Content rating?
by Tyler Frans · in General Discussion · 09/10/2001 (11:49 am) · 40 replies
Well, I contacted the ESRB about game ratings and received a reply this morning. Having kids myself, I think this is an issue that should be addressed by Indie developers on some level. But then again, it's solely up to the developer ... more of a moral call I guess.
After reading over the submission forms and pricelist, I starting thinking about what could we all do as developers without having to pay the $100-500 ESRB fee. So what do you guys think of making a simple format rating system and call it Independent Developer Rating (IDR)? If a game has violent, sexual content, then obviously it would get a Mature rating. If it's a furry-bunny downhill sledding game minus violence, then it would get a Everyone rating. Just a simple criteria format. I'm curious as to everyone's take on something like this. Thanks. :)
-Sty
After reading over the submission forms and pricelist, I starting thinking about what could we all do as developers without having to pay the $100-500 ESRB fee. So what do you guys think of making a simple format rating system and call it Independent Developer Rating (IDR)? If a game has violent, sexual content, then obviously it would get a Mature rating. If it's a furry-bunny downhill sledding game minus violence, then it would get a Everyone rating. Just a simple criteria format. I'm curious as to everyone's take on something like this. Thanks. :)
-Sty
About the author
#22
We could even come up with the very simple GarageGames content rating system that would be self policing. IMHO, most people don't buy games based on a content rating system. In all of the years that I have been making games, I have never made a decision based on what it would do to the content rating. ESRB content ratings were always things the marketing department worried about when the game was nearly done and the box had to be created.
In working on and selling all of my games, I have never seen any correlation between sales and ratings. So, my advice would be to worry more about the fun factor and creativity of your game, and not burn too many brain cells on this ratings issue.
Jeff Tunnell GG
09/27/2001 (11:59 am)
I like Tyler's initiative here, and also the recognition that many indies cannot afford even $100 to get their game rated. I am coming out with an indie game, and I am not even going to bother getting it rated. The content and presentation are obviously family oriented, and I don't need an independent content rating to prove it. If the product ends up in the retail channel, then we will take the neccessary steps to get the needed rating.We could even come up with the very simple GarageGames content rating system that would be self policing. IMHO, most people don't buy games based on a content rating system. In all of the years that I have been making games, I have never made a decision based on what it would do to the content rating. ESRB content ratings were always things the marketing department worried about when the game was nearly done and the box had to be created.
In working on and selling all of my games, I have never seen any correlation between sales and ratings. So, my advice would be to worry more about the fun factor and creativity of your game, and not burn too many brain cells on this ratings issue.
Jeff Tunnell GG
#23
Quite correct. Its when you have to start worrying about going full blown retail commercial, that you have to worry about ratings - because most retails nowadays will not touch a game unless its rated.
Further, if someone is doing a game for children, the box should already say it all. And as such, doesn't need a rating. Its like asking the obvious.
09/27/2001 (12:05 pm)
Quote:The content and presentation are obviously family oriented, and I don't need an independent content rating to prove it. If the product ends up in the retail channel, then we will take the neccessary steps to get the needed rating.
Quite correct. Its when you have to start worrying about going full blown retail commercial, that you have to worry about ratings - because most retails nowadays will not touch a game unless its rated.
Further, if someone is doing a game for children, the box should already say it all. And as such, doesn't need a rating. Its like asking the obvious.
#24
Instead of having your game evaluated by a committee, the RSAC relied on the honor system. To rate your game, you went through a computerized survey that asked you yes/no questions about the content. Depending on how you answered, the program would ask you more detailed questions to give a proper rating for the game. It broke the main categories down to ask pertinent questions about what [i]kinds[/i[ of sex, violence, and language were in your game. For example, the rating covered the types of violence (aggressive, natural/accidental, benign immobilization, sports related, strategic aggression), portrayal of target (human, nonhuman sentient, realistic non-sentient, realistic nonsentient with implied social presence, symbolic nonsentient), level of damage (no apparent, minor, moderate, death or destruction), victim's stance (threadtening or non), and player consequences (rewarded or not for aggression) in rating the violence of your game. The result was a four-point scale in three categories along with information about the category. The Win95 version of "Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure" just got a one point violence rating along with the information of "Creatures killed," whereas Phantasmagoria 2 had four point ratings in all three categories (I'd give the detailed info but I don't have the box anymore).
