Game Ratings Around the World

Game Ratings Around the World By Ron Fair Ron Fair is a very passionate writer and scholar whose strong and sometimes unconventional opinions have stirred controversy -- though his arguments and logic are often stronger than one might suspect. He is very active on MMOsite as an Associate Writer for the blogs (LordYanLiang) and moderator on the forums.

Gamers in America are very much used to the ruling of video game ratings, because they've come to play an essential part of the video game experience for over 15 years. The ESRB was established in the US in 1994 in response to games like Doom and Mortal Kombat, and since then everybody in America has grown accustomed to the little ratings box in the corner of the game cover, and the protocols that come with acquiring games based on their ratings. The system has been implemented so well and effectively that very few and only insignificant changes have been made since then, and most people in America barely touch the ratings system and think about it. It almost seems like a novelty to discuss game ratings if you live in America, and Americans (and Canadians) reading this article may even call the discussion a novelty.

But around the world, the idea of game ratings doesn't seem to be working so well. People still talk about it, and committees still feel the need to discuss it and debate it. It's almost strange to think that something so established and logical in America is in a state of infancy or in need of improving anywhere else. It's for this reason that the topic bears covering.

credit to:

In America, the system is simple: a game with absolutely no offending features, no violence, no blood, etc. is rated "Early Children" (eC), and something with a little more non-offensive, playful themes will be rated "Everyone" (E) or "Everyone 10+" (E10+) if it seems inaccessible to the very young, but all of these titles are accessible to anybody. A game with a "Teen" (T) rating might not be sold to anyone under thirteen depending on the retailer, any game rated "Mature 17+" or "Mature" (M) will not be sold to anyone under 17 or 18 without adult supervision by most retailers, and the few titles rated "Adults Only 18+" or "Adults Only" (AO) will be stocked, but will not be sold to anyone under 18. For a game to get the big "M", it has to be particularly violent and/or sexual, or contain just enough big-time foul words to make it unsuitable without discretion, and anything rated "Adult Only" usually contains extreme violence or interactive sexual activity -- which is a fair basis for banning a game. Games are never restricted, but most companies take these ratings very seriously. For example, GameStop requires anybody who doesn't look 30 or older to provide a photo ID when they need to purchase a game. Sure, nobody's used to getting carded except when they're buying cigarettes or booze, but it's a fair way to control things.

In Australia, an official government board controls game ratings, and only recently has discussion for a rating equivalent to "M". Currently, the most restrictive rating Australia will place on a video game is "MA15+", which suggests that a video game is only intended for mature audiences and anyone under 15 cannot purchase such a title. Sony Computer Entertainment Australia and New Zealand managing director Michael Ephraim is one of the main proponents for a rating coined "R18+", while other government figures oppose adding a new rating and would instead either reduce the rating on strong-content games to MA15+ or ban the release of video games deemed "harmful to youth".

In the meantime, Taiwan has only recently begun discussing implementing a game ratings system for themselves! The issue came up from an Interior Minister during a meeting of Taiwan's Legislative Yuan's Social Welfare and Environmental Hygiene Committee. The concern was to help control video games and internet content to protect Taiwanese youngsters from overly violent or pornographic content. The discussion comes as an amendment to rating laws drafted in 2003, and the aim is to make legally-imposing ratings so that violating distributors and retailers would be punished for selling inappropriate content to younger gamers.

Australia makes a good but convoluted point in not being so quick to add an 18+ rating. The ESRB often bases its ratings on incidental or slight examples of a possibly-offensive element in a game. The rating difference between a game rated "T" and a game rated "M" may come from a buried code that requires modification or a special patch to unlock, or even a singular instance of language deemed "too strong" for younger audiences. Very often these ratings assume that parents or children are overly sensitive, though explanations for the ratings are vague. Some games are rated "T" or "M", though the cases of pushing the ratings are so borderline that restricting the content really should come down to personal preference on a case-by-case basis -- yet the ESRB's ratings are legally-binding, and retailers risk a huge fine if they are caught violating the ESRB policy.

Yet these game ratings are necessary. Every rating used by the ESRB is necessary, and even the very concept is a "necessary 'evil'", because there are a great deal of games that should not be sold to minors. Games like Fallout 3 or Red Dead Redemption are definitely not for players under their mid teens -- to the point where it almost feels reprehensible when parents allow their children to play such games. 99% of the way the ESRB rates and controls content is perfect, and nations like Taiwan and Australia could use to follow that model: never ban a game completely, but add ratings for young children, children 10 and up, teens, and very mature audiences - and restrict sale of mature-rated content to those 17 or 18 and up, with ID. And the method for choosing the ratings to be found on the game covers is also very effective.

Some may disagree on the ESRB's model, or even the concept of rating games at all, but the system has worked so well that discussing it in America is a novelty. It's worked for over 15 years -- surely the same method would work just as well around the world.