounter his greatest adversaries, completing the work that made him so brutally efficient and shaped him as an assassin.  Eliminate your targets by any means necessary.  There are no rules...  only the contract, signed in blood.

Following still? Ok, now on the front is an "M" in a white box.

Take you pick.  I mean, if you just mean to inform the general public.

A rating system is just not needed.

While you can do anything you want concerning auto censoring or rating (not sure how it should be called), I'd like you to remember that we have the privilege of not being censored or rated and that mentalities evolve by provocating reactions, that you always need to push the limits farther if you want to the taboo subjects to stay open and continue to be discussed and debated.

While auto rating your own games may be nice because it warn people from your game's content, it also shield people from whatever message or idea you wanted to vehiculate, and in the end, people that would probably have benefited from this provocating will end still living in their little bubble where absolutly nothing will ever shake the foundation of their life, change their mentality or expose them to different point of views. It's pretty much like those "Warning: Political/religious thread" warnings in the title of debates thread. A lot of people just say "Meh." and automaticly move away by fear to be confronted to other people's opinions.

I don't think we'd have been the slowly more and more open society we are today if we didn't had all the David's statue, Story of O, Ceci N'est Pas Une Pipe, Elvis's dance moves, The Clockwork Orange, Fight Club, etc.

As for the professionalism bit, the games and movies industry do it because they are forced to if they want their products to be on the shelves. That doesn't automaticly mean they do it because they want to.

My two energy credits.

Quote from: Helm on Fri 11/08/2006 00:46:15
Primate vessage coming your way soon, Eneran

Got it. Responded. Funny, at my former forum, misspelling my moniker in various ways was a big traditional running gag. And... um... mentioning that probably spells doom for me. :(

Quote from: BlueSkirt on Fri 11/08/2006 04:58:04
I don't think we'd have been the slowly more and more open society we are today if we didn't had all the David's statue, Story of O, Ceci N'est Pas Une Pipe, Elvis's dance moves, The Clockwork Orange, Fight Club, etc.

Of course, often the people who want to censor and rate and etc. are the ones who have demur with said openness.

Well, much has happened while I was sleeping. I've encountered outright anger, indifference, and in some cases acceptance. What actually surprised me is how much acceptance, in all honesty this has gone over better than I hoped.

It is possibly the way I approached it. Perhaps if I said, "Hey I have this idea and I'd like for you to help me flesh it out," it would have been less hostile. But instead I said I developing this for the amateur gaming community. Which is no less true now than it was when I started it.

However, I want to thank everyone here that has contributed. That includes those of you against this system. Conversation, while heated stayed mostly on topic, and stayed into debate stages. It has not turned into a flame war, and honest discussion over this system has taken place.

And I wanted you all to know I appreciate it.

As to many of the concerns that were raised while I was sleeping... one is a regulation aspect... An aspect that I wanted to avoid completely, but the fact is, there are people out there that lie, and would purposely join the system, just to buck it. Which leaves me to believe that there should be some sort of email address to where people that have been decieved can send complaints. What's left is a blacklist system where people can check what sites claim to be EAGMA but because of lying, aren't.

Something I'm tossing around now.

Again, thanks for the good debate, it's brought up many things I haven't thought of yet.

EDIT: Erenan, ask those around that have seen me on the forums and the IRC channel for awhile, I am not a prude. I'm a very open person. I personally have nothing against anything or anybody. I just thought of an informational system, not a way to keep people from making the games they want, or people from playing the games they want.

I didn't mean you, Alynn. Actually, I'm often the one irritated with said openness. At least, when it gets out of control.

Good morning.

Evil is now sleeping so I thought I'd post.

Well, Alynn is onto something and is just providing an informational service. Information, apparently these days, is our most valued comodity.
Indeed, people might steer away from the game if they see an icon depicting violence, but the general message is conveyed via the review. That's how the people still play your revolutionary, tabu game.
If the review says "Play this revolutionary tabu game, but mind the icons" and there are icons for extreme violence (i'm taking the example of 5DAS, which was quite a good game, but in true yahtzee style it was full of violence).
By the way, what is Mittens anyway and where do you sign-up for this EAGMA?

