From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Fri Aug 27 23:12:54 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:12:54 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Test Message
Message-ID: <1093644774.27631.21.camel@localhost>

'ello,

This is just a test to make sure the list is set up OK.

bye just now,


-- 
Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Sun Aug 29 20:00:31 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:00:31 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Nearly ready to begin
Message-ID: <1093806030.5579.75.camel@localhost>

'ello,

I'm hoping that, since the e-mail I sent out earlier, we'll be getting a
number of developers, publishers and retailers joining this list.  It
seems like the best way to share our opinions of the system, sort out
problems and make improvements before it starts being used.

I know a number of people have joined already but I think we should wait
until some more of the people who expressed opinions yesterday sign up
(assuming they're going to, of course).

I'll post again to let you know when I think there's enough of us to
start a useful discussion.  Thanks for your interest so far!

bye just now,


-- 
Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>



From richard at audiogames.net  Sun Aug 29 23:37:01 2004
From: richard at audiogames.net (AudioGames.net)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:37:01 +0200
Subject: [AAGRS] testing
Message-ID: <007101c48e18$b44226d0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>

Hi folks,

just testing the mailing list!

Richard


http://www.audiogames.net 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.agrip.org.uk/pipermail/aagrs/attachments/20040830/cfc310d4/attachment.html>

From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Tue Aug 31 12:12:18 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:12:18 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Welcome + General Info
Message-ID: <1093950737.3890.171.camel@localhost>

'ello,

OK, I think there are enough of us now to get started.  The people who
raised points beforehand are subscribed.  I thought I'd send this to
give you all some general information about the list and what I hope we
can collaborate on.

I'll be sending out a couple of mails soon that should start off the
initial topics for discussion (these will bring up the points raised a
few days ago on the initial e-mail distribution).  This e-mail is about
the mailing list itself, however.  There are a few points I thought I
would bring to everyone's attention.

First, the reply-to headers on messages posted here aren't altered so by
default you'll be replying to an individual.  You'll need to use your
mailer's reply-to-list or reply-to-all function to send back to the
list.  The main reason it is set up this way is that people may need a
different reply-to address than their from address so it might break
things for them if their reply-to address is replaced.

If for any reason you would like to read the list's archives -- for
example if you want to mail someone who's not on the list with some
information that has been posted here -- you can access the archives
with a web browser.  The address is:

http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs/

(Just click on the ``AAGRS Archives'' link.)

If you ever need to refer someone off-list to a post, you might want to
use http://tinyurl.com/ to make the link much smaller and easier to send
in an e-mail.

I think that's pretty much everything I wanted to let you all know. 
I'll go and post the interesting stuff now :-).  Oh, if you've got any
questions about list stuff, then you can always write to
aagrs-admin at oblique.agrip.org.uk and that should come to me directly
instead of on-list.  Alternatively, for general help, e-mail to
aagrs-request at oblique.agrip.org.uk with the word ``help'' in the subject
or body.

bye just now, best regards,


-- 
Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Tue Aug 31 12:18:13 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:18:13 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Some points for discussion
In-Reply-To: <008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER>
References: <1093705857.2540.4.camel@localhost>
	<008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER>
Message-ID: <1093951092.3892.178.camel@localhost>

'ello,

Here are some points that were raised a few days ago.  I think they'd be
a good place to start...

On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 21:03, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> Imitable Behaviour = Dangerous combat techniques must not be presented. No
> emphasis on the use of easily accessible lethal weapons (e.g. knives).
<snip>
> so they are allowed to use strong language, soft sexual content,  but not
> knives? This category is lined up pretty much with the mature category from
> the other organization and I just can't see not allowing to use weapons such
> as knives, guns, blow torches, chain saws, etc. in this category. Unless, I
> am misunderstanding something? For example, if I had a game with a character
> not using foul language at all, no sexual content in the game, but he was
> using a knife to kill people it would have to be rated adult? Please clarify
> if you mean they are not able to include the use of weapons in this category
> since it seems like that should be allowed.

Good point.  I have had some time to look into the knives issue and I
agree -- I think a possible idea is to change the description to ``No
glamorisation of the use of easily accessible lethal weapons.'', which
should solve the problem, IMHO (you'd be able to present the use of them
but not say ``Hey kids; do this -- it's cool!'' :-)).

In a ``Mature Teens'' game, you wouldn't be allowed to go into any
detail about the pain/injury that this hypothetical character would
inflict by using the knife, but that equally applies to any other
aspects of violence in that category, ATM, too (which, to me, seems
fair).

What does everyone else think?

Also, I was asked if imitable is a word -- I was pretty sure it was at
the time but if anyone thinks it sounds a bit weird, please suggest a
phrase we could use instead.  The meaning of ``imitable behaviour'' was
meant to be something like ``stuff we don't want kids copying because
they think it is cool'' :-).

bye just now,


-- 
Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>



From info at adoraentertainment.com  Tue Aug 31 12:43:43 2004
From: info at adoraentertainment.com (Adora Entertainment)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 04:43:43 -0700
Subject: [AAGRS] Some points for discussion
In-Reply-To: <1093951092.3892.178.camel@localhost>
References: <008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER>
Message-ID: <413401FF.8578.566E618@localhost>

I'm very happy to see someone taking some initiative with this.  Thanks for your efforts.

