Skyrim Gets 15 Rating in UK

[Rooster Cogburn]

"Enforceable by law"
Wasn't that basically the whole idea behind California's bill? If that was all that was behind it, and it probably wasn't, then it was a silly thing to get offended by.

The California bill wasn't like that at all. Everyone just assumes it was without even bothering to read a description of it. Not that I'm blaming you, I'm sure that's what you heard.

And actually, that kind of law would create a constitutional shitstorm. We would have to totally rethink what freedom of speech means and how it is enforced in America. Plus, it would be a colossal waste of time. Our system works perfectly despite being 100% voluntary. Why mess that up?

Wait, ESRB are only advisory? Does that mean a 12 year old kid in America would be able to purchase Grand Theft Auto?

That's pretty awesome. (Or not... I'm really not sure if I should be scared by that or not)

Legally, sure. The police can't stop them. But if a twelve year old can find someone actually willing to sell them Grand Theft Auto, they might as well pick up some beer and cigarettes instead while they have the chance.

Actually, having a BBFC rating over here protects games as art. The BBFC (or British Board of Film Classification) clearly sees games alongside films in terms of regulation. Movies and films have long been recognised as an artform, and the BBFC's belief that games fall into the same category is at the very least a vote of confidence. I don't know how rating works over the pond but over here it is just as illegal for a 12 year old to watch a 15 rated film as it is for the same kid to play an 15 rated game. And surely for games to be held up to the same standards as other artforms is what gamers are after.

And say what you like, at least that gives the industry some protection when some fruit-loop decides to go psycho and it's discovered that he once owned a copy of Fuzzy's World of Miniature Space Golf.

That's just it- in the U.S., it's not illegal for a 12 year old to watch a mature film. Over here, art is intentionally not regulated. Government regulation would mean video games are not protected art. As discussed above, we have alternative measures in place to restrict minors from mature material. They are very effective.

 

[imnot]

...and?

So Skyrim is more violent than Oblivion, big whoop, I hardly see the significance.

So it's down to you saying monkeys/chimps/apes are not and cannot be 'wise'. I can deal with that. I can also deal with Argonian on Argonian sex. It's when you cross breed and marry that I find it sick.

Also: Don't call people trolls, even if they are, it's not proper according to the rules we all agreed to.

An Argonian having sex with a say...Breton is just like a real world Caucasian having sex with an Asian or a Hispanic having sex with an African.

In the Elder Scrolls universe all of the playable races are sentient and humanoid, they're just more unique than those of our world because it's a fantasy world.

I have a friend with a Caucasian dad and a Hispanic mum, do you find that sick?

It's a LIZARD MAN!!!!!!

Why would you compare that to someone who is Asian or Hispanic?!?!?!

EDIT: I find it hilarious that it isn't okay for me to think this is disgusting, and it's equally funny how visceral people are being in defense to marrying a lizard/cat character in a video game.

But thats the thing! It Is a video game! it's not real!, It's not harming anyone, and you aren't forced too!

OT: THis means I can get it on release in retail, Excelent .

 

[Suicidejim]

Umm . . . is this a big deal? I used to live in Britain, when a game was rated higher than my age I'd either just go over to my friend's house to play it, because his parents didn't really mind most of the time, or I'd just go 'ah well, I'll buy that game instead.' Besides, the Elder Scrolls games are addictive, you don't want a load of 14-year old kids exhausted in school after playing it until 2 in the morning. Anyway, Oblivion was the same, so this is kind of expected.

 

[maninahat]

"Enforceable by law"
Wasn't that basically the whole idea behind California's bill? If that was all that was behind it, and it probably wasn't, then it was a silly thing to get offended by.

The thing with that was that video games would have lost the first amendment right and wouldn't have been allowed to be advertised on TV like cigarettes.(I think, not sure about the TV part).

The age thing wasn't really what everyone cared about

Also, the California bill was based on games being exceptional. No other form of media was getting a bill like it. This isn't the case with the UK law, which applies these rules across the board for films and games and popular media.

 

[pwnzerstick]

Watch it get an 18 rating a week after launch due to nude mods

 

[Slowpool]

Toasting in epic bestiality thread.

Seriously, though, why is the rating news? Why does it even matter? Or is it not supposed to, and I'm several flavors of dumb?

 

[dmase]

wait so 15+ in UK is something like mature in America AND you guys have 18 as the drinking age? Wtf makes you so special.

Videogame sequels aren't always great but one thing they do right all the time is keep the level of maturity up. A movie like Shrek appealed to all ages but as the series progressed it slowly lost appeal to anybody over 15. Its good to know games like TES, GoW, and CoD won't pussy foot around the rating system's... unless you live in Australia.