After filling out the survey you'd instantly get your rating. You then would submit the rating to the RSAC itself so they could check it for accuracy. The processing fees were based on how much money your company made. If your revenue was <$100k, you only paid $50. If you had unusual circumstances, the price was negotiable.
Alas, the RSAC system fell out of favor for rating games. If you visit their website, you'll see that they've turned to rating websites. IE has built-in content filtering based on their system. In fitting with GG's "mission" of assisting indie developers, I think it's a worthy task to establish a system to use for our ESD games to provide content information using a consistent format. If we as developers take the responsibility to inform our consumers about our content, we'll deserve higher respect from people outside of our community as a group which understands the need to represent our work fairly and honestly, without the need to be policed by any agency, governmental or not.
09/27/2001 (12:55 pm)
Does anyone here remember the RSAC? They were a competing orgaization for rating games. Instead of equating sex and violence with maturity as the ESRB does, their ratings focused on the amount of nudity/sex, violence, and foul language in the content to give consumers a clearer picture of what they were purchasing.Instead of having your game evaluated by a committee, the RSAC relied on the honor system. To rate your game, you went through a computerized survey that asked you yes/no questions about the content. Depending on how you answered, the program would ask you more detailed questions to give a proper rating for the game. It broke the main categories down to ask pertinent questions about what [i]kinds[/i[ of sex, violence, and language were in your game. For example, the rating covered the types of violence (aggressive, natural/accidental, benign immobilization, sports related, strategic aggression), portrayal of target (human, nonhuman sentient, realistic non-sentient, realistic nonsentient with implied social presence, symbolic nonsentient), level of damage (no apparent, minor, moderate, death or destruction), victim's stance (threadtening or non), and player consequences (rewarded or not for aggression) in rating the violence of your game. The result was a four-point scale in three categories along with information about the category. The Win95 version of "Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure" just got a one point violence rating along with the information of "Creatures killed," whereas Phantasmagoria 2 had four point ratings in all three categories (I'd give the detailed info but I don't have the box anymore).
After filling out the survey you'd instantly get your rating. You then would submit the rating to the RSAC itself so they could check it for accuracy. The processing fees were based on how much money your company made. If your revenue was <$100k, you only paid $50. If you had unusual circumstances, the price was negotiable.
Alas, the RSAC system fell out of favor for rating games. If you visit their website, you'll see that they've turned to rating websites. IE has built-in content filtering based on their system. In fitting with GG's "mission" of assisting indie developers, I think it's a worthy task to establish a system to use for our ESD games to provide content information using a consistent format. If we as developers take the responsibility to inform our consumers about our content, we'll deserve higher respect from people outside of our community as a group which understands the need to represent our work fairly and honestly, without the need to be policed by any agency, governmental or not.
#25
I think an IDR would be an excellent idea (as I said in my previous post). The only issue to worry about is how to make sure the IDR isn't tainted as an inaccurate resource by developers who lie about their content. This is why even the RSAC made sure you were being honest. However, I don't recall that the RSAC had major problems in developers lying about their content. A simple check by a few volunteers would be enough. If a dozen of us decide to check each other's work, we can rotate responsibilities and keep costs at zero. It may be unfortunately necessary to have a small fee to make it look us like a reputable group, though.
09/27/2001 (1:01 pm)
Some other comments... :)I think an IDR would be an excellent idea (as I said in my previous post). The only issue to worry about is how to make sure the IDR isn't tainted as an inaccurate resource by developers who lie about their content. This is why even the RSAC made sure you were being honest. However, I don't recall that the RSAC had major problems in developers lying about their content. A simple check by a few volunteers would be enough. If a dozen of us decide to check each other's work, we can rotate responsibilities and keep costs at zero. It may be unfortunately necessary to have a small fee to make it look us like a reputable group, though.
#26
In fact, IIRC, the whole RSAC failed because developers could not be trusted to rate their own games.
And with pressure from the US govt. to rate our games and police ourselves (heh, go figure), thats why most companies rely on ESRB, which, like it or not, is the defacto recognized standard for rating games.
The issue is not about rating the games. The issue about credibility. I mean, some people fail to realize that if publishers and developers didn't think much of the ESRB rating, they wouldn't use it. Period. Even companies who used to rate their own games and put such ratings on their box (in the early stages of the government's threats), have turned to the ESRB.
