Labour MP Wants Clearer Labels on Games

[DominicxD]

As if it matters anyway.

I was playing stuff like Mafia and Diablo 2 when I was 8-9 and I haven't murdered anyone.

It seems to me that gaming is just a scapegoat for them to blame to act as if they're dealing with the issue. Actually I've forgotten what the issue is, it's been so long since an actual video game related tragedy has occured (Modern Warfare 2 excluded, of course) that it all just seems to be fine.

 

[UnravThreads]

PEGI uses icons instead of descriptions, so a Syringe means Drug Use - It doesn't "explain" the level of that content.

What more needs to be explained? Do we need to write a list of every single point in the game in which something is injected into someone?

No, but you missed the point I was making.

BBFC is the stronger rating in that it describes the level of content the game contains - "Strong Violence", "Moderate Language", "Frequent Bloody Violence" etc. PEGI doesn't have this, and would use the same picture for all levels of it. So, another example, PEGI would have the "Fist" icon (i.e. violence) for anything from Comic Violence to Very Strong Bloody Violence.

PEGI just doesn't have that sliding scale, and as such it's not as informative as BBFC. Either way, though, if it's got a big red 18 on the front of the cover, whether it's BBFC or PEGI, that should really say it all.

 

[Flying Dagger]

he's a backbench MP from the opposition party, i have more power to change things than him.

Actually he has a fair bit of support in the labour party, was a minister and writes quite a lot of articles for the times.

He was a minister, i did not know this. What was he a minister for? I mostly know him for his constant stream of inflammatory bullshit.

In 1999 he was promoted, becoming Minister for Europe in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and was tipped to become a Cabinet Minister.

He was dropped from the post later that year due to forgetting to declare interests however.

It is also worth remembering that all he is calling for is a debate on the issue, the outcome of the debate could be "We should further advise parents (Via tv ads or leaflets) of the dangers of purchasing games for those under the age limit"

 

[Fortunefaded]

I find it more disturbing you can join the army and kill someone with a real weapon before you can legally play a grand theft auto game.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Clearer labels, clearer than, 3+, 5+, 8+, 15, 18 etc.? How much clearer do you need? They already have like fantasy violence or swearing written on the label >.< (Or last time I bought a disc copy they did )

Yeah Hawk Eye is right, they are pretty freakin clear. Theres EC(early childhood) e, e 10 and up, teen, M, and AC. Those are more clearer then G, PG, PG13, R, and X

 

[Darktau]

Clearer labels, clearer than, 3+, 5+, 8+, 15, 18 etc.? How much clearer do you need? They already have like fantasy violence or swearing written on the label >.< (Or last time I bought a disc copy they did )

Yeah Hawk Eye is right, they are pretty freakin clear. Theres EC(early childhood) e, e 10 and up, teen, M, and AC. Those are more clearer then G, PG, PG13, R, and X

Sorry its not longer hawkeye . and I haven't seen EC and AC before :O (or G and X for that matter)

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Clearer labels, clearer than, 3+, 5+, 8+, 15, 18 etc.? How much clearer do you need? They already have like fantasy violence or swearing written on the label >.< (Or last time I bought a disc copy they did )

Yeah Hawk Eye is right, they are pretty freakin clear. Theres EC(early childhood) e, e 10 and up, teen, M, and AC. Those are more clearer then G, PG, PG13, R, and X

Sorry its not longer hawkeye . and I haven't seen EC and AC before :O (or G and X for that matter)

AWWWW :[ Its been awhile since a game or movie has been ether that good or that bad

 

[UnravThreads]

Hmmm... Touché. But surely you could gain some sort of insight from the box art and certificate? You don't just look blankly at the symbols on the back; you can look at them in context.

Indeed you can, but if you get a collection of 12 and 15 rated games (BBFC, of course), you'll see quite a wide variation in what levels of content are contained within. If you got the same number of 12 and 16 games rated by PEGI, it'd be much less clear what the level of content is.

I'm not sure exactly how games are rated and how those ratings are decided, mind you.

 

[Evil Tim]

This new motion suggests a person who is concerned about violent games, and wants to take very reasonable steps to make sure that kids aren't playing them.

No, actually it doesn't. Want to play a fun game? We'll call it "spot the rating."

Now, our top column are some nice old games. Allied Assault up there has an ELSPA 15+ rating it doesn't bother to display on the front of the box at all, while Shinobi and Resident Evil 4 get away with rating logos roughly the same size as they'd be on movie DVD cases.

Now, our bottom row of modern games, and the rating logo is now over an inch across and larger than the company logo. PEGI games also have a set of icons on the back to show why they carry a given rating. So, how come games need even larger rating and content descriptors, while movies can have them the same size as games did back in the PS2 era? How come a kid playing Resident Evil 5 is a worse problem than them watching Hostel, Saw or Hellraiser?

It's because it's the same old Keith Vaz, singing from the same old hymn sheet. He honestly believes that parents just don't understand these terrible, horrid videogames and if they had bigger logos saying how terrible and horrid they were they'd stop buying them; it doesn't occur to him that parents might actually choose to buy these games in spite of the rating due to thinking their child is mature enough or simply not giving a damn. Cigarettes sold in the UK now have vast sections of packaging dedicated to telling people not to smoke for the same reason; self-righteous people who are happy with you making any choice you want NO NOT THAT ONE.

 

[Evil Tim]

It's not reasonable for a man who previously attacked games to step off his high horse and start thinking logically? Even if the idea's been done before, what's important is that he's looking at a logical answer instead of an outright ban.

The Golden Mean Fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation] is not typically how you get to a logical answer.

 

[Evil Tim]

In this case a middle ground is perfectly acceptable.

Why? There's nothing that needs to be done; games already have their age rating announced by a logo four times larger than that used for movies with an equivalent certificate, despite that movies can contain far more graphic content than videogames. People like Vaz need to accept that people are buying the games in full knowledge of how they've been rated, and accept that if you give people a choice, you can't constantly try to steer them away from the option you don't agree with.

Suggesting that games must be more tightly regulated in England on the basis of Australia, the only Western democracy that bans products designed for adults on the basis they are not suitable for children, is absurd.

 

[Evil Tim]

And since when did nothing need to be done? You may be good and well with playing adult games because you are just that, an adult (maybe not, but you are mature enough) but if you look past yourself you'll see all manner of 8 year olds playing the types of games intended, as the labels suggest, for adults. It should be an initiative to educate parents on just what their kids are playing.

The problem is the emphasis on videogames is proof that Vaz is still the same old anti-game crusader he always was; these same children will almost certainly also have early access to age-restricted movies (indeed, they can get those on television just by staying up late), yet games are singled out for needing to be policed and monitored - this despite that games already display their age ratings more clearly than other age-restricted media are required to. It's not a reasonable position to single out a specific medium you hate in a slightly less extreme way than you used to.

The other problem is the assumption that parents wouldn't buy the games if they knew what was in them; the assumption is the same as cigarettes, that everyone will agree with you if you're just overbearing and obnoxious enough in informing them of the "correct" choice. If you're going to pretend to give people a choice, you can't go on to kvetch that they choose the option you don't agree with.