As someone who works in the trust and safety side of a video game company, Nex Playground, what could we implement to make it more worthwhile for you? FWIW - we are committed to a PEGI 3 & 7 catalog as a family-first console.
One role the ratings can still play is to provide a default gate when you enable parental controls on the consoles. However, you might still disagree with them; I approved my 9 year old to play Stardew Valley on her Switch as the PEGI 12 rating seemed overly cautious about some content.
Away from the official bodies I recommend the Family Gaming Database which also covers things like skill level for going beyond just content warning to actual recommendations.
I always see those ratings as an ass covering for companies, to say “well we warned you!” It’s sadly a necessary evil to investigate said game and figure out what you’re comfortable with personally. Obviously the thing to do is play every game ever and know exactly what to allow 🤣 the “diverse content” label doesn’t help at all, it might as well be a big shrug. 🤷♀️
Also I feel that frantic nap gaming session in my BONES! I brought my son down while i was playing Promise Mascot Agency and he bloody loved the mascots and the noises so i got to play that for longer 🤣🙈
I can remember the times when there were no age ratings for games, it simply wasn't considered. Until, naturally, a scandal would brew in the news - like Doom, or Mortal Kombat - and then the politicians would get all riled up. Won't someone think of the children?!
Problem was that putting age ratings on games doesn't stop kids from playing them. Marketing can be clever and work around it. Grand Theft Auto may have had an 18 rating, but in teenager psychology that just makes it more appealing.
These days, as a parent who grew up with these kinds of games, I already have my own experience to draw from so don't consider ratings myself. I can judge what is suitable or not for my own children based on what I know. Spiderman, for instance, is rated 16 (PEGI), and some scenes I think could be considered for older children. Yet a lot of the game is also just mindlessly swinging around the city being cool, which I'll let my youngest child do happily if I watch her.
I think the next most important expansions that rating systems like PEGI and the ESRB can expand to is the Offline/Online divide; as I suspect the evaluators will likely have different experiences with content than the average user.
For something like Minecraft, I agree with the ESRB rating of 10+ but only when explicitly played offline.
A good summary of the state of game reviews.
Have you seen the family gaming database? https://www.familygamingdatabase.com/en-us/home
As someone who works in the trust and safety side of a video game company, Nex Playground, what could we implement to make it more worthwhile for you? FWIW - we are committed to a PEGI 3 & 7 catalog as a family-first console.
One role the ratings can still play is to provide a default gate when you enable parental controls on the consoles. However, you might still disagree with them; I approved my 9 year old to play Stardew Valley on her Switch as the PEGI 12 rating seemed overly cautious about some content.
Away from the official bodies I recommend the Family Gaming Database which also covers things like skill level for going beyond just content warning to actual recommendations.
I always see those ratings as an ass covering for companies, to say “well we warned you!” It’s sadly a necessary evil to investigate said game and figure out what you’re comfortable with personally. Obviously the thing to do is play every game ever and know exactly what to allow 🤣 the “diverse content” label doesn’t help at all, it might as well be a big shrug. 🤷♀️
Also I feel that frantic nap gaming session in my BONES! I brought my son down while i was playing Promise Mascot Agency and he bloody loved the mascots and the noises so i got to play that for longer 🤣🙈
I can remember the times when there were no age ratings for games, it simply wasn't considered. Until, naturally, a scandal would brew in the news - like Doom, or Mortal Kombat - and then the politicians would get all riled up. Won't someone think of the children?!
Problem was that putting age ratings on games doesn't stop kids from playing them. Marketing can be clever and work around it. Grand Theft Auto may have had an 18 rating, but in teenager psychology that just makes it more appealing.
These days, as a parent who grew up with these kinds of games, I already have my own experience to draw from so don't consider ratings myself. I can judge what is suitable or not for my own children based on what I know. Spiderman, for instance, is rated 16 (PEGI), and some scenes I think could be considered for older children. Yet a lot of the game is also just mindlessly swinging around the city being cool, which I'll let my youngest child do happily if I watch her.
I think the next most important expansions that rating systems like PEGI and the ESRB can expand to is the Offline/Online divide; as I suspect the evaluators will likely have different experiences with content than the average user.
For something like Minecraft, I agree with the ESRB rating of 10+ but only when explicitly played offline.
It would have been nice if video games used the same rating system as movies do parents wouldn't be as confused as to what they meant.