In response to the points you raised in this initial post, I think we can simplify it even 
further.  Here's the wording I'd suggest:

Games under this rating may contain violence that is not glorified for a realistic, life-like 
setting, or presented in especially realistic audio or textual/spoken commentary.

Basically, all your bases are covered in a relativley simple sentence here.  Monkey 
Business's Smith character can shoot the bad guys in the old west and fall neatly into this 
category because:

1. Old west is not a realistic life like setting, therefore, even though the sheriff gives you a 
reward for catching the bad guys, the glorification would not be reasonably placed into a 
modern context.

2. We do not hear the sound of blood, brains, or other gore splattering etc.

On a slightly unrelated note, someone mentioned, (I think on the BG list) that we might 
consider just using the ESRB rating system.  I am opposed to this for a variety of 
reasons.  Here's a few, but certainly not all of them...

First, I think it important to come up with a system that we can tailor specificly to 
accessible/audio games. Second, less discerning customers may think that, like the 
mainstream gaming industry, we are held accountable by the ESRB.

That's all I have to say for the moment. *smile*

On 31 Aug 2004 at 12:18, Matthew T. Atkinson wrote:

> 'ello,
> 
> Here are some points that were raised a few days ago.  I think they'd be
> a good place to start...
> 
> On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 21:03, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> > Imitable Behaviour = Dangerous combat techniques must not be presented. No
> > emphasis on the use of easily accessible lethal weapons (e.g. knives).
> <snip>
> > so they are allowed to use strong language, soft sexual content,  but not
> > knives? This category is lined up pretty much with the mature category from
> > the other organization and I just can't see not allowing to use weapons such
> > as knives, guns, blow torches, chain saws, etc. in this category. Unless, I
> > am misunderstanding something? For example, if I had a game with a character
> > not using foul language at all, no sexual content in the game, but he was
> > using a knife to kill people it would have to be rated adult? Please clarify
> > if you mean they are not able to include the use of weapons in this category
> > since it seems like that should be allowed.
> 
> Good point.  I have had some time to look into the knives issue and I
> agree -- I think a possible idea is to change the description to ``No
> glamorisation of the use of easily accessible lethal weapons.'', which
> should solve the problem, IMHO (you'd be able to present the use of them
> but not say ``Hey kids; do this -- it's cool!'' :-)).
> 
> In a ``Mature Teens'' game, you wouldn't be allowed to go into any
> detail about the pain/injury that this hypothetical character would
> inflict by using the knife, but that equally applies to any other
> aspects of violence in that category, ATM, too (which, to me, seems
> fair).
> 
> What does everyone else think?
> 
> Also, I was asked if imitable is a word -- I was pretty sure it was at
> the time but if anyone thinks it sounds a bit weird, please suggest a
> phrase we could use instead.  The meaning of ``imitable behaviour'' was
> meant to be something like ``stuff we don't want kids copying because
> they think it is cool'' :-).
> 
> bye just now,
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.agrip.org.uk/pipermail/aagrs/attachments/20040831/b1c75da0/attachment.htm>

From justind at BscGames.com  Tue Aug 31 13:31:01 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:31:01 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] bulleted points on descriptions
References: <1093705857.2540.4.camel@localhost><008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER>
	<1093951092.3892.178.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <009801c48f56$6076e2e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Greetings all.

I'd like to pick a bit at the bulleted points after each category and share
some thoughts. Here is what we have so far:

Violence = None whatsoever.
Horror = None whatsoever.
Language = None whatsoever.
Sexual Content = No sexual content (or innuendo) whatsoever.
Drugs = No presentation of any drug-related issues whatsoever.
Imitable Behavior = No emphasis on real-world weapons or any dangerous
stunts.

Some thoughts I have... is horror really necessary? Cannot that just be
covered by violence? I.E a
bloody cutting off of someones head is violence and can be rated as strong
violence where as shooting someone with no blood splats could be described
as soft violence. A parent who reads soft violence knows immediately there
is no bloody details in a murder where as a parent who reads strong violence
already knows it is bloody. I just don't see horror as being necessary to
have listed as a separate point.

Secondly, I think to clarify the point "language" better for most readers it
should
state "Strong Language" and give a rating on it and not just "Language".

Finally, the line Imitable Behavior  won't be understood by 99% of parents
LOL let alone me *grin*. Again, I don't think this one is necessary since it
could be covered by the violence point. I.E if it is soft violence, it is a
given that we are not instructing a child how to use a knife to cut off a
head one artery at a time. Where as if violence is described as strong, it
is a given that you might hear I'm cutting your head off one artery at a
time etc.

What does everyone think on these opinions?

