Eurogamer writes: "Over the last few years, however, there has been a curious creep ... Games that seem relatively benign have been rated suitable only for those aged 16 and over."
As long as content isn't cut from the games release to fit within rating guidelines, like Left 4 Dead 2 for Australia, then I'm not bothered who is rating the games.
I just checked Motorstorm, as I guy I worked with wondered if it would be suitable for his kid. It's rated 16 by PEGI on PS3, and 12 on PSP. Why? The PS3 version has "realistic looking violence towards humans". Whereas the PSP isn't powerful enough to deliver "realism", so it gets a pass. W.T.F? It's a racing game! Why can't they take it into context? Yes People get battered about in motorstorm, but only when they're racing!
Is there an actual age limit to watch NFL, Rugby, 'Wrestling', Boxing or Nascar? I'm in England so I wouldn't know about NFL or Nascar, but as far as I know they're both pretty violent sports and yet there are children in the stands and watching at home. Age limits in general are completely ridiculous. Put a 15 year old learner driver in a car with an adult in the US and s/he could deliberately drive it through a coffee shop window and kill everyone if they wanted to, yet they have to wait until they're 18 (on average) to simply smoke cigarettes and 21 to drink alcohol?
Under PEGI, Rugby would certainly get a 16. Strangely, boxing would probably get the same rating, not a higher one despite the escalated violence.
I was saddened the day I heard that the ratings board was beng changed to make PEGI the legal standard. PEGI is an inconsistent overly self important organisation that cannot possibly rate this media appropriately across all its territories. Besides which, when I worked in a GAME store it was apparent that parents understood BBFC (and then made their own decisions); but most of the time they thought that PEGI was "about how difficult it is, like with board games."
I think one think that needs to be taken into account is that violence is violence. Ending something's life while they bleed and maybe call out in pain should be classed as a violent act. I am not sure I like the distinction between human and non-human characters. Naughty bear is a great example of this. Just because they're bears means that the act you are doing to them is lest violent? On saying this, I like gritty realistic games. They're immersive and can get the adrelanine going but I don't the attitude that violence is ok as long as it's in the right context. I accept cartoon child like violence will obviously be different to "adult style" violence but when it's the same then it should be considered so accordingly.
PEGI suck my POGO
I've visited a Speak at BBFC in London and a Conference in Paris held by the BBFC and they had quite strong opinions on PEGI taking the role of Certificating Video Games, they went as far as stating that they (PEGI) didn't even play the games provided to certificate and that they were provided with a brief outline and based their mark on that alone. Whether there is any truth to said statements I don't know, but coming from the previous certificators of gaming, it may be a biased statement...
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.