next »

[Abadox]

Boy, the "no tits" face sure is angry. Let the guy see some boobies. geez!

[ravuya]

Boy, the "no tits" face sure is angry. Let the guy see some boobies. geez!

I like to think he's angry because he already bought the game, only to discover the lack of mammary glands contained within it.

[Keops]

Of course he's angry...

The game cost him US$ 0.00 (free download yay!) but he's still angry, because there are no tits and he didn't see the stoopid rating icon either.

[fish]

those little icons sure are web 2.0ish.

[Shabadage]

I support the idea of a rating system for indie games; purely on a voluntary basis.  I do also think, however, that it needs to be planned out.  Those 3 buttons you posted are even less helpful than the "accepted" ESRB labels  (Of course the ESRB's system is based on the MPAA's, and the standards keep changing).
(I realize that you didn't make them either)

A rating should speak for what possibly "offendable" content is included in the game.  A label that simply says "family friendly" ain't gonna cut it.  I think the indies should one up the Commies on this one, and debut a kick ass rating system that will CLEARLY tell you what kind of content the game includes; that way you can make the call yourself (Instead of relying on some stupidly over general age range[ERSB!]).  Anyone remember the old thermometer system?  That system was the best rating system IMO.  Clear, concise, and free of stupid terms like "Animated Violence" which mean nothing (MK was animated violence after all).

I also think a good rating system would draw a HUGE amount of interest in the Indy scene as well; even if it's merely notes about how an Indie-Game rating system is better/more understandable than the widely accepted "Standard"

Ok, now I'm REALLY off to the rig (Horray Oil workers of america!)

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I'm not sure how useful rating systems are. I couldn't offhand tell you the ESRB rating of any game I own, it's just not important enough to me to remember. I've seen parents not care about buying their 6 year olds M-rated games, so I don't think they pay attention to the ratings either. I think they're mainly useful for (and exist mainly by the demands of) a very small but vocal minority of the population, particularly religious groups.

[Shabadage]

And I'm almost 90% sure that's because the ESRB ratings are pretty crap.  Something that says "Frontal Nudity" and "Gory Violence" probably won't be picked up by parents for kids; where as if the package merely said M, they probably wouldn't think twice about it.

I don't care about ratings either, in the terms that what it's rated won't affect my want for a game.  But I'm not the one the ratings are for.  Ratings aren't so much for gamers as they are for Game Buyers/Providers (Parents, for example).  I know what I'm getting into as I've been a gamer since the ripe old age of 2.  Parents typically won't even SEE the game they buy for their kids in action.

The current ESRB system is largely ignored by everyone except "the crusaders" in the gov.  And obviously the ESRB ain't gonna do anything about it except lash out at every other facet of the gaming industry (Though I do somewhat agree with the former Prez's comment on the gaming magazines; except that Mr. Prez apparently forgot that no one except gamers reads the publications, and as magazines go you usually WANT to hit your target audience [Average console gaming Mag Demo is 15-25 male, Computer slightly above that; not a 55 year old congressman who doesn't know what a analog stick is.])

But yeah, if the ESRB ain't gonna do anything except sit around and bitch at everyone while spouting off more useless ratings with vague descriptions; that means the job falls to someone else.  Which leaves the indy devs.

[soniCron]

Hi! I'm the creator of TIGRS and I want to dispell some confusion regarding the ratings:

Each publisher-chosen age rating ("Family Friendly," "Teen Content," etc.) is coupled with content descriptors that enumerate the specific types of potentially offensive material found in the game. I'd like to encourage you to visit and explore the TIGRS website before making assumptions based on a promotional screenshot.

While I'd love for every developer in the world to use these ratings, I realize that is an unlikely possibility. Instead, I hope that developers that wish to take proactive responsibility for the content in their games would utilize the system in an effort to stave off the inevitable government interference we'll see down the line. It's not a perfect system (there exists no such thing,) but TIGRS has been well recieved by many of the commercial indie game developers, and I am always listening to comments and suggestions for future versions.

Regarding Thermometer-like ratings, it was tried in the past and met with heavy opposition among developers and customers alike. Unfortunately, the system was too confusing and busy to reach widespread adoption. Because of this critical outcry, I spent a great deal of time testing various designs with developers and customers in an effort to find a good medium ground that most could appreciate. What was born was this current iteration of TIGRS, which features both at-a-glance information, as well as a more detailed content description to assist the discerning gamer or parent in making an assessment.

I know not everyone looks at or cares about game ratings. TIGRS is not for them. TIGRS was designed for the concerned individual that DOES want a means to identify potentially offensive content in a game. It is neither my responsibility, nor anyone else's, to force ratings on anyone, but I believe it IS our responsibility to make them available for anyone who cares.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me and I'll try to respond in a timely manner. Thanks for the interest in TIGRS!