Regards,
Justin - BSC Games



From justind at BscGames.com  Tue Aug 31 13:36:50 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:36:50 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Some points for discussion
References: <008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER>
	<413401FF.8578.566E618@localhost>
Message-ID: <00b201c48f57$305db1f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Hi Josh and all.
---snip---
Games under this rating may contain violence that is not glorified for a realistic, life-like setting, or presented in especially realistic audio or textual/spoken
commentary.

Basically, all your bases are covered in a relativley simple sentence here.  

---snip---

yes, I agree. I think the categories need simple descriptions much like the ESRB presents. I.E I feel there is too much detail for the categories. The ESRB presents a category name, a brief description of each, and that is about it. This is enough to let parents know exactly what the game contains without a gross overemphasis of detail. I like your wording Josh, I'd recommend that you present some more descriptions for the categories listed on Matthew's site just for discussion. I did notice that the ESRB seems to rate primarily violence, language, and sexual content in games. I.E they rate content and sum it up in a brief description. I like that approach.

Others? Comments?



Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.agrip.org.uk/pipermail/aagrs/attachments/20040831/b83fa571/attachment.htm>

From justind at BscGames.com  Tue Aug 31 13:40:04 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:40:04 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Some points for discussion
References: <008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER>
	<413401FF.8578.566E618@localhost>
Message-ID: <00d401c48f57$a4191350$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Hi Josh and all.

---snip---
On a slightly unrelated note, someone mentioned, (I think on the BG list) that we might consider just using the ESRB rating system.  I am opposed to this
for a variety of reasons.  Here's a few, but certainly not all of them...

First, I think it important to come up with a system that we can tailor specificly to accessible/audio games. Second, less discerning customers may think
that, like the mainstream gaming industry, we are held accountable by the ESRB.

---snip---


I fully agree with both of these points.

Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.agrip.org.uk/pipermail/aagrs/attachments/20040831/10b93b43/attachment.htm>

From info at adoraentertainment.com  Tue Aug 31 13:48:33 2004
From: info at adoraentertainment.com (Adora Entertainment)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 05:48:33 -0700
Subject: [AAGRS] bulleted points on descriptions
In-Reply-To: <009801c48f56$6076e2e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <41341131.3122.5A242EE@localhost>

I agree that horror and violence could be easily lumped together into the same category.  
I sort of did this in my previous message.  The simpler the better, IMO, as long as all our 
bases are tended to.

Speaking of the language thing..."Strong language" would definitely help clarify this point, 
but it made me think of something that we may or may not wish to take into 
consideration.  Being an international community, the use of "strong language" varies a 
little from country to country.  "damn" and "hell" are far more frowned upon in the States 
when spoken by primary school hcildren than in Europe.

Being more liberal minded and partial to european customs and entertainment as well, I 
tend to want to use the European mind set when addressing the specifics of what can be 
considered "strong language".

Granted, this is hardly a earthshattering point, but we should try to make sure we've 
answered all the questions before they're asked by the public. *laugh*


From:           	"JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
To:             	"AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Date sent:      	Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:31:01 -0400
Organization:   	BSC Games
Subject:        	[AAGRS] bulleted points on descriptions

> Greetings all.
> 
> I'd like to pick a bit at the bulleted points after each category and
> share some thoughts. Here is what we have so far:
> 
> Violence = None whatsoever.
> Horror = None whatsoever.
> Language = None whatsoever.
> Sexual Content = No sexual content (or innuendo) whatsoever.
> Drugs = No presentation of any drug-related issues whatsoever.
> Imitable Behavior = No emphasis on real-world weapons or any dangerous
> stunts.
> 
> Some thoughts I have... is horror really necessary? Cannot that just
> be covered by violence? I.E a bloody cutting off of someones head is
> violence and can be rated as strong violence where as shooting someone
> with no blood splats could be described as soft violence. A parent who
> reads soft violence knows immediately there is no bloody details in a
> murder where as a parent who reads strong violence already knows it is
> bloody. I just don't see horror as being necessary to have listed as a
> separate point.
> 
> Secondly, I think to clarify the point "language" better for most
> readers it should state "Strong Language" and give a rating on it and
> not just "Language".
> 
> Finally, the line Imitable Behavior  won't be understood by 99% of
> parents LOL let alone me *grin*. Again, I don't think this one is
> necessary since it could be covered by the violence point. I.E if it
> is soft violence, it is a given that we are not instructing a child
> how to use a knife to cut off a head one artery at a time. Where as if
> violence is described as strong, it is a given that you might hear I'm
> cutting your head off one artery at a time etc.
> 
> What does everyone think on these opinions?
> 
> Regards,
> Justin - BSC Games
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> 
> 




From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Tue Aug 31 14:05:49 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:05:49 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Some points for discussion
In-Reply-To: <00d401c48f57$a4191350$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER>
	<413401FF.8578.566E618@localhost>
	<00d401c48f57$a4191350$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1093957549.3888.187.camel@localhost>

'ello,

Yep, I also agree that here are more reasons why we shouldn't use the
ESRB system -- it just doesn't seem to fit well with our market.  As
long as we can justify this decision (and it seems that we can) I don't
see how most people could take issue with us not using ESRB.

bye just now,


-- 
Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>



From justind at BscGames.com  Tue Aug 31 14:06:39 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:06:39 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] bulleted points on descriptions
References: <41341131.3122.5A242EE@localhost>
Message-ID: <014a01c48f5b$5c3f6170$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

This brings up a good point. When do we start introducing strong language
into categories? My thoughts... I don't think the first two categories on
Matthews proposed list should contain any strong language. They are more
less for children to enjoy. The universal and parental guidance categories
IMO should not contain any profanity and the others are able to. Universal
is more less for pre schoolers and the parental guidance category starts at
age 8. There is no real need to say ass, dam, hell to an eight year old in a
game *laugh*.

