As promised, I've been reading the Byron Report, and if you'd like to, you can do it yourself by downloading it here. As expected, Byron's review of the dangers of videogames and the Internet when it comes to children is level-headed and reasonable, although we'll see how it gets twisted by other sources. Just to let you know, I didn't spend much time with the Internet side of the review, focusing predominantly on the gaming chapters. We're a game blog, after all.
Hit the jump for my thoughts on the Byron Report.
Most of what she says is stuff we already know as followers of videogame controversy, but I was mostly pleased by her stressing that context and the individualization of children is important. It's so easy to present "da kids" as a featureless clump of excuses to push whatever agenda you want, but Byron makes sure that people understand that young people are individuals, and that harmful content for some could be beneficial content for others.
Byron points out that the age-old argument that games "desensitize" children to violence has very little evidence backing it up, although there might be more of a case in adults. She adds that while it's true that there's no real evidence to suggest games can be harmful to children, it's also true that no great amount of evidence supports the opposite theory -- in truth, actually making children play violent games to support a study would be unethical.
As far as the current ratings systems go, Byron actually criticized harsh ratings, stating that if the PEGI system, for instance, enforces ratings that consumers find consistently too strict, it could lead to them being valued less and subsequently disregarded. One worrying aspect of the report is that even though Byron appreciates the arguments that adult videogames shouldn't be banned, she is worried that parental knowledge is not at a level where the state shouldn't be allowed to intervene. I take that to mean "Parents are stupid, so we need to be able to ban stuff," although of course it's put more politely. She also wants to see more legislation, such as making the sale of a 12+ rated game to anyone younger a punishable offense.
Naturally, the report calls for greater education, something I think we can all agree with. Byron states that the two-rating system is confusing, with some parents mistaking the PEGI classifications are skill ratings instead of age ratings. The review calls for a "comprehensive, high profile campaign" about videogames, as part of a joint venture between the games industry and the BBFC/PEGI. A great idea, but I fear that part of the problem is that most people are simply stupid, and you can't do much to educate the terminally thick.
Most importantly (and expectedly), Byron states the "vital" importance of doing away with the current dual-rating system and having either the BBFC or PEGI take sole responsibility for the classification of videogames in the UK. The report states that the following factors need to be in place with whatever system is used:
* Clear age ratings.
* Clear accompanying descriptors which explain game content.
* Trustworthiness.
* Enforceability where there are risks of potential harm.
She is supportive that a ratings board should have the power to block the release of some games, however, if there is considered a risk of "harm." Considering such subjective grounds, I really do worry about such ideas. The BBFC believed so strongly that society was at risk when it came to Manhunt 2, it went to extraordinary lengths to block it. However, the game was released in the USA without crime rates rising or more people going insane. It's very thin ice to skate on.
Perhaps the most interesting suggestion put forward in the review is Byron's plan to achieve a single rating system. Rather than pass off responsibility to either the BBFC or PEGI, what Byron believes we need is a new, hybridized system that combines the strengths of both boards. However, she also suggests that a new system should be built on the grounds of the BBFC, the British Board being seen more as the leading example.
Byron's suggestion for a hybrid rating system is as follows:
BBFC logos are on the front of all games.
PEGI will continue to rate all 3+ and 7+ games and their equivalent logos (across all age ranges) will be on the back of the box.
In simple terms, what Byron wants is for the easily recognizable, cinema-style rating logos to be the only rating seen by potential customers are first glance, with the PEGI ratings tucked away so as not to confuse the little dears.
All in all, the report is very reasonable and even-handed, although not a great deal is said that is truly groundbreaking in any way. Even the hybrid rating system suggestion isn't really a radical approach, and some of her suggestions simply seem to be "do it better" -- but it's probably better that Byron's views are not so extreme. Of course, what Byron says is one thing -- how the media and the government choose to use this report is another thing entirely.
Contest:
8:59 AM on 03.27.2008
| 
Parents need to stop blaming the gaming industry on what they are pumping into the children, it is all about the parents pulling their finger out of their ass and start looking at what they are buying their kids.
There does need to be better descriptions, better education to the parents and a better rating system that INCLUDES R18+ (for us down here anyway)
*fap**fap**fap*
Paragraphs 4 and 5 state essentially state the same thing and threw me off. I'm typing this small (hopefully) so as not to be a dick and point out your faults to others.
It's good to see that experts agree on many points that we gamers have been stressing for years. Still this "experts" culture scares the crap out of me, trusting random people because they have a title.
