BBFC vs. PEGI: Why the former was better at rating video games

Since July 30, 2012, PEGI has been an official, enforceable ratings system for video games in the United Kingdom. While the ELSPA had rated the majority of games between 1994 and 2003, and PEGI had been used for some games/publishers since 2003, the BBFC would still rate video games.

The switchover to PEGI came with a statement from the VSC (Video Standards Council): “PEGI is stricter than the BBFC. We’re not ashamed of that at all, because the methodology of rating films is not appropriate for rating games. Games and films are totally different.”

Yes, that is true…but this statement seems to imply that PEGI “knows better” than the BBFC, and that the BBFC didn’t understand that video games and films were different mediums, which is simply untrue. The BBFC had a more liberal approach to video games than PEGI (in most cases)…however, it was a more rational approach, as they used the same actual examination of game content (including context) they used for films instead the checklist that PEGI uses.

One of the easiest examples to point at are games in which PEGI was much harsher than the BBFC, simply because these games hit certain marks on their checklist. The most known example is likely the original Mass Effect, which was rated 12 by the BBFC for “moderate violence and one sex scene.” PEGI originally rated the game as 18 for “extreme violence”, while a more recent rerelease is still rated 18 for “frequent moderate violence”.

The BBFC published a well-written insight as to why the game was passed at the 12 category. The violence is “undetailed and takes place in a futuristic setting.” The sex scene is “brief and undetailed” and triggered by an optional decision to pursue a relationship with a colleague that takes hours of gameplay and relationship development to get to. They also mention the use of bad language in the game, even though it didn’t directly result in the 12 classification.

PEGI offers no such consumer advice for their original decision. “Extreme violence” sounds like Postal 2 or the interactive torture scene in Grand Theft Auto V, not the fantasy violence in Mass Effect. Their more recent decision does carry consumer advice on the Video Standards Council website:

Content-specific issues: “The game contains a scene where a human character is graphically skewered on a large spike.”

Secondary issues/information: “The game also contains scenes of a sexual nature.”

The scene in which a character is “graphically skewered on a large spike” is not nearly as explicit as PEGI’s consumer advice would have you believe; however, the fact that it’s an act of violence against a human character with blood triggers PEGI’s checklist to bump the game up to an 18. Not only that, but this consumer advice completely neglected to mention any other scene of violence in the game, despite the fact that the majority of the game contains milder scenes of fantasy violence a parent would likely still want to be aware of.

“Scenes of a sexual nature” really tells you nothing about the sex scene/nudity in the game. PEGI also completely neglected to mention the infrequent coarse language in the game, which will bother some parents more than the violence.

---

Let’s say you believe in PEGI’s stricter approach to video game ratings, and think that this checklist method helps protect children from harmful content in games. Well, PEGI’s managed to screw up in some cases with that as well – once again, context isn’t considered, meaning you can get something blatantly inappropriate through them as long as it doesn’t check any of the boxes for higher ratings.

One example of this that was rated by both the BBFC and PEGI is Sexy Poker. The BBFC rated the game at the 15 category for moderate nudity and explained their reasoning as to why though their insight – though the nudity lacks graphic detail, it’s clearly being sexualized through the reward system and therefore is more appropriate at a higher category.

PEGI rated Sexy Poker 12, citing “content that teaches or encourages gambling” and “sexual images and/or sexual innuendo”.

If you asked the majority of parents rather a game in which girls strip down to their underwear as you win poker games was appropriate for their twelve-year-old, the response would likely be an overwhelming “Um, no.” However, since the game didn’t have what PEGI considered “nudity of a sexual nature” by just a hare/barely-there item of clothing, it didn’t get the 16 rating.

Another example of a blatantly too low rating based on PEGI’s checklist is Naughty Bear. Naughty Bear is a sadistic satire game in which you play a teddy bear on a revenge killing spree against other teddy bears, which earns you “Naughty Points”.

PEGI viewed the game as containing “realistic looking violence towards non-human looking characters”. This is true. However, this is the type of descriptor that should be used for a game with a lot of fantasy violence/slaying of dragons and trolls and the like (and likely what comes to parents’ minds), not a game in which the goal is to get revenge by killing your opponents, including the ability to mentally torture and drive teddy bears to suicide.

I have no doubt in my mind that if the BBFC viewed Naughty Bear, it would receive at least a 15 rating; the fact that the violence is against teddy bears and lacks blood probably reduces the impact enough to avoid an 18, but the overall sadistic tone of the work, even played for satire with teddy bears, would definitely be considered strong enough for a 15.

---

In conclusion, PEGI is a highly flawed system that lacks detail in its classifications and the ability to apply context to video games. As such, their argument against the BBFC when they first came into full power makes absolutely no sense. The BBFC was a much better video game system for the UK, and while I don’t know much about the ELSPA, from their classifications I’ve seen, they appeared to be more rational than PEGI. (The ELSPA’s 18+ rating was rarely used, and mainly for games really pushed the limit.)

I find it funny that other countries have latched onto PEGI without recognizing its flaws – even France. I’m sure French children are confused as to why tie-in video games for films rated in their country as suitable for all ages are rated for sixteen and older (which is equivalent in terms of their film classifications to Nymphomaniac: Part 1). Sort of proves that video game classification is sort of an afterthought in the mind of the general public.

How many parents even use these classifications? Another statement that PEGi’s made: “A lot of parents wouldn’t allow their 12-year-old to watch an ’18’-rated film. But play an ’18’-rated game? They’re more inclined to. We’ve got to get the message across.”

It’s hard to ‘get the message across’ when you’re forcing content that had previously been passed as low as 12 up to the 18 category, up there with the most extreme content possible. Parents would do much better to consult a resource like Common Sense Media or even the ESRB’s rating summaries for detailed information about a game.