IGN provides BBFC primer for non-Brits
by Kyle Orland 
{ Jun 27th 2007 at 10:36AM }
Let's face it, most gamers outside of Great Britain couldn't pick the British Board of Film Classification out of a lineup before their recent, controversial decision to deny classification to Manhunt 2. IGN decided to help us non-Brits out with a nice, in-depth interview with BBFC Press Office Manager Susan Clark.While the BBFC officially uses the same set of guidelines in evaluating both games and movies, Clark acknowledged that the board takes repetition and interactivity into account when making decisions about games. "We might say 'Okay, if that had been a film, it would be okay in a linear format but with the element of interactivity in games, with the ability to do it over and over again, we might bump the rating up to a higher category,'" Clark said. Clark also admitted that, by law, the board has to "bear in mind the fact that these games will be potentially accessed by younger viewers ... We know that games are very, very attractive to under-aged players, particularly the 18 rated games." What, and violent movies aren't?
Despite the double standards, there's a lot to be praised about the BBFC system. Unlike the ESRB, the BBFC actually plays every game they review for about five hours, and they are the only regulator in the world not controlled politically or by the industry, according to Clark. All in all, if there's going to be occasional censorship, we can't think of a better group of people to be doing it.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Rob Accomando @ Jun 27th 2007 10:47AM
ok, but you can play a certain gory scene on a DVD over and over again. AND gory/graphic movies ARE accessable to younger viewers. So, those reason, to me, are rediculous.
Jon @ Jun 27th 2007 11:09AM
And not an 'England' in sight. You are making progress Weblogs, Inc.
Regarding the BBFC, while I do not agree with the ban (though I do dislike what I heard about Manhunt 2), I have up most respect for the BBFC.
Grey Acumen @ Jun 27th 2007 11:10AM
I have to agree with Rob completely. You can play a movie over and over again on a DVD. I even know a couple people who do just that, and they also did it when they were under 18 as well.
Lets face it, how many older couples go out and say "This evening, the kids are in bed with my sister watching them, lets go watch blodbathgutspillhorrorslashingslasherstabbity together, it'll be a nice romantic evening"
The only people who watch those movies are the 12 - 24 year old guys who think it's so cool the way that guys head exploded, and the 25 - 40 year old guys who WISH they were still in the 12 - 24 range.
From what they're saying, apparently some 12 year old kid that wants to play Super Princess Peach, will pick up MANHUNT 2 and will say "well, it's a video game, so it must be about Unicorns and Picking Flowers! The M rating means Mommy approved, and the Ao rating means Always Original"
Sorry, the children that would want to play Manhunt 2, and have parents that would let them play it, are the same ones whose parents don't stop them from watching the R rated movies either.
I'm not against the rating system, but they are being hypocritical about it.
Nicolas Redfern @ Jun 27th 2007 11:22AM
@ grey acumen
Which is why any sensible rating authority, such as the BBFC and PEGI, uses ages for its rating system. eg 12, 15, 18.
Greg @ Jun 27th 2007 11:43AM
It's a double-standard everywhere. There is no rating or classification system for books. A 7-year old can walk into any Barnes & Noble and pick up the entire Chuck Palahniuk library- these books have no warning labels, and no company policies about carding customers.
I don't think the BBFC gives games extra scrutiny (as opposed to films) because of "interactivity and repetition," but because, to them, films=art and games=toys.
In the US, you can rank media based on how in-depth the classifications go, from most to least: video games, TV, film, music, literature. Interestingly enough, that's pretty much the same way you'd rank how these media are respected, from least to most.
Flipside @ Jun 27th 2007 11:43AM
Is it the fault of people over 18 that people under 18 want to play the game?
Sounds to me more like the BBFC are willing to punish anyone over 18 in the interests of 'protecting the children', rather than take a stand on the enforcement of certificates in this country.
I think I've read just about every Terry Pratchett book there is several times over, it's even easier to turn open a book than load a game. That is because they are good books, it doesn't mean I'm going to start believing I am on Discworld in reality.