(BTW, your parodies are pretty hilarious! :D)

[Alec]

(BTW, your parodies are pretty hilarious! :D)

Awesome, welcome to the forums!

[Shabadage]

I wasn't trying to be mean at all, I just find that overly generalized rating systems tend to muddy up the very thing they try to do; which is to inform people of possibly offendable content.  Obviously, the ERSB is the greatest example of this.

I did, in fact, read your site quite thoroughly and I hold no ill will towards your rating system or you yourself; in fact I'm happy that someone has stood up and made an indy rating system.  Even better is that you did research into the topic, and I give you serious credit for that.  But I think where our perceptions differ is while your system gives a "range" of ages (In sorts), I'd rather see a rating system that doesn't give a suggested age range; instead providing the information and letting the purchasee make the call on what the age appropriateness is.

Perhaps my frustrations lie with that some parents are jackasses who are either too out of touch or too lazy to find out what is in the games that they provide for thier kids.  This obvioulsy leads to the huge public outcries against my beloved industry.  Then the ERSB (Which, by all accounts, should be an ally of the devs, not an enemy) washes it's hands of the matter by blaming the developers.  (It CAN'T BE the parents fault, they're well informed with the ERSB ratings after all).  Once again, the industry is dragged along in the mud.

I'd just love to see the day when a game that expicitly says "GORY SENSATIONALIZED VIOLENCE and EXPLICIT SEX" in big large letters across the front is on trial cause Mommy caught little Johnny playing it, and was "Shocked" by the content; even though she was the one that purchased it for him with that big honking disclaimer on the front.

Attention PARENTS!  Game developers are NOT responsible for telling you what your kids should or shouldn't play.  YOU ARE!  You have to make your OWN CALLS.  Blaming game developers for your own parental laziness is Pathetic. /rant

And Welcome to TIGS soniCron XD

[ravuya]

I'm extremely glad soniCron isn't going to take my ass to court. :D

[Shinji16]

It is neither my responsibility, nor anyone else's, to force ratings on anyone, but I believe it IS our responsibility to make them available for anyone who cares.

That sums up my opinion. I believe that it is the parent's responsiblity to check out any material (books, TV, games) that their children may be interested in that could have content that they don't want their kids seeing. At the same time, if there is anything we can do to make that job easier for them, I think we should.

Also, I think the TIGRS is a great idea. Do we have to use it? No. But I think it would be nice.

[Terry]

A suggested rating for Electric Retard: The Game.

[ravuya]

I was thinking more of an "eyewash station" picture.

[Abadox]

The problem with ratings systems is not that any particular one doesn't work, but rather, no ratings system, even in principal, could ever work. What is a ratings system intended to do, provide a way for people to know what's in (for instance) a game without having to play it? This seems like an impossible, even nonsensical goal.
I'm all for an author noting that their game was designed for adults and is not meant for children (in fact i would consider it their responsibility to do so), but to try to break it down into some sort of hierarchy of moral purity seems absurd. I was only half joking when I asked if teen content meant boobs. Really, what does it mean, what about just one boob, or serious cleavage, or a mild sexual innuendo. The fact is that the content of a given piece of media is only part of the equation. The question of weather a game is appropriate for an individual must take that individual into account. Can a twelve year old play games with teen content, how about a mature ten year old. The real problem with ratings systems, and the thing I think is so insidious about them is that they actually discourage parents from taking the time to know what their kids are doing, (if the parents were going to play the game the rating would be pointless), and discourage them from making a real decision based on all the facts, and in the end could result in a kid not being able to get something that they would be perfectly able to deal with.
How many games , records, books, whatever were important in your life when you were a kid that you wouldn't have been able to get your hands on if your parents had been following some sort of ratings system that said "teen content" or "mild sexual  diddling" or whatever.
Sorry this is such a rant, I've been stewing on this one for a while.

[Shinji16]

Sorry this is such a rant, I've been stewing on this one for a while.

For this topic, I don't think rants are bad. If anything, I think they're encouraged.

Anyways, would it be really feasible for a parent to read each and every book, listen to every CD, and play every game their kid was interested in? No. I think that rating systems should be more about "Hey, this game has some realistic violence in it" rather than "Mature".

If I were a parent, I would rather want to know at a glance what was in a game or movie, and then if I was worried about something (for example language) I could then follow up on it (asking specifically what language was involved).

[ravuya]

Maybe I should prototype a new series of ratings labels that describe the entire gameplay of the product, including the parts where the player crouches repeatedly over a defeated enemy while cracking wise about his testicular fortitude over voip.

Unfortunately, boxes would have to be like 80 miles long and nobody would buy Square's latest RPG since the entire poorly-translated plot would be written on the ratings label.