BTW I think we should pick more descriptive terms for the first two
categories to indicate for younger children and kids. ESRB has pre
elementary and I think children for the first two which both of those
indicate... great for a kiddo! Universal doesn't indicate children at all
and parental guidance seems a bit to strong to describe the category for the
kids 8 and above.

What do others think?



Regards,
Justin - BSC Games



From justind at BscGames.com  Tue Aug 31 14:09:00 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:09:00 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Some points for discussion
References: <008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER><413401FF.8578.566E618@localhost><00d401c48f57$a4191350$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1093957549.3888.187.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <015801c48f5b$ae8a1f60$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

well, if anyone brings up not liking us not using the ESRB, we could always
indicate that we referenced the ESRB for some of the ideas for constructing
our own ratings system. It isn't like we totally ignored that established
system etc.


Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Some points for discussion


> 'ello,
>
> Yep, I also agree that here are more reasons why we shouldn't use the
> ESRB system -- it just doesn't seem to fit well with our market.  As
> long as we can justify this decision (and it seems that we can) I don't
> see how most people could take issue with us not using ESRB.
>
> bye just now,
>
>
> -- 
> Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Tue Aug 31 14:22:44 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:22:44 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] bulleted points on descriptions
In-Reply-To: <009801c48f56$6076e2e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <1093705857.2540.4.camel@localhost>
	<008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER>
	<1093951092.3892.178.camel@localhost>
	<009801c48f56$6076e2e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1093958564.3890.203.camel@localhost>

'ello,

Here are my thoughts on the thoughts on my thoughts :-).  I'm replying
to both Justin and Josh here...

On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 13:31, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> Some thoughts I have... is horror really necessary? Cannot that just be
> covered by violence? I.E a
<snip>

I feel that horror is a separate category and here is why:  Violence,
though it can be scary, is not the only thing that makes a game scary. 
It could be a psychological thriller (like the Hitchcock films, Blair
Witch Project, the Sixth Sense, the Village, or the game ``the Lurking
Horror'').  I feel that this justifies a separate category.

> Secondly, I think to clarify the point "language" better for most readers it
> should
> state "Strong Language" and give a rating on it and not just "Language".

Agreed.  I'll make this change.  (And to Josh's point, yeah, it might be
an idea to state in the FAQ what we class as strong language.  Just seen
Justin's post about when we should introduce language and ratings
names.  Perhaps this should be a separate thread, where people can just
suggest the category names (and numbers) they think are best.)

> Finally, the line Imitable Behavior  won't be understood by 99% of parents
> LOL let alone me *grin*. Again, I don't think this one is necessary since it
> could be covered by the violence point. I.E if it is soft violence, it is a
> given that we are not instructing a child how to use a knife to cut off a
> head one artery at a time. Where as if violence is described as strong, it
> is a given that you might hear I'm cutting your head off one artery at a
> time etc.

Hmmmm... I see where you're coming from but again I feel we should have
a separate category for this (with a better name, of course).  It has
brought me to thinking of the following idea:

We could have, for each rating, a brief description, like the very good
one that Josh came up with for the M-T category.  Underneath this, we
could have the detailed breakdown of what this means (in the current
billeted style).  To me, this has the following advantages:

* Simple description for most people to get the gist of what a rating is
all about.
* Provides back-up to this which could be used by developers to get a
better idea of what rating to give their games.

I really think it is important to keep the details /somewhere/ because
if we only have a single sentence or two, the system will be open to too
much interpretation (and the whole point was that this didn't happen --
it's meant to allow us to compare games on an even level).  However, I
also appreciate that, especially for the end users, we need a simple
summary at the top to get the meaning of each rating over to them.

Is this OK with everyone?  I have a suspicion that Richard (AudioGames)
would prefer a system that keeps categories, as do I.  I do agree,
though, that we should have good summaries.  If Josh could send some
more in, I will put them on the site.  Would people be OK with them
going at the top of each rating's description?  We could have two
sections for each rating, such as ``Summary'' and ``Details'', perhaps.

bye just now,


-- 
Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>



From justind at BscGames.com  Tue Aug 31 14:47:36 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:47:36 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] bulleted points on descriptions
References: <1093705857.2540.4.camel@localhost><008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER><1093951092.3892.178.camel@localhost><009801c48f56$6076e2e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1093958564.3890.203.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <01d101c48f61$138bb860$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Hi Matthew.

summary and details sound fine to me. Yes, I'd like to see what Josh can
whip up for the summary of each category since he is good with that. The
Imitable Behavior really needs a lot of work IMO since I understand, to a
certain degree, what you are trying to explain but the term needs to be
something more understandable, but more importantly, the description of this
point has to be a lot more clear and understandable and in plain English.
Josh, just curious, any ideas on what to term this point and what the
description should be based off what Matthew is wanting it to explain?