All I'm saying is that, sure, if anyone wants to create their own rating system - there's nothing stopping them from doing so. But the road to ratings credibility is paved with more trouble that its worth. What could be akin to saving $100, would amount to more money spent and a sordid excercise in futility.
If indies want their own system, as long as they don't have any aspirations of putting their games on the shelves, then I guess that they can do ahead with a new rating system. But the fact is, WHY come up with yet another rating system (indie or not), when every indie can just rate their own games and not have to pay anyone any money. This is what makes no sense to me.
Eitherway, I'm sticking with the ESRB :-)
09/27/2001 (1:12 pm)
Yep, you're quite right Adam.In fact, IIRC, the whole RSAC failed because developers could not be trusted to rate their own games.
And with pressure from the US govt. to rate our games and police ourselves (heh, go figure), thats why most companies rely on ESRB, which, like it or not, is the defacto recognized standard for rating games.
The issue is not about rating the games. The issue about credibility. I mean, some people fail to realize that if publishers and developers didn't think much of the ESRB rating, they wouldn't use it. Period. Even companies who used to rate their own games and put such ratings on their box (in the early stages of the government's threats), have turned to the ESRB.
All I'm saying is that, sure, if anyone wants to create their own rating system - there's nothing stopping them from doing so. But the road to ratings credibility is paved with more trouble that its worth. What could be akin to saving $100, would amount to more money spent and a sordid excercise in futility.
If indies want their own system, as long as they don't have any aspirations of putting their games on the shelves, then I guess that they can do ahead with a new rating system. But the fact is, WHY come up with yet another rating system (indie or not), when every indie can just rate their own games and not have to pay anyone any money. This is what makes no sense to me.
Eitherway, I'm sticking with the ESRB :-)
#27
In any case, I believe that this idea would in fact help, but it's not entirely crucial. Those that would be worrying about the game content would be concerned enough that if it wasn't directly stated that there would be violence, they'd look for an outside source to confirm that there isn't. However, they would also not be informed enough to know what the ESRB is offhand. They'd see a rating and call that good.
However, if they made a purchase and found it other than what was stated, they would likely not do any further business here at all. So it's a good idea to make sure the ratings are accurate.
09/27/2001 (4:01 pm)
Appears some moderator didn't find my wit to their tastes. Ah well.In any case, I believe that this idea would in fact help, but it's not entirely crucial. Those that would be worrying about the game content would be concerned enough that if it wasn't directly stated that there would be violence, they'd look for an outside source to confirm that there isn't. However, they would also not be informed enough to know what the ESRB is offhand. They'd see a rating and call that good.
However, if they made a purchase and found it other than what was stated, they would likely not do any further business here at all. So it's a good idea to make sure the ratings are accurate.
#28
Kowtowing to petty fascists like Senator Lieberman isn't part of my plan.
Happy Yom Kippur, Joe. Hope you're doing some atonin'.
09/27/2001 (5:13 pm)
Some of us want to do the independent developer thing so we can do things our own way, even if we don't make it big. Kowtowing to petty fascists like Senator Lieberman isn't part of my plan.
Happy Yom Kippur, Joe. Hope you're doing some atonin'.
#29
ESRB is US body, not an international one, and as such, many of their ratings would be considered stupid in other countries.
The US has some of the harshest censorship rules out there, and many countries don't agree with them. As a result, ESRB is NOT applicable outside of the US.
The same applies for standards in other countries. Some ELSPA (the European version) would probably be considered wrong in some countries.
Some prime examples:
1) In germanny, no games are allowed to depict violence of any kind against another human. Carmageddon is a prime example of this (the pedestrians were replaced with robots)
2) In Holland, sexual content rules are very slack, and it wouldn't suprise me if some guys from Amsterdam were shocked to to nudity censored.
3) In the US (from my personal experience), anything related to, um, single-person sex is considered offensive, and suitable only for adults (of course, everyone over the age of 12 does it). Another cultural problem.
With the 'net enabling mass-distrobution of games and other forms of entertainment to people who would not have access to it otherwise, you have to remember that not everyone is the same, or has the same standards.
The OGRE system is an attempt to cross borders when it comes to rating games. Sure, some people might not like some of the content, but hey, screw 'em.
09/28/2001 (4:00 am)
One of the main reasons for setting up an independant board is not the price aspect, but the cultural aspect.ESRB is US body, not an international one, and as such, many of their ratings would be considered stupid in other countries.