Ben @ Jun 27th 2007 12:26PM
Why does Joystiq insist on continuing to accuse the BBFC of double standards? Games are not films, just as films are not books and apples are not oranges. The BBFC does more research and takes their role more seriously than many classification bodies out there. They also spend a lot of time supporting the games industry against it's proponents. And yet places like Joystiq cannot help but make snide jibes even when finally doing (or copying) someone else's research into the body.
If you disagree with the BBFC's remit or their role, then do so. If you disagree fundamentally that any body can censor then do so (and I suggest you look at the self censorship of news, TV, etc while you are at it). But while doing so ask yourselves why throughout the Manhunt 2 saga so many have felt the need to unfairly pounce on a fundamentally balanced group such as the BBFC?
Evan @ Jun 27th 2007 12:57PM
"Lets face it, how many older couples go out and say "This evening, the kids are in bed with my sister watching them, lets go watch blodbathgutspillhorrorslashingslasherstabbity together, it'll be a nice romantic evening"
True. But people seem to think that blodbathgutspillhorrorslashingslasherstabbity-the-game is for adults because the video game industry is not producing games equivalent to the kinds of movies that older adults watch. Where's the game equivalents of Million Dollar Baby? The Bridges of Madison County? Titanic?
Ben @ Jun 27th 2007 1:49PM
"Is it the fault of people over 18 that people under 18 want to play the game?"
It is when it is people over the age of 18 supplying them and encouraging them to play it. Which sadly is often the case. How many family members bought underage children copies of GTA for example? Don't blame the BBFC for society and our own shortcomings.
"but you can play a certain gory scene on a DVD over and over again. AND gory/graphic movies ARE accessable to younger viewers."
Yes you can replay videos and that comparison is made in the article, it just seems to have not made the Joystiq 'cut' ;) Gory and graphic films are accessible to younger viewers, but it's far more common for adult themed games to be given to young children than films. Largely because there is the attitude within the wider world that games are for kids.
"A 7-year old can walk into any Barnes & Noble and pick up the entire Chuck Palahniuk library"
It's not the BBFC's job to classify books in American shops though ;) Besides, how many 7 year olds do you know who read controversial books compared with the number of 7 year old you know who play computer games rated for teens or adults?
DoomPlague @ Jun 27th 2007 2:10PM
Speaking of double standards, what I find amazing is the backlash against the ESRB for merely giving the game a certain rating while people defend the BBFC, whose decisions lead to *actual* ban. I know many of you don't agree with the ban but really, I find it odd. (and don't tell me its about their rating methodology)
Also, while I'm normally not a cynic and way late to a debate about an old organization, I find it naive to believe the BBFC isn't influenced by politics or the industry. And frankly, should their ratings carry clout if they aren't controlled politically?
Greg @ Jun 27th 2007 2:14PM
@Ben-
But do they classify books in Britain? My main point was not that children WANT to read violent books, but rather that books escape the rating systems because literature is a "respected" art form, while video games are not, and are still seen as "toys" or just "entertainment."
And, going from my experience working in video game retail in the states, underage kids are far more interested in licensed properties (Pokemon, etc.) than they are with M-Rated games. If young kids DO get interested in adult games, it's more likely the result of emulating an older sibling or an older friend.
Ben @ Jun 27th 2007 2:39PM
@Greg
No they do not classify books in the UK. But we have had books banned as being 'obscene' in the past and so has the US.
I understand the point you are tring to make, but frankly the old 'art' versus 'games' thing doesn't wash with me in this argument. I think it's overused by people as an easy defense and to help them feel like they're being somehow opressed. Some people may have prejudices about games but I feel that many gamers are bringing their preducidices into this argument.
The BBFC have not acted in a way which says they are looking down upon games. They have acted fairly within their remit. If they considered games as just 'toys' or just 'entertainment' then I don't think they would have decided to not give the game a classification. If anything it is wider society that sees games as just 'toys' and therfore doesn't take the ratings games are given seriously.