Matthew, while I do understand your point on horror, I see it as not being
quite necessary. However, with that said, perhaps you could term it
Horror/Suspense?

Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] bulleted points on descriptions


> 'ello,
>
> Here are my thoughts on the thoughts on my thoughts :-).  I'm replying
> to both Justin and Josh here...
>
> On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 13:31, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> > Some thoughts I have... is horror really necessary? Cannot that just be
> > covered by violence? I.E a
> <snip>
>
> I feel that horror is a separate category and here is why:  Violence,
> though it can be scary, is not the only thing that makes a game scary.
> It could be a psychological thriller (like the Hitchcock films, Blair
> Witch Project, the Sixth Sense, the Village, or the game ``the Lurking
> Horror'').  I feel that this justifies a separate category.
>
> > Secondly, I think to clarify the point "language" better for most
readers it
> > should
> > state "Strong Language" and give a rating on it and not just "Language".
>
> Agreed.  I'll make this change.  (And to Josh's point, yeah, it might be
> an idea to state in the FAQ what we class as strong language.  Just seen
> Justin's post about when we should introduce language and ratings
> names.  Perhaps this should be a separate thread, where people can just
> suggest the category names (and numbers) they think are best.)
>
> > Finally, the line Imitable Behavior  won't be understood by 99% of
parents
> > LOL let alone me *grin*. Again, I don't think this one is necessary
since it
> > could be covered by the violence point. I.E if it is soft violence, it
is a
> > given that we are not instructing a child how to use a knife to cut off
a
> > head one artery at a time. Where as if violence is described as strong,
it
> > is a given that you might hear I'm cutting your head off one artery at a
> > time etc.
>
> Hmmmm... I see where you're coming from but again I feel we should have
> a separate category for this (with a better name, of course).  It has
> brought me to thinking of the following idea:
>
> We could have, for each rating, a brief description, like the very good
> one that Josh came up with for the M-T category.  Underneath this, we
> could have the detailed breakdown of what this means (in the current
> billeted style).  To me, this has the following advantages:
>
> * Simple description for most people to get the gist of what a rating is
> all about.
> * Provides back-up to this which could be used by developers to get a
> better idea of what rating to give their games.
>
> I really think it is important to keep the details /somewhere/ because
> if we only have a single sentence or two, the system will be open to too
> much interpretation (and the whole point was that this didn't happen --
> it's meant to allow us to compare games on an even level).  However, I
> also appreciate that, especially for the end users, we need a simple
> summary at the top to get the meaning of each rating over to them.
>
> Is this OK with everyone?  I have a suspicion that Richard (AudioGames)
> would prefer a system that keeps categories, as do I.  I do agree,
> though, that we should have good summaries.  If Josh could send some
> more in, I will put them on the site.  Would people be OK with them
> going at the top of each rating's description?  We could have two
> sections for each rating, such as ``Summary'' and ``Details'', perhaps.
>
> bye just now,
>
>
> -- 
> Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Tue Aug 31 15:13:45 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:13:45 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] bulleted points on descriptions
In-Reply-To: <01d101c48f61$138bb860$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <1093705857.2540.4.camel@localhost>
	<008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER>
	<1093951092.3892.178.camel@localhost>
	<009801c48f56$6076e2e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1093958564.3890.203.camel@localhost>
	<01d101c48f61$138bb860$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1093961625.3888.223.camel@localhost>

'ello,

[ Ooops -- pressed ``Reply'' instead of ``Reply to List'' the first time
around... ]

On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 14:47, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> summary and details sound fine to me. Yes, I'd like to see what Josh
can
> whip up for the summary of each category since he is good with that.
The

Cool.  I also think that Josh is definitely on the right wavelength in
this area! :-)

> Imitable Behavior really needs a lot of work IMO since I understand,
to a
> certain degree, what you are trying to explain but the term needs to
be
> something more understandable, but more importantly, the description
of this
> point has to be a lot more clear and understandable and in plain
English.
> Josh, just curious, any ideas on what to term this point and what the
> description should be based off what Matthew is wanting it to explain?

Yeah... I think it will be a useful category in the end but it does need
big improvements to get there.  Perhaps something using the words
``emulate'', ``impersonate'' or ``mimic'' would be better for it's
name.  ``Mimicable behaviour'' for example.

> Matthew, while I do understand your point on horror, I see it as not
being
> quite necessary. However, with that said, perhaps you could term it
> Horror/Suspense?

That's a good idea; I think it shows what the emphasis of that category
actually is.  If in the future other developers feel it is not necessary
it might be an idea to take it out.  I feel, though, that with the
correct emphasis, it does add something.