The US has some of the harshest censorship rules out there, and many countries don't agree with them. As a result, ESRB is NOT applicable outside of the US.
The same applies for standards in other countries. Some ELSPA (the European version) would probably be considered wrong in some countries.
Some prime examples:
1) In germanny, no games are allowed to depict violence of any kind against another human. Carmageddon is a prime example of this (the pedestrians were replaced with robots)
2) In Holland, sexual content rules are very slack, and it wouldn't suprise me if some guys from Amsterdam were shocked to to nudity censored.
3) In the US (from my personal experience), anything related to, um, single-person sex is considered offensive, and suitable only for adults (of course, everyone over the age of 12 does it). Another cultural problem.
With the 'net enabling mass-distrobution of games and other forms of entertainment to people who would not have access to it otherwise, you have to remember that not everyone is the same, or has the same standards.
The OGRE system is an attempt to cross borders when it comes to rating games. Sure, some people might not like some of the content, but hey, screw 'em.
#30
I think that's a great idea, Jeff.
09/28/2001 (5:50 am)
Just to clarify on my previous use of 'rating', I think 'content identification' (as Scott stated) was a better term in what I was driving at. Not that a board would be presiding on it, just a "Hey this is what we put in it if it isn't that obvious". More for those developing free games and those without solid budgets or aspirations of pursuing box publishing. Either way, just a thought. :)I think that's a great idea, Jeff.
#31
The reason I voiced my skepticism above is because I knew that that would be the voice of nearly anyone else who's been presented with the reality and practicality of ratings systems. Enter Derek.
However it seems like lots of people are arguing over nothing, because I think pretty much everybody is actually agreeing on the following points:
1) In order to sell a game commercially through common distribution channels, you need to get an ESRB rating.
2) ESRB ratings are quite a good deal for their price. (Given the amount of work they do, and the administrative costs they require to maintain themselves.)
3) For *independant* game developers, getting an ESRB ratings may not make the most sense until the time they wish to distribute through established distibution channels.
4) ESRB also has debatable value and relevance outside of the US. (Though I think that the content identification portion of the rating still holds value.)
5) Creating an actual competitive alternative to the ESRB is impractical. However, a goal of creating a consistent and established convention of self-*describing* game content (*not* rating it) is something that consumers of independant games can value from. (Content identification according to predefined measures is better than nothing at all.)
I also wanted to comment on the statement about America censoring game content. America does *not* censor any game content. What it does do is label it.
This is a pet peeve of mine. I'm very against censorship, but very for labelling and restriction against puchase by minors (when appropriate.) A relevant analogy is the "Parental Advisory" warnings on CD's. There was a big uprising against them saying they were censorship. THEY ARE NOT CENSORSHIP. Censorship is when the government (or any body which can dictate changes to your work) tells you that you simply cannot include certain types of content in your product.
Censorship: Video games in Germany cannot depict violence against people. Also, content in America cannot feature sexual activity depicting a minor (they can neither *be* underage, or be *depicted* to be underage.)
Not Censorship: ESRB giving you an M rating and a "sexual content" label for showing adults having sex, or mastubating for that matter.
So the truth is that America actually has pretty light censorship rules (necrophilia, beastiality, and underage sex *are* censored), but has much more rigorous labelling and rules regarding sales to minors.
And the reason you don't see people masturbating in games is not because it's censored, (at least by the government or ESRB,) but because it doesn't sell games, so developers and publishers don't use it. The only thing stopping people from including it in games is that people (Americans, at least) don't find it particularly appealing subject matter.
-Scott
10/01/2001 (1:15 pm)
Heh... I hadn't visited this thread for a while, and look what happens. ;-)The reason I voiced my skepticism above is because I knew that that would be the voice of nearly anyone else who's been presented with the reality and practicality of ratings systems. Enter Derek.
However it seems like lots of people are arguing over nothing, because I think pretty much everybody is actually agreeing on the following points:
1) In order to sell a game commercially through common distribution channels, you need to get an ESRB rating.
2) ESRB ratings are quite a good deal for their price. (Given the amount of work they do, and the administrative costs they require to maintain themselves.)
3) For *independant* game developers, getting an ESRB ratings may not make the most sense until the time they wish to distribute through established distibution channels.
4) ESRB also has debatable value and relevance outside of the US. (Though I think that the content identification portion of the rating still holds value.)