I think soccer mom would think twice about buying a rated R game for her 11 yr old kid since she should already have a clear understanding of what "rated R" entails.
I couldn't agree more with you!
kid: copy of grand theft auto 4, manhunt 2 and gears of war classic please.
store clerk: how old are you?
k: 18
sc: ah... could u just put your hands into this age testing device sir, to prove your age?
k: *puts hands inside 4 sided box with black screen so kid cant see.*
WHAM! WHAM! WHAM! *kid screams runs off with broken hands*
its drastic i give you .... but i bet you he wont be back anytime soon buying games he shouldnt be playing in the first place. :p
The biggest problem is you have a generation of technophobic parents (mine = prime suspects) eg. mum turns mobile on but doesnt know how to work it but has a message on it saying 'merry christmas' ... not unusual, but it was a new message in july o.O
Responsible gamers suffer because of the rtarded few.
03/27/2008 09:30
She can write all the reports she wants to make her self feel like she's making a difference but in the end the question still remains, how do you make parents care enough to learn about what their kids are getting in to? Make all the changes you want to the system but if the parents aren't going to step up, take responsibility and become active in their child's development, then whats the point? Kids will do what kids have always done, experiment out of curiosity and stupidity. Its up to the parents to instill values in their little bastards and guide them down the "right" path. Same as it ever was.
i agree whith him i am sick of people saying the raiting system dosn't work when parents buy M rated games for their kids i have seen that so many times it is not funny so it is not the system as much as the parents
Oh sweet jesus that's priceless!
Parents may understand the meaning of the rating but that doesn't help them understand what's in the game that makes it deserving of it. It just gives them more reason not to care about them which gives the government more power to potentially ban other games in the future.
Also as shown by Manhunt2 the BBFC doesn't seem capable of rating games fairly when compared to films. So I'm with Brad Drac in hoping that a new body or the PEGI will rate all games and simply use the basic BBFC logos.
My biggest concern is how politicians will askew the report to favor their own agendas and how blindly the public will agree with the most compromising ratings system. Let's hope they don't :-S
Great write up though Jim, I couldn't be arsed to read through the whole report so thanks for the summary :-)
I think the solution to that (at least in the U.S.) is to let the respective media use their respective ratings boards (ie the MPAA for movies, the ESRB for games) but they all have to use the same rating system. For the U.S. the easiest thing to use is the established MPAA rating system of G-NC17 (though I think NC-17 is kind of bullshit too). In the U.K., they should let or create the equivalent of the ESRB rate games there so that there isn't a bias against them and they have a full understanding of the media.
Plus they should keep the content descriptors. If parents can't be bothered with reading deeper than the initial rating, there's really not much else you can do for them.
I just read that and it basically says "Our system makes more sense so we're not using that one.". In theory that logic works (and it should, because it is arguably better) but what they need to realize is that no matter how much better their system is, it's less effective because people aren't and probably never will be as familiar with it.
It's like when the U.S. tried to switch to the Metric system as a standard. The metric system is a much better, more logical, easier to understand system, but everyone rejected it because they were too familiar with the old system. Most people unfortunately won't bother to learn new stuff if they don't feel like it.
I have no idea what those US ratings boards/systems are so I'm going to smile and nod :-)
Looks like we're on the same page though the PEGI is the UK equivalent to the ESRB and we're hoping they or maybe something new get to rate games with the BBFC rating system/logos.
Let's just hope this all leads to something worthwhile that doesn't dick us over
Lol. Yeah, in the U.S. movies and games aren't rated by a branch of the government (like the the BBFC or the U.S. equivalent which is the FCC), they're self regulated by groups created by their respective medias. So the MPAA rates movies and was created by the various movie studios of the time just as the ESRB was created by the video game industry, both of which to head off government regulation.
Neither of those groups are perfect but I'm pretty sure it would be better than the government alternative.
Also, she's MILFy hot. Sorry. She is.
There is a third option, other than the industry or the government, and that is a state funded but independent body, that is what the BBFC is, it is funded by the government, but ministers and politicians have no power to intervene in its decisions, only the courts (as was the case with Manhunt 2).
Call me a communist if you want but I would rather this option over the murky nonsense that is the industry run systems like the MPAA (have you seen "This Film is Not Yet Rated"?)
But why can't they use the old system, yet still have the rating explanations (the violence, sex, etc warnings) on top of that? Why did they have to have an E, T, and M when G, PG, and R would be just as good?