PEGI (the EU version of ESRB) have more categories than AAGRS, including
``Discrimination'' (which might be one to think about in the future) and
``Fear'' -- which may be a better term still for what is now ``Horror''.

bye just now,


-- 
Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>



From justind at BscGames.com  Tue Aug 31 15:09:28 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:09:28 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
References: <1093705857.2540.4.camel@localhost><008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER><1093951092.3892.178.camel@localhost><009801c48f56$6076e2e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com><1093958564.3890.203.camel@localhost>
	<01d101c48f61$138bb860$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <021401c48f64$21555ac0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Greetings all.

Matthew mentioned starting a thread on category names and age ranges so
figured I'd get that ball rolling.

My suggested category names are as follows (most are the same):

Early Childhood - children of all ages
Universal - ages 8 and above
Young Teens - 12 to 15
Mature Teens - 15 to 18
Adults Only - 18 and above



Regards,
Justin - BSC Games



From justind at BscGames.com  Tue Aug 31 15:36:43 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:36:43 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] bulleted points on descriptions
References: <1093705857.2540.4.camel@localhost><008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER><1093951092.3892.178.camel@localhost><009801c48f56$6076e2e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com><1093958564.3890.203.camel@localhost><01d101c48f61$138bb860$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1093961625.3888.223.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <026b01c48f67$efe0d830$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

PEGI (the EU version of ESRB) have more categories than AAGRS, including
``Discrimination'' (which might be one to think about in the future) and
``Fear'' -- which may be a better term still for what is now ``Horror''.


if you get to much detail, it could run the possibility of making it
difficult for developers to place games, rather than making it easier IMO.
I'm all for keeping things simple in ratings.

For example, troopanum, a simple arcade shooter game that lets you shoot
down space ships with a laser gun. Does it have fear? does it descriminate
because the main character is interpreted as being male?

We have to draw the line somewhere and not get into to much detail, yes,
enough to give a clear view of the category but to much is just to much IMO.

Regards,
Justin - BSC Games

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] bulleted points on descriptions


> 'ello,
>
> [ Ooops -- pressed ``Reply'' instead of ``Reply to List'' the first time
> around... ]
>
> On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 14:47, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> > summary and details sound fine to me. Yes, I'd like to see what Josh
> can
> > whip up for the summary of each category since he is good with that.
> The
>
> Cool.  I also think that Josh is definitely on the right wavelength in
> this area! :-)
>
> > Imitable Behavior really needs a lot of work IMO since I understand,
> to a
> > certain degree, what you are trying to explain but the term needs to
> be
> > something more understandable, but more importantly, the description
> of this
> > point has to be a lot more clear and understandable and in plain
> English.
> > Josh, just curious, any ideas on what to term this point and what the
> > description should be based off what Matthew is wanting it to explain?
>
> Yeah... I think it will be a useful category in the end but it does need
> big improvements to get there.  Perhaps something using the words
> ``emulate'', ``impersonate'' or ``mimic'' would be better for it's
> name.  ``Mimicable behaviour'' for example.
>
> > Matthew, while I do understand your point on horror, I see it as not
> being
> > quite necessary. However, with that said, perhaps you could term it
> > Horror/Suspense?
>
> That's a good idea; I think it shows what the emphasis of that category
> actually is.  If in the future other developers feel it is not necessary
> it might be an idea to take it out.  I feel, though, that with the
> correct emphasis, it does add something.
>
> PEGI (the EU version of ESRB) have more categories than AAGRS, including
> ``Discrimination'' (which might be one to think about in the future) and
> ``Fear'' -- which may be a better term still for what is now ``Horror''.
>
> bye just now,
>
>
> -- 
> Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Tue Aug 31 20:36:20 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:36:20 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
In-Reply-To: <021401c48f64$21555ac0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <1093705857.2540.4.camel@localhost>
	<008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER>
	<1093951092.3892.178.camel@localhost>
	<009801c48f56$6076e2e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1093958564.3890.203.camel@localhost>
	<01d101c48f61$138bb860$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<021401c48f64$21555ac0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1093980980.3890.270.camel@localhost>

'ello,

On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 15:09, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> Early Childhood - children of all ages
> Universal - ages 8 and above
> Young Teens - 12 to 15
> Mature Teens - 15 to 18
> Adults Only - 18 and above

That seems reasonable because the first category is really aimed at only
very young children (due to not having any bad stuff in it at all).

The only change to this that I would suggest is not calling the second
one Universal, as ``Universal'' implies that it would be OK for
absolutely everyone (which it wouldn't strictly be if it wasn't for
suitable for very young children too -- it does have some bad language
and violence in it, after all).

So, I would suggest what you've got there is spot on, but I'd call what
you've called ``Universal'' as ``Parental Guidance'' (or something
equivalent).

