Re: My Game

[Mark Collins <me@thisisnurgle.org.uk>]

Warning: This email contains a joke that is very bad taste. You have been 
warned....

On Wednesday 12 September 2001 18:50, you wrote:

> So, do you want the job of reviewing every game against the standard?  Do
> you want to spend the rest of your life arguing with people who think that
> a cartoon penguin getting bloodily hacked to bits *isn't* violence and
> want's an E rating instead of a T?  Are you going to be the one to field
> all the calls from angry parents who let their child play the E==Everyone
> game that contained mildly violent content?  What about a game where it was
> a clear E rating when you reviewed it - but since it's OpenSource and
> changes daily - gradually turns more nasty and becomes something more
> worthy of an M rating - are you going to re-run every game every day?

I don't think this should be limited to OpenSource. Self-regulation of the 
entire industry would be a much better aim here. With the recent lawsuits 
over things like this (how long till MS is sued over Flight Simulator? The 
amount of times those damned towers got in my way flying over New York.... 
*grin*), I think the industry as a whole is more than willing to accept this 
idea with open arms.

If that is the case, a more formal system is needed than "Well, according to 
this paragraph, I fit into this catagory".

> Presuming the answer is "No", then the only reasonable alternatives are:
>
>   1) Let the author label the game - then it's all his fault if it's
>      mis-labelled.
>
>   2) Have some kind of a voting system...maybe something along the lines
>      of HappyPenguin - only let people rate the game both for quality and
>      for suitability.

 3) Have a clear guideline showing detailed criteria for each catagory.

> (1) is attractive because we can just create the system and walk away and
> let it run itself.  However, it's obviously open to abuse.  You have to ask
> yourself what people's motives to abuse the system would be...in the
> commercial world, you clearly want to get a T or preferably an E rating
> so you can increase your market share...unless you want to titillate people
> into buying the game and hence actually *want* an M rating.  But if you
> aren't making money at your game, what's your motive in giving it a wildly
> wrong rating?  I think peer pressure would be enough to bring people into
> line if they do something stoopid.
>
> (2) is mildly attractive - but most games on HappyPenguin never get rated
> and those that do are rarely rated by more than a couple of people.  Also,
> (as my XTux experience shows), you don't know how to rate the game until
> you've played it all the way through.  How do you know if the
> 'cutesy-cutesy' training level is followed by a graphically depicted gang
> rape scene in level ten?   The author knows - and can signal this with an M
> rating - but reviewers may not find the nasty parts.
>
> I think we just need to write a CLEAR set of guidelines for authors to
> use in rating their games - and perhaps suggest that people who don't
> know what rating they should apply should email to this list (or somewhere
> else) where they can get advice.

That's what I meant... Sorry if I was unclear.

If someone complains about a rating, then action is taken about it.

> I don't think we need to get complicated about this.
>
> All we really need to solve 90% of the problem is to provide a one page
> web site with six icons and six paragraphs of description that we simply
> paraphrase from the ESRB definition.  At the bottom of the page there
> should be a disclaimer that explains that the owners of the web page are
> not responsible for how game authors apply the ratings and that parents who
> are concerned about game content should always play the game before they
> let their kids use it because people often disagree about what is
> appropriate for children of various ages and therefore the ratings system
> is only a guideline.

The problem with descriptions is that they are subjective. A checklist with a 
scoring system would go a long way to clearing up any problems that people 
may have when deciding a rating.

It would also help establish OGRE as an industry standard...

> We should copyright the icon artworks and say that they are licensed under
> the sole condition that the icon is linked back to the website so that
> end-users can read the descriptions of what they mean.

Indeed.

> With enough publicity, that is all that's needed.  Six pretty pictures and
> one page of text.

Maybe more than one page, but yes....

Nurgle