...

EVIL TWIN: Hey, bro!
GOOD TWIN: (oh crap he's up) Hey, Evil!
EVIL TWIN: Wassup?
GOOD TWIN: Oh, nothing...
EVIL TWIN: Whatcha doing?
GOOD TWIN: Erm... just-
EVIL TWIN: I see you're posting. Where's the little-
GOOD TWIN: He's not here, Evil.
EVIL TWIN: Well move over, I'm gonna slag someone!
GOOD TWIN: NO!
EVIL TWIN: Fine, but after I brush my teeth I'm gonna kick your ass!
GOOD TWIN: Yes, yes, whatever, Evil...

So anyway, that's my point of view and I apologise for what Evil might do: Sorry.

Quote from: HelmAnd no, I don't mean make games that people want to play. I mean make games that fit our individual visions without compromise. Just make what YOU'D like to play, and there'll be people to like them.

When did I ever say you should compromise?
When did I ever disagree with the statement that "if you make what YOU'd like to play, then there'll be people who like them"?
It is true that if you make something you don't really like, just because you think someone else will, it's a sure road to disaster.
But...
If you have something to say than you want people to hear it. And having something to say is what matters (and I don't mean that your message has to drip from the screen, or that everything has to be Disneyfied) .

QuoteWho are you and why are you telling me this as if I care?

Because you're 'partaking in this discussion to exchange views on the subject' (as you said it yourself). Which implies that you should care about what the others are saying. And that includes me. If you don't care, than you're not partaking. I made the assumption that you were. So I made the preassumption that you did care. If I'm wrong about that, than I'm sorry. But then again...if that were true, than why should I - or anyone else here (if you don't want to personalize it) - care about your views? - I cannot believe that you are sharing them with us in the hope that we 'just don't care'.

(By the way, why did you remove my smiley in your quote? - I put it there for a reason, so you - or anyone else - wouldn't fall over it the way you did. Apparently it didn't help).

QuoteSorry, let me slap this WARNING: MAY EXTRUDE NEGATIVE AURA sticker on me. It's ok! I drew it myself!

You could use it as an avatar. Or - if you need more space - as a signature. I have no idea how many warnings you need.Ã,  ;)

QuoteMore talking to me as if we're engaged in some sort of personal discussion me and you. I don't know you, did I perhaps by accident talk about something you said in this thread previously?

Somehow I doubt that pressing the 'reply with quote'-button to a post of mine, removing all text but one line of the post, and replying to that can be considered an accident. But hay, if you say so...

QuoteI don't know you, did I perhaps by accident talk about something you said in this thread previously? Seriously, do we know each other? I am partaking in this discussion to exchange views on the subject, not to convince you personally of anything.

I was trying to make you show that you could think outside of the box you're currently in.
You haven't shown that.
It's a way to test how well someones views are thought out, while trying to keep the respect required for a fruitful discussion. To me you've failed that test. So I feel there's nothing else I can add to this discussion without either (or both) of us getting really annoyed by the other. I have no intention of that, and I don't think you have.

Anyway, I'm off now...until the next time at a different discussion. Who knows, maybe I'll be on 'your side' (for those who are about such things).Ã,  :D

Nothing personal, but 'till we meet again, :P

Misj'

Ps. I still think a system where people are in a simple way informed about the general atmosphere of the game a good idea. I do have my doubts whether it's achievable in such an extend that it's actually useful (more than two games have to use it, how can it be implied to free downloads, should there be a special icon: 'Helm Inside' Ã, ;) , will it induce censorship to be accepted for a certain rating, &c. &c.). I dunno...

QuoteWhen did I ever say you should compromise?

Making games that people want to play is usually mutually exclusive with making games without compromising. Bending to theoretical generic-gamer whims is what the big boys have to do. We don't.