5) Creating an actual competitive alternative to the ESRB is impractical. However, a goal of creating a consistent and established convention of self-*describing* game content (*not* rating it) is something that consumers of independant games can value from. (Content identification according to predefined measures is better than nothing at all.)
I also wanted to comment on the statement about America censoring game content. America does *not* censor any game content. What it does do is label it.
This is a pet peeve of mine. I'm very against censorship, but very for labelling and restriction against puchase by minors (when appropriate.) A relevant analogy is the "Parental Advisory" warnings on CD's. There was a big uprising against them saying they were censorship. THEY ARE NOT CENSORSHIP. Censorship is when the government (or any body which can dictate changes to your work) tells you that you simply cannot include certain types of content in your product.
Censorship: Video games in Germany cannot depict violence against people. Also, content in America cannot feature sexual activity depicting a minor (they can neither *be* underage, or be *depicted* to be underage.)
Not Censorship: ESRB giving you an M rating and a "sexual content" label for showing adults having sex, or mastubating for that matter.
So the truth is that America actually has pretty light censorship rules (necrophilia, beastiality, and underage sex *are* censored), but has much more rigorous labelling and rules regarding sales to minors.
And the reason you don't see people masturbating in games is not because it's censored, (at least by the government or ESRB,) but because it doesn't sell games, so developers and publishers don't use it. The only thing stopping people from including it in games is that people (Americans, at least) don't find it particularly appealing subject matter.
-Scott
#32
Please don't let the disruptions keep this kind of discussion from taking place here at GG. Many great ideas came out of this discussion.
Jeff Tunnell GG
10/01/2001 (6:45 pm)
Sorry. I had to moderate this thread a little. I'm not a fan of censorship either, but big flame wars can and should be taken off-line. BTW, Mr. Smart sent me private email stating that he wouldn't be gracing our GG community anymore, so I took the liberty of erasing his final .plan flame (oops, just a little more censorship). He left, looking for yet another bridge.Please don't let the disruptions keep this kind of discussion from taking place here at GG. Many great ideas came out of this discussion.
Jeff Tunnell GG
#33
Note: this is my opinion and my not reflect the views of others.
10/02/2001 (1:24 am)
yet another unmentioned cost for the developer. Intresting how the cost list just keeps growing and growing isn't it? intresting how a list of all these various costs for the developer isn't readly available here eather, perhaps it would hurt garagegames at selling there engine if the people accually knew all these little costs and service fees that keep popping up? I guess its good business practice to hide behind a dark fog, making only the good stuff shine threw the blur, seem to be seeing that more and more with companies these days.Note: this is my opinion and my not reflect the views of others.
#34
was that called for? I mean, seriously. WAS it?
I have EVERY post I EVER made on GG, including my .plan profile, saved in an html
archive. So, you can delete anything you want. I never started any flame war nor
did I encourage any.
If you thought that the flames those idiots started were appropriate, they wouldn't
have have been deleted, would they?
If you thought that some idiots starting flames in MY .plan file was appropriate,
they wouldn't have been deleted, would they? And why would you guys have gone
to the trouble of making .plan file changes to prevent it?
Did *I* go into anyone's .plan file and flame them?
Did *I* go into any forum and start flaming people?
Didn't I just point out, to you folks, what was going on in order that action
be taken?
Just for that, I'm doing a soapbox article (which a lot of sites carry) on
my site in the coming weeks. Unlike you, I have PROOF of EVERYTHING I posted -
and ALL the emails. All of which I plan on making a part of that article.
I won't soon forget. This is a VERY small industy.
cheers
Here is my email to you, which I thought was private. But I guess not
10/02/2001 (3:41 am)
Jeffwas that called for? I mean, seriously. WAS it?
I have EVERY post I EVER made on GG, including my .plan profile, saved in an html
archive. So, you can delete anything you want. I never started any flame war nor
did I encourage any.
If you thought that the flames those idiots started were appropriate, they wouldn't
have have been deleted, would they?
If you thought that some idiots starting flames in MY .plan file was appropriate,
they wouldn't have been deleted, would they? And why would you guys have gone
to the trouble of making .plan file changes to prevent it?
Did *I* go into anyone's .plan file and flame them?
Did *I* go into any forum and start flaming people?
Didn't I just point out, to you folks, what was going on in order that action
be taken?
Just for that, I'm doing a soapbox article (which a lot of sites carry) on
my site in the coming weeks. Unlike you, I have PROOF of EVERYTHING I posted -
and ALL the emails. All of which I plan on making a part of that article.
