I’m not against applying BBFC ratings to games, I am against the flawed methods of observing and testing gaming that is endemic in every review of this industry.

Yes, give it an age rating.. no, don’t ban them because of a flawed understanding of how games affect their players.

Subjecting games to more stringent censorship allows politicians to extract more rent from entertainers. Ignore what they say, just watch what they do.

re 50 cent being banned in Australia – I just looked up the list of “refused classification” (e.g. banned) games, and 50 cent was on it. They very well may have cut the offending content and got it classified for sale with the cut version.

That’s what GTA III:SA did by submitting a no hot coffee version after the original version got banned.

I like it better when they do the Aussie ratings by putting stickers over the original PEGI or ESRB ratings, instead of an integral part of the box art. I can rip the stickers off then :-)

I think this is the key here and bravo for putting it so clearly.

This is why Brits and Americans who are enthustiastic gamers of similar liberal leanings seem to find it so hard to find common ground on the issue.

Was also asked last week to buy Kane & Lynch by a child who looked around 12, needless to say i turned them down.

Bravo! No-one should inflict ‘Kane & Lynch’ upon an innocent child — they’d never wake up.

And I agree re: the Australian censors dropping mind-altering substances; they used to have those nice little symbols with a text warning down underneath everything, and now they’ve got these enormous, garish slabs of warning text splatted just below-centre on every game and DVD cover in the fucking country. Of course, quite beyond that, the trigger-happy banning of games and, much more prominently, films, would quite rightly make us a global laughingstock if our country didn’t have the population and global profile of, oh, Milton Keynes. We’re not quite as badly-off as Germany’s reputed to be, but it’s still unacceptable.

Rating will not prevent any of us from buying anything. Sssh.”

Agreed completely. But rating will (with a bit of luck) head off banning, and rating on the same basis as films will (with a bit of luck) head off the notion that games are somehow “extra bad” compared to other entertainment.

Because, let’s face it, there’s blood in the water right now. A lot of newspapers who can spell “whip public into hysterical frenzy over subject they don’t understand” can smell it. A lot of politicians who can spell “look morally upright” (or “deny the conservatives a chance to outflank us from the right” if they’re ministers) smell it too.

FWIW, I suspect Mr Brown will make a show of looking at a “crackdown”. That’ll make him look concerned, make him look tough on moral issues, and deny the conservatives an issue of their own. Then he’ll announce that having considered the matter, relatively modest measures are appropriate. That’ll make him look sensible and reasonable. Also, making it look like there’s a crackdown on the cards will make it easier for those who object to swallow whatever eventually comes out of it. Well, that’s how I’d plan the spin campaign if I were in office.

Re America: in the USA, putting legal restrictions on games would make them different from films, so it’s a bad idea. In Britain it would make them the same as films, so it’s not a bad idea.

“Or should age ratings on games be at the discretion of parents?” – Yes. This is not an ‘or’, since the child could ask an adult to buy it for them. This then puts the onus on the adult to do what they think is right. A parent should be able to buy their child a game or film if they genuinely think they are capable of handling the scenarios depicted within with an adult attitude.

“In fact, will putting a red age sticker on the cover make any difference for parents who willingly buy PEGI-rated games for their children at the moment?” Yes, because BBFC marks are far more prominent and recognisable to parents and adults of all ages than the PEGI marks.

BBFC marks are already an established icon in mainstream British visual culture for all ages and pursuits, applying to cinema ratings and film sales. BBFC marks appear by mandate on all film posters, the front of all VHS, DVD and UMD boxes, and on the outside of cinemas after the movie title. There is little-to-no chance a parent might be in any confusion about what age a film is suitable for in the UK.

While still appearing on the boxes, PEGI, on the other hand, is a wimp of an age rating. I couldn’t seem to find anything on its website that states where the rating sticker should be displayed and at what size. Why? Because it’s a voluntary system that carries no weight.

On the ‘ratings explained’ page, I found:
“At the end of the process, products concerned are granted by NICAM, on behalf of ISFE, a license to use a specific logo and possibly descriptors as well.”

‘Granted a license’ to display a warning that your kid shouldn’t be playing it? Yeah, might just put that PEGI rating on the back pof the box, and scale it down so it’s barely noticeable. The syringe, spider and fist of power silhouettes can stay, though, they look fun. The kids’ll like that. Good thing they’re not like the BIG-RED-FRONT-OF-BOX BBFC rating that screams “warning, this product might be a portent of evil and the unknown for your child”.

I absolutely don’t have a problem with industry self-certification subject to checks by a regulatory body (before release for 16 and 18 games, after release for 12 and below). What I do have a problem with is that, while the essence of the message conveyed to the seller and buyer may be informative enough, the manner in which it is displayed needs to be more eye-catching and uniform. This information shouldn’t be hidden away, it should be on the front of the box for all games so this ridiculous argument about whether games are a damaging effect on chidren can be taken up with the real offenders: the retailer and the consumer.