QuoteIf you have something to say than you want people to hear it. And having something to say is what matters

Well I am sorry to say, but if there's any communicational bent to the 'entertainment' you're putting out there, if you have something, anything to say, even if you don't know exactly what it is yourself, you're making art! Woo! Enjoy being like everybody else!

QuoteBecause you're 'partaking in this discussion to exchange views on the subject' (as you said it yourself). Which implies that you should care about what the others are saying.

You misunderstand. I care about what people have to say on the topic. Not about their conceited ideas about how people like what they do as opposed to them not liking the art the rest of us do. If you wanna talk about yourself, find someone else to do this with.

Quote(By the way, why did you remove my smiley in your quote? - I put it there for a reason, so you - or anyone else - wouldn't fall over it the way you did. Apparently it didn't help).

It was  taken out because when I select stuff to copy-paste, the browser doesn't lift smileys.

If you resort to a single smiley to carry the demeanor of what otherwise seems like a very insulting and arrogant statement like 'I don't make art. What I make people actually like' then don't be surprized when people call you on such bullshit regardless.

QuoteI was trying to make you show that you could think outside of the box you're currently in.

Don't patronize me. This presupposes you're outside all the little boxes looking at us struggling around our preconceptions. What makes you think I haven't at one time considered or even endorsed a lot of the ideas I am in opposition to now? Behave more like a person interested in opinions and less like a person here to guide us through the entangled forests of confusion into the pure, signular light in whose glory you seem to effortlessly bask.

I understand your point of view well enough.

QuotePs. I still think a system where people are in a simple way informed about the general atmosphere of the game a good idea.

Yea, how about the combined effect of a few screenshots, a plot synopsis and some bits of dialogue and stuff like oh, EVERYONE IS ALREADY DOING? Again, what earlwood said.



Ratings hold special social charges, special significance, and you should better realize that. They were devised by idiots to protect idiots from feeling like idiots. I don't see any need of them in the amateur community.

Then why don't you let us "destroy our own art" while you stand "above us and be all superior-like" mister "all-knowing helm"?

That was a bad think to say and I am slaping myself as we speak.

You speak of art, mr. helm, well elighten me, what do you understand through the word "art"?

Quote from: Helm on Thu 10/08/2006 23:41:02

QuoteHelm - are you this vehemently opposed to the ratings here at AGS?

No because an abstract 1-10 scale doesn't make moral judgements nor does it fragment 'potentially offensive' sequence from meaning. It's just an average of how the general public felt the game stood up to their expectations of play. Therefore,  useful on that level.

I was actually talking about these things:

(http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/images/iconlang.gif)

(http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/images/iconsex.gif)

(http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/images/iconviol.gif)

As is the topic of this thread.

Yes!

So helm, what do you think of the site's ratings, huh?
When the site first proposed these, did you attack Big Blue Cup as well?

Quote from: Dan_N_GameZ on Fri 11/08/2006 12:02:29
You speak of art, mr. helm, well elighten me, what do you understand through the word "art"?

If the term "art" could be clearly defined in a way that everyone agrees on then it is highly likely that this (and several other) discussion(s) could be easily resolved.

But if I were to quote a single definition of "art" from a dictionary I'm sure several people would dispute it in some way.

I've been sitting on the fence on this one for a couple of days but I think Helm & earlwood have got it about right. Telling people what is in your game before they play it defeats the purpose of having it in there in the first place, to a certain extent.

If people are offended by your content, then surely in a way you have suceeded in your "art"? Because if you did not wish to shock even a little by the extreme swearing & violence in your game then why did you put it in in the first place?

But if people choose to use this sort of thing in their game, I won't object. It's up to the individual in the end.

Gentlemen,
Ã,  If you would, please do not turn this into an Us vs. Helm thread.

Helm stated his opinion, one that I understand his point. While I don't agree with it, I understand it, and I leave it be.

I am not trying to convince anyone to use this system, I'm really not. What I am trying to do is get ideas and opinions on how to improve a content advisory system, which I am completely removing the word "ratings" as it does have a certain negitive concious or subconcious tone.

I like this idea, if you like this idea then support it by interjecting with ideas and critiques of the idea to improve upon the idea.