I won't soon forget. This is a VERY small industy.
cheers
Here is my email to you, which I thought was private. But I guess not
Quote:
Hi Jeff
My .plan file of today, says it all.
Further, in light of the excerpt from Mark Collins and which I posted in my .plan
file and seeing that frankly I don't have a clue what to think, I'd just like to
continue doing my own thing and drop all further talks wrt collaborating with GG.
I already have a license to the Serious Sam engine which I will most likely
use for my indoor renderer (or just my XBox project, as planned). If I don't use
that, I'll just burn my RenderWare license and build one myself. No problem.
Further, I am currently talking with other companies to satisfy my online multiplayer
requirements, now that BCM is out of the way.
While I would've liked to use Torque for these requirements, I'm in the business of
developing games and don't have time for playing political games - especially - with
idiots online.
I don't really care who made that comment to Mark or why; and I'm not judging anyone.
He lied before about me co-authoring a book with him, so I won't be surprised if this
was yet another blatant lie; especially since he posted it on the Usenet. But then
again, nothing about the pitiful few in game dev community, surprises me. Which is hardly
surprising that most of them just aren't getting anywhere or find themselves out of
work more often than not.
The fact that my 100% innocent and on topic post in this thread, speaks volumes. And
I'm not talking about my response to Mark, nor his. I'm talking about my first post
to which he replied, attacking me. There was nothing wrong with that post or it
would have been removed prior. I simply offered my thoughts to the guys in the
previous posts. I suspect that when Rick deleted Mark's inflammatory and attacking post
and my follow-up therein, he accidentally, or perhaps deliberately, deleted my original
pre-Mark post.
The fact is, I will continue to develop games. I will continue to bring those games
to the mainstream retail channel. And absolutely NOTHING, short of death, is going to
stop that cycle. Ever.
I'm sure that I will stop by GG from time to time to post an ad or something, or to
just see how GG is coming along - but I promise not post in any shape or form. I'm sure
that there are others who would contribute to GG a lot more than I would, and without the
added baggage that comes with people being threatened by my presence or just plain
jealous and going out of their way to disrupt the community in their persecution of me.
cheers and good luck with GG
#36
Anyway, back to the original topic:
Some kind of "content identification and suggested audience" label (which I, too, would just call a "rating", though it may be technically incorrect) would be a wonderful idea for indies, especially those who are just releasing free games or games not necessarily meant for the retail channel. It is probably not necessary, unless it does have adult themes, in which case that should be obvious from the product description. But it would be nice to have guidelines for writing this "content identification and suggested audience" label.
As for the arguments and drama? People need to start paying more attention to what it is that people actually mean, and stop taking things so personally when they are not meant as such.
'Da Falcon
10/02/2001 (9:51 am)
I'll take some of the sugar...Anyway, back to the original topic:
Some kind of "content identification and suggested audience" label (which I, too, would just call a "rating", though it may be technically incorrect) would be a wonderful idea for indies, especially those who are just releasing free games or games not necessarily meant for the retail channel. It is probably not necessary, unless it does have adult themes, in which case that should be obvious from the product description. But it would be nice to have guidelines for writing this "content identification and suggested audience" label.
As for the arguments and drama? People need to start paying more attention to what it is that people actually mean, and stop taking things so personally when they are not meant as such.
'Da Falcon
#37
http://www.seul.org/archives/linuxgames/Sep-2001/msg00000.html
Somewhere in the middle, it starts on a similar topic to this one... (it's the OGRE thing I mentioned earlier).
I don't think there's much point in having two different projects...
10/03/2001 (6:59 am)
Check out this thread (archive)http://www.seul.org/archives/linuxgames/Sep-2001/msg00000.html
Somewhere in the middle, it starts on a similar topic to this one... (it's the OGRE thing I mentioned earlier).
I don't think there's much point in having two different projects...
#39
10/24/2001 (10:34 am)
this is a waste of time (imo) i have kids, and i play all games be for they get em , and so theres my point of veiw.
#40
03/01/2003 (9:35 pm)
hey derek you owe me $40 for your crappy game. 
Mark "Nurgle" Collins
Over at the LGDC, we've been discussing setuping up an open rating systems called OGRE (Open Game Ratings for Entertainment).
It's similar to the ESRB, but it's free... have a look through the archives and see what's been said.