In my experience in the UK the ratings on games are completely ignored. And it's far more cmmon for a kid in a shop to pick up a game such as GTA and scream that they want it rather than picking up a copy of Hostel or Lady Chatterly's Lover and scream about wanting it. You say 'young' kids being interested in Pokemon, which probably is the case. But what about those who are older, say 10-15. I don't think they want Pokemon. They tend to want the higher rated games. Even if that's through emulating an older sibling or friend, don't you think we should ask why that is and address that rather than criticising the BBFC for doing their job?
Greg @ Jun 27th 2007 3:07PM
@Ben-
I don't have a problem with a rating system, and I think we need to empower our respective ratings boards to make decisions they can stand behind. I haven't seen the game or played it, so I can't say whether or not I agree with it's AO rating in the states.
I don't feel oppressed by the ratings system, just disrespected. The question here is hat if Act of Violence X is acceptable in a film (which is clearly marked as for adults) why is Act of Violence X not acceptable in a video game (which is clearly marked as for adults)? I feel that this double standard is a result of a disparity in the respect afforded to films, as opposed to games. And to me, this carries over into a lack of respect for gamers.
It took film a long time to get to where it is today, culturally speaking. But haven't we learned our lesson in rejecting something's merit just because of it's medium? Shouldn't we hold all media to the same standards?
And to the argument of kids wanting M-Rated games: I can only go from my experience, but I haven't seen many kids interested in games like Manhunt or The Suffering until they were in their late teens, in the range of 15-17. Generally, when kids become interested in "hard" M games when they're far too young, it's the result of an outside influence, not the marketing or presentation of the game- so I reject the image of a legion of 10-year olds approaching the counter with a copy of Manhunt 2 in one hand and three 20's in the other.
Ben @ Jun 27th 2007 4:16PM
I've not played it either, and to be honest I was looking forward to giving it a whirl on my Wii. Partially I must admit due to the controversy I knew it would get. Whether I will get the chance is up in the air. But those who have, both ratings bodies like the BBFC and even games journalists have basically agreed with each other on the game.
But I guess I don't blame the BBFC for their decison, feel disrespected by it or feel that they are somehow treating games as second class citizens. They are different mediums, simple as that. The press over here are often biased, as are some politicians. But from my experience the BBFC are the least of the games industries concerns and more often than not a great supporter. I can disagree with their decisions or with their power to censor, but that's a different matter. What they have been, unlike so many out there, is fundamentally fair, open and honest.
I totally agree that it will take games a while longer to get to where, say, films are. But that is something which we all have a part to play in, those who make games, those who consume them and the rest of society. And sadly, I feel many of those hitting out at the BBFC or other ratings organisations do not fully appreciate.
I'm not sure whose portraying this image of legions of 10 year olds going for Manhunt 2. Certainly not me or for that matter the BBFC. But as I said, in my experience, I've seen far more people ignore the ratings on violent computer games than ignore the ratings on films, or for that matter, pornography. If you want to talk about double standards, why is it that so many are fine with a game like GTA when it involves violence, but when sex comes into it the rating has to be changed to increase restriction?
Either way it looks like we're two lone voices having an adult discussion :) I guess I just wish there had been more of this sort of discussion earlier on and less of the un-thought out mindless backlash which we criticise the anti-game movement for.
Greg @ Jun 27th 2007 4:30PM
Here's my logic: when a body rates a game, they are saying that it is unsuitable for most people below X years of age. By not classifying a game, they are saying that it is unsuitable for anyone of any age, which I find insulting.
I understand that different media are, indeed, different, but I still feel like video games are treated like a child's medium, so adult-themed games are given extra-harsh treatment. I'm not targeting this at the BBFC or the ESRB specifically, but a culture in general that seems to deny the artistic potential of a medium, and that medium's consumers' ability to interpret it.
The "legion of 10-year-olds" example was yours of course, but an illustration of my experience of youngster's attitudes towards games. In my experience, I've seen plenty of parents ignore a game's rating- in some cases I think it's justified, in some cases I think it's careless. But having the choice to ignore or heed a rating is imperative to a free market. The idea is that we, the consumer, get the final decision about what media we're going to consume.