 

[FamoFunk]

What does it matter, under 15's will still have it, there parents can even buy if for them in their presence.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Actually, having a BBFC rating over here protects games as art. The BBFC (or British Board of Film Classification) clearly sees games alongside films in terms of regulation. Movies and films have long been recognised as an artform, and the BBFC's belief that games fall into the same category is at the very least a vote of confidence. I don't know how rating works over the pond but over here it is just as illegal for a 12 year old to watch a 15 rated film as it is for the same kid to play an 15 rated game. And surely for games to be held up to the same standards as other artforms is what gamers are after.

And say what you like, at least that gives the industry some protection when some fruit-loop decides to go psycho and it's discovered that he once owned a copy of Fuzzy's World of Miniature Space Golf.

That's just it- in the U.S., it's not illegal for a 12 year old to watch a mature film. Over here, art is intentionally not regulated. Government regulation would mean video games are not protected art. As discussed above, we have alternative measures in place to restrict minors from mature material. They are very effective.

I'm not really talking about protection of the public, I'm talking really about protection of the artist (developer, in this case). Under an advisory system, whilst a minor shouldn't really play a mature game, they can if the want to. This, legally, places the onus on developers to scale back their content because even though minors are discouraged from buying mature material, they cannot be legally stopped. Under an enforced system, since it is illegal for a minor to be sold (in person or by proxy) mature content, then game devs are free to put in their game what they want put in, and the responsibility for a minor being exposed to adult material switches from the industry to either the game store or the parents respectively.

Just look at the way cases of 'videogame violence' are handled in countries with no regulation: mass media hypes, messy court cases that drag on and on (some successful, others not so), calls for some games to be banned or even outlawed (some upheld, others dismissed), and cries that devs should restrict their content (remember the Hitman furore with the Saddam/Osama levels?). And then look at the way the same issues are handled in countries with regulation: Some mild media outcry (usually started by a news corporation from a non-regulated country *cough*Fox*cough*), shortly follwed by the case being thrown out of court on the basis that the developers can do what they want and it's the parent's fault for breaking the law and buying Manhunt for their primary school kid.

Also please note that the above points are from a legal standpoint only. Morally, minors should not be exposed to explicit material whether the industry is question is regulated or not. I am merely showing the differences in the two systems when videogames get dragged into the courts. Whilst I have no doubt that the freedoms you experience in the US are better for the individual, my point is that the restrictions we have in the UK are better for the industry.

 

[Dexiro]

Why the fuck are people saying Skyrim will have bestiality. A human consenting with other intelligent humanoid certainly isn't comparable to a human sleeping with a dog, but it seems like that's what people are implying.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I'm not really talking about protection of the public, I'm talking really about protection of the artist (developer, in this case). Under an advisory system, whilst a minor shouldn't really play a mature game, they can if the want to. This, legally, places the onus on developers to scale back their content because even though minors are discouraged from buying mature material, they cannot be legally stopped. Under an enforced system, since it is illegal for a minor to be sold (in person or by proxy) mature content, then game devs are free to put in their game what they want put in, and the responsibility for a minor being exposed to adult material switches from the industry to either the game store or the parents respectively.

Just look at the way cases of 'videogame violence' are handled in countries with no regulation: mass media hypes, messy court cases that drag on and on (some successful, others not so), calls for some games to be banned or even outlawed (some upheld, others dismissed), and cries that devs should restrict their content (remember the Hitman furore with the Saddam/Osama levels?). And then look at the way the same issues are handled in countries with regulation: Some mild media outcry (usually started by a news corporation from a non-regulated country *cough*Fox*cough*), shortly follwed by the case being thrown out of court on the basis that the developers can do what they want and it's the parent's fault for breaking the law and buying Manhunt for their primary school kid.

Also please note that the above points are from a legal standpoint only. Morally, minors should not be exposed to explicit material whether the industry is question is regulated or not. I am merely showing the differences in the two systems when videogames get dragged into the courts. Whilst I have no doubt that the freedoms you experience in the US are better for the individual, my point is that the restrictions we have in the UK are better for the industry.

I sort of knew what you meant. I just wasn't sure if you were aware that art is not regulated in the United States. I've had that conversation many times, so I guess I was anticipating having it again. You were speaking of regulation as granting status, but in the United States it is perceived as robbing status. I'll just assume we are talking about government regulation of art in general, though of course our specific focus will be games. Singling out games brings another pile of issues.

I don't think things are so rosy in all countries with government regulation. Australia and Germany jump to mind as countries where government regulation often restricts content. Even in the U.K., a new 'video nasty' scare could arise any time with similar or worse results. And you have Stanley Kubrick, who took Clockwork Orange out of theaters there, despite government regulation. It was not submitted for review to be sold in the United Kingdom until Kubrick's death. Pressures exist in all countries, and besides, developers must work around legal barriers as surely as advisory ones.