(I've made some of the changes we discussed and agreed on before
already.  I'll split the ratings into Summary and Details after we've
got the Summary parts sorted out.  I have also updated the links, FAQ
and front page to let people know who's developing the standard.)

bye just now,


-- 
Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>



From justind at BscGames.com  Tue Aug 31 20:50:54 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:50:54 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
References: <1093705857.2540.4.camel@localhost><008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER><1093951092.3892.178.camel@localhost><009801c48f56$6076e2e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com><1093958564.3890.203.camel@localhost><01d101c48f61$138bb860$cd0ecb42@cboss.com><021401c48f64$21555ac0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1093980980.3890.270.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <00d801c48f93$d3e98ec0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

I dont' feel that the second category should contain bad language. I say it
should be mild language, meaning funny terms such as darnit, oh poop, and so
on. Nothing bad per say. The ESRB has this for their second category:

EVERYONE
Titles rated E - Everyone have content that may be suitable for persons ages
6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal violence, some
comic
mischief and/or mild language.


and I think that the second category should be called universal starting at
age 8 with the same idea as the ESRB has... comic
mischief and/or mild language but not bad language at all. IMO filter in the
bad language from category 3 on and leave the first two more less clean.

Others? Agree/disagree? why/why not?


Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages


> 'ello,
>
> On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 15:09, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> > Early Childhood - children of all ages
> > Universal - ages 8 and above
> > Young Teens - 12 to 15
> > Mature Teens - 15 to 18
> > Adults Only - 18 and above
>
> That seems reasonable because the first category is really aimed at only
> very young children (due to not having any bad stuff in it at all).
>
> The only change to this that I would suggest is not calling the second
> one Universal, as ``Universal'' implies that it would be OK for
> absolutely everyone (which it wouldn't strictly be if it wasn't for
> suitable for very young children too -- it does have some bad language
> and violence in it, after all).
>
> So, I would suggest what you've got there is spot on, but I'd call what
> you've called ``Universal'' as ``Parental Guidance'' (or something
> equivalent).
>
> (I've made some of the changes we discussed and agreed on before
> already.  I'll split the ratings into Summary and Details after we've
> got the Summary parts sorted out.  I have also updated the links, FAQ
> and front page to let people know who's developing the standard.)
>
> bye just now,
>
>
> -- 
> Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Tue Aug 31 21:04:13 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:04:13 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
In-Reply-To: <00d801c48f93$d3e98ec0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <1093705857.2540.4.camel@localhost>
	<008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER>
	<1093951092.3892.178.camel@localhost>
	<009801c48f56$6076e2e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1093958564.3890.203.camel@localhost>
	<01d101c48f61$138bb860$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<021401c48f64$21555ac0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1093980980.3890.270.camel@localhost>
	<00d801c48f93$d3e98ec0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1093982653.3890.278.camel@localhost>

'ello,

On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 20:50, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> I dont' feel that the second category should contain bad language. I say it

Yep, sorry, I meant only mild language such as that -- didn't pick my
words carefully enough in my last post :-).

> EVERYONE
> Titles rated E - Everyone have content that may be suitable for persons ages
> 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal violence, some
> comic
> mischief and/or mild language.
<snip>
> Others? Agree/disagree? why/why not?

I didn't realise that's what the ESRB have.  I think it wouldn't be a
bad idea to have the same thing -- we could even call it ``Everyone'' if
you like...

Even though we aren't using the ESRB system, for the age distribution,
(potential) legal and other reasons, it does make sense to be fairly
common with it.

I would be happy to make the changes you propose -- if the others think
that's OK I'll make the changes.  Please say if you would rather
``Universal'' or ``Everyone'' (not much difference really).

So.. speak now if you _do not_ want these changes to happen :-).  I'll
make them in a few days' time if nobody objects.

bye just now,


-- 
Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>



From justind at BscGames.com  Tue Aug 31 21:15:44 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:15:44 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
References: <1093705857.2540.4.camel@localhost><008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER><1093951092.3892.178.camel@localhost><009801c48f56$6076e2e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com><1093958564.3890.203.camel@localhost><01d101c48f61$138bb860$cd0ecb42@cboss.com><021401c48f64$21555ac0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com><1093980980.3890.270.camel@localhost><00d801c48f93$d3e98ec0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1093982653.3890.278.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <014601c48f97$4be21d40$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

I say Universal just so we don't look like we are associated with the ESRB
but really, either is fine to me. My main point was this category should not
have bad language just more less witty humor and mild language.

Others? thoughts / opinions? Man is to quiet around here *grin*

Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages


> 'ello,
>
> On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 20:50, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> > I dont' feel that the second category should contain bad language. I say
it
>
> Yep, sorry, I meant only mild language such as that -- didn't pick my
> words carefully enough in my last post :-).
>
> > EVERYONE
> > Titles rated E - Everyone have content that may be suitable for persons
ages
> > 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal violence, some
> > comic
> > mischief and/or mild language.
> <snip>
> > Others? Agree/disagree? why/why not?
>
> I didn't realise that's what the ESRB have.  I think it wouldn't be a
> bad idea to have the same thing -- we could even call it ``Everyone'' if
> you like...
>
> Even though we aren't using the ESRB system, for the age distribution,
> (potential) legal and other reasons, it does make sense to be fairly
> common with it.
>
> I would be happy to make the changes you propose -- if the others think
> that's OK I'll make the changes.  Please say if you would rather
> ``Universal'' or ``Everyone'' (not much difference really).
>
> So.. speak now if you _do not_ want these changes to happen :-).  I'll
> make them in a few days' time if nobody objects.
>
> bye just now,
>
>
> -- 
> Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs



