The ratings game

Games are rated in the same way as film and DVD releases, but confusion still reigns in consumers’ m

Games are rated in the same way as film and DVD releases, but confusion still reigns in consumers' minds

Interactive entertainment is a hot potato, the subject of headlines, parliamentary discussion and media scrutiny. At the centre of the conflagration is the old debate about media effects: what (if any) real-life impact does playing a video game have on the people who play them?

The hundreds of games released every year tend to be lumped into the same bucket, accused of violence, sexual promiscuity and other content considered inappropriate for younger audiences. Yet, according to the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association, (ELSPA), less than 3 per cent of annual releases contains content that is rated 18. The problem is that many detractors appear unaware of the variety of gaming experiences that are on offer.

Social commentaries

As a relatively new entertainment medium, games are generally misunderstood. On the one hand, most people think of them as kids' toys. On the other, the technological advances in game technology over the past 20 years allow designers to create political statements, hard-hitting dramas, and fiercely cutting social commentaries that are decades beyond the innocent blips of Pong. The Atari generation has grown up, and so have their tastes in leisure activities. Games are now developed for all age brackets - from infants to adults.

In the UK, all video games released to market are voluntarily submitted to the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) and are assessed like DVD and video releases. The classification board works closely with the Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) system, a consortium of 29 countries.

PEGI was established in 2003 by the Interactive Software Federation of Europe to ensure that parents and other consumers were informed about games that may be unsuitable for children. Although it's voluntary, the programme does have the support of all major publishers and console manufacturers, including PlayStation, Microsoft and Nintendo.

When the games reach the board, the applications and the products are viewed and given an appropriate certificate, with the age clearly marked on the front of the package. The games are also tagged with icons that indicate potentially offensive content, from discrimination, gambling, drug abuse, sex or violence.

BBFC and PEGI

In the UK, the BBFC adds its own familiar icons to indicate U for "universal", through to 18 for adults. In contrast to PEGI's ratings, which are for information only, the BBFC's ratings are legally binding, and anyone caught selling inappropriate content to a minor will be fined. When a game is denied a BBFC rating, such as Rockstar Games' Manhunt 2, which was submitted earlier this year, it is effectively banned. Only two games have been banned in the initiative's 21-year history.

The interactivity of games can make a difference in ratings. The examiners work to a similar remit for both games and film, but a game may receive a higher rating if a player's action leads a character towards a behaviour that may be offensive.

At the GameCity event in Nottingham in October, BBFC examiner Jim Cliff explained that, for example, an instance of bad language in a film may result in a lower rating than a game, particularly if the language in the game is triggered by a player's action (such as pressing a button, passing a particular location) and can be repeated again and again.

Parental uncertainty

Cliff admits that parents may know what a 15 rating for a film means, but may not understand what gives a game a "15" rating. To combat this disconnect, industry bodies have implemented publicly-facing education programmes, websites and white papers with varying degrees of success. It is hoped that the issue will be clarified in March next year in the results of the Byron Review, spearheaded by the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport set up to critically examine research on the effects of violent video games.

This article first appeared in the 17 December 2007 issue of the New Statesman, Christmas and New Year special 2007

Getty
Show Hide image

The New Times: Brexit, globalisation, the crisis in Labour and the future of the left

With essays by David Miliband, Paul Mason, John Harris, Lisa Nandy, Vince Cable and more.

Once again the “new times” are associated with the ascendancy of the right. The financial crash of 2007-2008 – and the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises that were a consequence of it – were meant to have marked the end of an era of runaway “turbocapitalism”. It never came close to happening. The crash was a crisis of capitalism but not the crisis of capitalism. As Lenin observed, there is “no such thing as an absolutely hopeless situation” for capitalism, and so we discovered again. Instead, the greatest burden of the period of fiscal retrenchment that followed the crash was carried by the poorest in society, those most directly affected by austerity, and this in turn has contributed to a deepening distrust of elites and a wider crisis of governance.

Where are we now and in which direction are we heading?

Some of the contributors to this special issue believe that we have reached the end of the “neoliberal” era. I am more sceptical. In any event, the end of neoliberalism, however you define it, will not lead to a social-democratic revival: it looks as if, in many Western countries, we are entering an age in which centre-left parties cannot form ruling majorities, having leaked support to nationalists, populists and more radical alternatives.

Certainly the British Labour Party, riven by a war between its parliamentary representatives and much of its membership, is in a critical condition. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has inspired a remarkable re-engagement with left-wing politics, even as his party slumps in the polls. His own views may seem frozen in time, but hundreds of thousands of people, many of them young graduates, have responded to his anti-austerity rhetoric, his candour and his shambolic, unspun style.

The EU referendum, in which as much as one-third of Labour supporters voted for Brexit, exposed another chasm in Labour – this time between educated metropolitan liberals and the more socially conservative white working class on whose loyalty the party has long depended. This no longer looks like a viable election-winning coalition, especially after the collapse of Labour in Scotland and the concomitant rise of nationalism in England.

In Marxism Today’s “New Times” issue of October 1988, Stuart Hall wrote: “The left seems not just displaced by Thatcherism, but disabled, flattened, becalmed by the very prospect of change; afraid of rooting itself in ‘the new’ and unable to make the leap of imagination required to engage the future.” Something similar could be said of the left today as it confronts Brexit, the disunities within the United Kingdom, and, in Theresa May, a prime minister who has indicated that she might be prepared to break with the orthodoxies of the past three decades.

The Labour leadership contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith was largely an exercise in nostalgia, both candidates seeking to revive policies that defined an era of mass production and working-class solidarity when Labour was strong. On matters such as immigration, digital disruption, the new gig economy or the power of networks, they had little to say. They proposed a politics of opposition – against austerity, against grammar schools. But what were they for? Neither man seemed capable of embracing the “leading edge of change” or of making the imaginative leap necessary to engage the future.

So is there a politics of the left that will allow us to ride with the currents of these turbulent “new times” and thus shape rather than be flattened by them? Over the next 34 pages 18 writers, offering many perspectives, attempt to answer this and related questions as they analyse the forces shaping a world in which power is shifting to the East, wars rage unchecked in the Middle East, refugees drown en masse in the Mediterranean, technology is outstripping our capacity to understand it, and globalisation begins to fragment.

— Jason Cowley, Editor 

Tom Kibasi on what the left fails to see

Philip Collins on why it's time for Labour to end its crisis

John Harris on why Labour is losing its heartland

Lisa Nandy on how Labour has been halted and hollowed out

David Runciman on networks and the digital revolution

John Gray on why the right, not the left, has grasped the new times

Mariana Mazzucato on why it's time for progressives to rethink capitalism

Robert Ford on why the left must reckon with the anger of those left behind

Ros Wynne-Jones on the people who need a Labour government most

Gary Gerstle on Corbyn, Sanders and the populist surge

Nick Pearce on why the left is haunted by the ghosts of the 1930s

Paul Mason on why the left must be ready to cause a commotion

Neal Lawson on what the new, 21st-century left needs now

Charles Leadbeater explains why we are all existentialists now

John Bew mourns the lost left

Marc Stears on why democracy is a long, hard, slow business

Vince Cable on how a financial crisis empowered the right

David Miliband on why the left needs to move forward, not back

This article first appeared in the 22 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times