And lastly- to the sex/violence double standard. I wholeheartedly agree, and it's absolute bullshit. In the US, we can see a decapitation on primetime network television, but not an exposed breast. And it's not just in the media - in Alabama, for example, sex toys are illegal (you read that right, you can be arrested for owning a vibrator), but you can buy all the guns you want.
Greg @ Jun 27th 2007 4:33PM
Correction:
"The 'legion of 10-year-olds' example was of course NOT yours"
Apologies.
Ben @ Jun 27th 2007 5:52PM
I completely understand and agree with your logic. Games often are not given the respect that the medium deserves. But I also feel sometimes there are those who feel games deserve it by right. But with rights come responsibilities as most creative mediums and indeed most people have learnt.
I think the games industry has a lot of growing up to do, we're kindof in the teenage years right now. We've grown very quickly and are testing boundaries, but occasionally get things wrong. We both need and resent boundaries and limits imposed upon us. We want to be 'grown up' sometimes but at the same time want to be a little kid. And from time to time we throw tantrums.
But the games industry will get there. I just worry about the damage that some of the more unnecessary backlashes can do. And how they often just give fuel to those who would deny games their place. And for all the wider and nobler goals of games and of the supporters of the industry. It only takes one irresponsible publisher and a few rabid fanboys to set the cause back years.
Now time to go and beat up some Alabama police with a vibrator! Sounds a bit Postal 2 to me ;)
Keith @ Jun 28th 2007 8:08AM
Just a thought on the "why aren't books rated" idea. It could well be down to the old books-as-art-form versus games-as-toys idea. But I'd give serious consideration to the notion that reading a book requires considerably more input from the reader than watching a film.
Firstly, you need to have a sufficiently broad vocabulary and level of reading comprehension to be able to read the book in the first place. Granted, a lot of the generic big-man-with-bad-attitude type stuff isn't exactly Tolstoy, but still...
Also, as books require you to *imagine*, then an unpleasant event in a book is only as unpleasant as your imagination is capable. Which means that books *can* be considerably more disturbing than film/games, if you have sufficient imagination and reference material. However a disturbing film or game presents you with another person's vision - someone who has done some research.
ed @ Jun 28th 2007 6:30PM
"Here's my logic: when a body rates a game, they are saying that it is unsuitable for most people below X years of age. By not classifying a game, they are saying that it is unsuitable for anyone of any age, which I find insulting."
That's a non-sequitur. surely by not rating a game the only thing you can be sure of them "saying" is that they don't think it's suitable for the youngest ages of the highest age-group. ie: 18 yr olds. Because 18 is the highest restriction all it need take is for something to be unsuitable for 18 year olds for it not to get a rating.
"I don't feel oppressed by the ratings system, just disrespected. The question here is hat if Act of Violence X is acceptable in a film (which is clearly marked as for adults) why is Act of Violence X not acceptable in a video game (which is clearly marked as for adults)? I feel that this double standard is a result of a disparity in the respect afforded to films, as opposed to games. And to me, this carries over into a lack of respect for gamers."
Are you so sure that this is disrespect for games or simply different perspectives. I'm acutely aware that the way I view games, being someone who's played games since the inception of home computing, is very different from someone who's only started with the PSone, or the PS2 or even the PS3. I know from watching tv that my mum cowers behind a cushion to content I would consider tame and contains no actual on-screen depiction of violence. I think it's arrogant that so many people are so willing to accuse others of double-standards simply because they have a different perspective on the issues.
I'm really glad someone has finally got the BBFC to talk about the progress. Throughout this news topic the media has simply printed the same phrase "Banned" over-and-over with no exploration of the issues and the public has regurgitated it with no questioning of the processes involved in rating games. Journalists are in a privileged position to ask such questions on behalf of those they disseminate the news to and so far they have failed dismally. And it's telling that it's not the traditional news media finally giving us the insight but IGN and bloggers.