From munawar at bpcprograms.com  Tue Aug 31 21:37:42 2004
From: munawar at bpcprograms.com (Munawar Bijani)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:37:42 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
References: <1093705857.2540.4.camel@localhost><008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER><1093951092.3892.178.camel@localhost><009801c48f56$6076e2e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com><1093958564.3890.203.camel@localhost><01d101c48f61$138bb860$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<021401c48f64$21555ac0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <00a501c48f9a$5ee666f0$c6b00843@ocps.k12.fl.us>

Hello All,
I do agree here except one point: I think 12 to 15 should be made from 13 to 17. This, in
my opinion is more practical since many start maturing around 12 and "stabilize" around
13 or so..I still consider 12 a bit young for teens..
Thanks,
Munawar Bijani
Administrator, BPCPrograms SD.
It's your attitude not your aptitude which determines your altitude.
Never assume something of which you lack strong knowledge.
Are you certain you will awaken from bed tomorrow?
mailto:munawar at bpcprograms.com
http://www.bpcprograms.com/munawar/
*BPCPrograms SD. Home Page*
http://www.bpcprograms.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 10:09 AM
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages


> Greetings all.
>
> Matthew mentioned starting a thread on category names and age ranges so
> figured I'd get that ball rolling.
>
> My suggested category names are as follows (most are the same):
>
> Early Childhood - children of all ages
> Universal - ages 8 and above
> Young Teens - 12 to 15
> Mature Teens - 15 to 18
> Adults Only - 18 and above
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Justin - BSC Games
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
>
>



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Tue Aug 31 22:26:15 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:26:15 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
In-Reply-To: <00a501c48f9a$5ee666f0$c6b00843@ocps.k12.fl.us>
References: <1093705857.2540.4.camel@localhost>
	<008501c48d3a$10f7a060$8475b340@COMSTER>
	<1093951092.3892.178.camel@localhost>
	<009801c48f56$6076e2e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1093958564.3890.203.camel@localhost>
	<01d101c48f61$138bb860$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<021401c48f64$21555ac0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<00a501c48f9a$5ee666f0$c6b00843@ocps.k12.fl.us>
Message-ID: <1093987575.3891.313.camel@localhost>

'ello,

Thanks for posting! :-)

On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 21:37, Munawar Bijani wrote:
> I do agree here except one point: I think 12 to 15 should be made from 13 to 17. This, in
> my opinion is more practical since many start maturing around 12 and "stabilize" around
> 13 or so..I still consider 12 a bit young for teens..

This is something that we've been discussing recently.  Yours is the
view that the ESRB take and, as such, has obviously been thought about a
lot.  However, there do seem to be some issues with this approach.  Let
me try to put them together in a list:

1. It is worth mentioning that our age ranges are only guidelines for
parents; some may not even think their 16y/o child should play games in
the Mature Teens category (which is for 15-17s).  It is all, of course,
highly dependant on the people involved.

Perhaps I should put more emphasis on this issue, if it is not really
apparent from the current web site.

2. A potential problem with the age distribution used by ESRB (13-17) is
that there is a huge difference between 13 and 17 year old people, yet
they are all put together in one category.  The outcome of this is that
either:

(a) Games that are too violent/adult for 13 year-olds are played by them
(i.e. we'd be letting games suitable for the older members of this age
range in -- which is certainly a bad idea).
Or...
(b) 15, 16 and 17 year-olds have to wait until they're 18 to play these
games (which may be tame compared to our definition of Adults Only
games, but are forced to be classified as Adults Only, simply because
they can't be classified as suitable for 13 year-olds).

Either of these options seems to provide a less optimal solution than
splitting that whole Teens category down the middle, as we currently
have (so that we have a group for 12-14s and a group for 15-17s).  I
think most of us on the list feel that this arrangement is best, as it
evens out the distribution of age ranges (and takes into account their
development at these stages).

You mentioned about 12 year-olds being too young for Teen games.  I'm
not sure if you were referring to the Young Teens or the Mature Teens
categories.  Young Teen games are currently said to be for 12-14s and
Mature Teens for 15-17s.  Young Teen games are tame in comparison to
Mature Teens games under the current system -- but in the end it is down
to the parents to make the ultimate decision, based on these guidelines.

I hope that you are satisfied with this explanation for the age groups
as they stand.  I should probably mention that ``Adults Only'' games are
the only ones in which you'd find detailed violence, the strongest bad
language and detailed sexual references.

If you're still concerned about the age ranges, please let us know --
ideally explain what you thing is wrong with the existing categories and
their descriptions, and what you'd do to improve them.

Thanks again for your opinions, best regards,


-- 
Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>