Helm does not like this idea, repect Helm's opinion of the idea. He has every right and privilidge to dislike the idea as I do to like the idea.

I believe this conversation is prompting me to add a portion to the charter of repecting others opinions, which really, shouldn't have to be done.

People should do this anyway, at least in my opinion.

Indeed.

I respect helm's person and his opinions and ideeas, but why must he attack this system as oppressive and censoring. I should know about censorship, i'm easter european (romania, if anyone heard of that) and we got it bad. not that i lived those times (thank god, but then again life still sucks now too) but i have a hint as too what went on.

So, again this system is VOLUNTARY! and no-one will be forced into it.

Besides, i don't think a little icon saying: lots of swearing! will destroy the edge your game has. That is, unless when mouse is above icon a giant help-hint (or whatever those yellow things are) appears displaying the script of your game.

All Helm (and earlwood, whose posts you all seem to completely disregard) is saying is that what you're doing with content ratings is completely unnecessary.

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. Nobody is attacking anyone.

I've enjoyed reading Helm's responses.

And that's all I have to say on the matter..!

I think each rating logo should be horribly disturbing, in each of their own special ways.
(dead guy covered in blood) WARNING: this game is extremely gory
(guy getting head chopped off): WARNING: This game is really violent.
(two people screwing): WARNING: Sex Scenes.
(man smoking pot): WARNING: Drug use.
And put these logos right in the beginning of the game, so kids can't possibly miss it!

I've not got anything productive to say, really, but I thought I'd post to let you know, Alynn, that I think this is a really great idea.Ã,  If you get it up, I'll definately use it on any new games I finish.

Dan: If you wish to discuss something with me, first you need to approach me as a human being and not as the butt of your juvenile insults. I can easily mock you and humiliate you in return, but you don't see me doing so because I am not in this thread to attack anyone. That you see me take your bullshit without complaining should let you know that I have some tolerance for THIS IS THE INTERNET LOL people. But my tolerance is not unlimited.

Captain Binky: yes, I am against those sprites in the database as well. Thankfully they are small and extremely incomprehensible.

I can understand people's objections to the current rating systems and to the proposed rating system, but I think they can serve a purpose.

I enjoy dark themes, but I don't like gratuitous gore. A warning label could be useful for me because it would help me to identify something that screenshots and a synopsis might not. On the other hand, if I read a sufficiently compelling storyline I would be happy to disregard such a warning.

Content ratings are not necessary, but for some people they can be useful. The proposed system will be optional, so makers will not be compelled to apply the system to their work and players will not be compelled to pay the ratings any heed.

That seems like a happy state of affairs to me.

I agree with Ali.
Since the ratings are optional, the maker is actually creating the game he would like to play even if it has rating stickers (no compromising).

Even suggested standardised ratings/icons are fine by me since they are not only optional, but also easier for gamers to recognise content by.

In the end, anyone can still create their own game. Even un-rated games would still get downloads from non-rating-conformists, people that have seen violence before and those that don't fit into the two previous categories.

This debate somehow reminds me of the one in music with people who want to categorise music and those who don't. Guess I belong into the type of people who find genres as a useful tool for narrowing out information and my opinion is biased in that way.

I don't believe the ratings are more harmful than saying "made with AGS", which leads the gamer to expect a certain gameplay mechanic and development effort (assuming he/she knows what AGS is).

The current method used on these forums (1-2 screenshots + description/plot outline) is far more effective though, since a single word/symbol says less but still conjures a powerful image and expectations.

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. 

Quote from: Vince Twelve on Sat 12/08/2006 12:41:53
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!"

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

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.

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.

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.

Quotethere 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.

Quote from: Helm on Sat 12/08/2006 15:21:22
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.

Quote from: Helm on Sat 12/08/2006 15:21:22
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.

Quote from: Helm on Sat 12/08/2006 15:21:22
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.

Quote from: Vince Twelve on Sat 12/08/2006 12:41:53
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?

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.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 12/08/2006 22:04:12
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.)