Re: My Game

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

<snip>

To demonstrate how subjective these ratings are, language heard on BBC1 at 
approx. 4PM yesrerday (when little school kids are getting home):
HOLY SHIT
HOLY FUCKING SHIT

Images seen:
Thousands of people dying
Minldess violence

Here in the UK, the incident wasn't widely known till about 3:30PM (it all 
started at 2PM local time). Kids would have just got home, turned on the TV 
and been greeted with those scenes/language.

Under "normal" circumstances, this wouldn't have been shown. Granted, this 
wasn't normal circumstances, but it still applies, and many people would have 
found this acceptable content under normal circumstances anyway (I am one of 
those people, FYI)

My point?

Unless clear guidelines are set, and not just vague descriptions, a 
"self-certification" scheme is pointless. We need to know what people 
consider suitable for different catagories, and if we are going to do this, 
it might as well be worth something, and standardized.

I'm not saying you need a body of people testing the titles, as you can 
usually trust the developers to do this themselves (hence, the 
self-regulation thing), but you still need a basis for the ratings, and a 
vague set of guidelines jjst won't cut it.

Here is a list of things I consider suitable for all ages:
Swearing
Depictions Drugs use
Depictions of semi-realistic violence (involving blood)
Videos of kittens being eaten.

Yes, I'm a fuckup, but I'm not the only one out there. I have no problem 
letting little kids play mindlessly violent games, but, I would have no 
problem using a well defined ratings system either, so people who don't agree 
with my personality have a way of finding out before they are offended.

Nurgle