I wouldn't want a regulated system in any case. But I don't think the method of regulation or self-regulation is a huge factor in the severity of public outcry. I think we just have more vocal moral objectors at the moment. On the right, they want to protect Christian values. On the left, they want to save us from our own foolish selves. And everybody cries, "think of the children!" Thank goodness for the judiciary.

The people who are trying to impose government regulation over here are conspicuously not doing it to protect developers and distributors. Nor do they mean to protect the type of content developers can put into games. They regularly demonize the video game industry as greedily profiteering from the corruption of youth. Their intent is to enact sanctions against the industry and limit the type of content that can be made available. I really do not think any good can come from putting regulatory power in the hands of such people. I'm skeptical that regulation is actually a boon to U.K. developers and distributors and I certainly don't think it would work that way in the American States.

I think video game professionals and consumers will just have to bear the brunt of public hysteria for a while. But as I am ever quick to point out, I would never choose a regulatory system while our advisory system still functions just fine.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

I sort of knew what you meant. I just wasn't sure if you were aware that art is not regulated in the United States. I've had that conversation many times, so I guess I was anticipating having it again. You were speaking of regulation as granting status, but in the United States it is perceived as robbing status. I'll just assume we are talking about government regulation of art in general, though of course our specific focus will be games. Singling out games brings another pile of issues.

I don't think things are so rosy in all countries with government regulation. Australia and Germany jump to mind as countries where government regulation often restricts content. Even in the U.K., a new 'video nasty' scare could arise any time with similar or worse results. And you have Stanley Kubrick, who took Clockwork Orange out of theaters there, despite government regulation. It was not submitted for review to be sold in the United Kingdom until Kubrick's death. Pressures exist in all countries, and besides, developers must work around legal barriers as surely as advisory ones.

I wouldn't want a regulated system in any case. But I don't think the method of regulation or self-regulation is a huge factor in the severity of public outcry. I think we just have more vocal moral objectors at the moment. On the right, they want to protect Christian values. On the left, they want to save us from our own foolish selves. And everybody cries, "think of the children!" Thank goodness for the judiciary.

The people who are trying to impose government regulation over here are conspicuously not doing it to protect developers and distributors. Nor do they mean to protect the type of content developers can put into games. They regularly demonize the video game industry as greedily profiteering from the corruption of youth. Their intent is to enact sanctions against the industry and limit the type of content that can be made available. I really do not think any good can come from putting regulatory power in the hands of such people. I'm skeptical that regulation is actually a boon to U.K. developers and distributors and I certainly don't think it would work that way in the American States.

I think video game professionals and consumers will just have to bear the brunt of public hysteria for a while. But as I am ever quick to point out, I would never choose a regulatory system while our advisory system still functions just fine.

I wasn't aware of the lack of media regulation in the US, and I must say it sounds a little strange as movies have always been regulated during my lifetime. I'd be interested to know if you have tv regulation as well, like we do over here with the evening 'watershed'.

It's kinda sad that the proposed bill over your end is being used by perhaps the wrong people for the wrong reasons, and in their hands I can see why such a bill would be viewed as more damaging than constructive. But I gotta say, I had been a gamer for a good few years when the BBFC took ever ratings for games in the mid 90's, and I prefer the 'after' to the 'before'. Gaming suffered very little (I think the worst that happened when classifications first came in was that Carmageddon had to change the blood colour palette from red to green so that helpless old ladies were replaced with vile zombies) and the concern in the media over what games were doing to younger kids died right down because in the minds of the parents someone was enforcing some level of control.

Interestingly enough, it would seem that public (or corporate) opinion is not in my favour, however, as plans are afoot over here to replace the legally enforcable BBFC ratings on games with the advisory only PEGI system over the next few years. As you can probably guess I think that's a step backwards, but hey, I don't run the country.

 

[Hexador]

It's the 'fucking lizard people, cat people, orc people' ect, that I'm talking about. Actually, it's more about the marriage that concerns me. Breeding between the species is kinda fucking wrong.

The fact that you acknowledge the "lizard people, cat people, orc people" are actually people in the context of the fantasy world they live in makes your entire argument moot.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bestiality
From merriam-webster:
Definition of BESTIALITY
1: the condition or status of a lower animal
2: display or gratification of bestial traits or impulses
3: sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal

Unless of course you intend to RP a Nazi in Skyrim.

 

[Hexador]

wait so 15+ in UK is something like mature in America AND you guys have 18 as the drinking age? Wtf makes you so special.

They don't live in a country that gets a large portion of its ethical/moral values from a bunch of long dead protestants that sailed across the Atlantic ocean to escape religious/political persecution...?

That's my best guess.