Smartbomb

On the 27th of March, Dr Tanya Byron delivered a report to the government entitled “Safer Children in a Digital World”, which dealt with issues of child safety on the internet, and regarding videogames. The ‘games’ side of her report concluded that the current system of games classification in the UK is far too confusing. Games are generally exempt from classification, thanks to the Video Recordings Act (1884), but retailers and hardware manufacturers insist that all games must be rated before they will be approved for sale or release, as a matter of policy. All games released in Europe are rated by PEGI, but games with particularly violent or sexually explicit scenes (or, amusingly, any game that features a lot of non-interactive video scenes) are also rated by the good ol’ BBFC, who (unlike PEGI) have the power to bestow legally-enforced age certificates, or refuse a game’s release (as with Manhunt 2).

Unfortunately, Dr Byron’s conclusions describe a – potentially – even more confusing alternative, where all games will be rated by both the BBFC and PEGI, with BBFC ratings on the front of the case and PEGI on the back (which is pretty much what happens already, for any game that qualifies for a BBFC rating). The general response from the games industry seems to agree with her findings, but disagree with her reccomendations – industry bodies like ELSPA have come out to say that game classification should be handled by the pan-European organisation PEGI.

Oh, she also reassured us that videogame violence probably isn’t as widespread and corrupting as certain parties may claim, but since this is pretty obvious to people who play games, it hasn’t received as much attention in the gaming press.

Anyway, as part of the ‘socio-cultural aspects’ module of my game studies degree, I wrote an essay about the Byron report, the state of UK games classification, and so on. Again, I agree with most of her findings, but I don’t think her conclusions make much sense. Speaking as a British consumer, and having done some research into the BBFC and PEGI’s methods, I’d really feel a lot happier if we just rated everything through the BBFC. I can understand that games would have to go through PEGI anyway, to qualify for release in other European countries, but I just think the BBFC have a much more sensible approach to classification – by taking into account the contexts in which game events take place, for example.

Ideally, I think the general classification exemption for games should be lifted, and the BBFC should establish a department dedicated to classifying games; either that, or create a British Board of Game Classification, with equivalent powers. Either way, following the BBFC’s own guidelines, games require a slightly different approach to classification compared to films – basically, because of film viewers interpellating with the victims of violence, whereas game players are more often directly identified as its perpetrator. Either way, once all games are being rated, we can have BBFC rating icons on the front of the box, and written content descriptions on the back, which seems like the clearest way to get the relevent information across to uninformed consumers.

That said, I have no idea how much something like this would cost. It just seems like the most logical answer to a complicated problem. I think it’s insane that a game like No More Heroes can have no legal age rating in the UK, when a game like Mass Effect does. I mean, Mass Effect has a lot of gunfights, and offers the opportunity to glimpse a pair of nipples, but No More Heroes is constructed entirely out of senseless slaughter, rampant perversion, and foul language.

You can download my complete essay here.