From justind at BscGames.com  Wed Sep  1 01:03:29 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:03:29 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
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>
	<1093987575.3891.313.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <006c01c48fb7$1f0f2590$4a6fca42@COMSTER>

BTW Mathew what does AAGRS stand for? accessible audio games rating system?
If so, maybe you might want to change it to not include the word audio
since, for example, I have several word games and a numbers game that are
not audio games but rather windows based forms/text games of sorts. I'd like
to see the name of the rating system not reflect only audio games but
something more universal to accessible games in general which would include,
of course, audio games.

Perhaps something as simple as accessible games rating system AGRS?

What do you all think? Any other ideas for the name of the rating system? If
everyone is ok with AAGRS, I am too. I'd like to see the initials seperated
out though in the logo for blind users via dashes though such as A-A-G-R-S
so screen readers can pronounce the letters correctly and not just say blah
when it reads AAGRS.

For example, a link might read: "this game is rated EC by the A-A-G-R-S".

What do you all think? If not a big deal, okie, just figured I'd toss that
out for some food for thought.

Regards,

Justin - BscGames.com



From richard at audiogames.net  Wed Sep  1 09:40:08 2004
From: richard at audiogames.net (AudioGames.net)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:40:08 +0200
Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
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><1093987575.3891.313.camel@localhost>
	<006c01c48fb7$1f0f2590$4a6fca42@COMSTER>
Message-ID: <006701c48fff$4a6015e0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>

But then it should be Blind Accessible Games Rating System or Visually
Impaired Accessible Games Rating System (because accessibility is not
exclusive for visually impaired people). Oh dear...






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:03 AM
Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?


> BTW Mathew what does AAGRS stand for? accessible audio games rating
system?
> If so, maybe you might want to change it to not include the word audio
> since, for example, I have several word games and a numbers game that are
> not audio games but rather windows based forms/text games of sorts. I'd
like
> to see the name of the rating system not reflect only audio games but
> something more universal to accessible games in general which would
include,
> of course, audio games.
>
> Perhaps something as simple as accessible games rating system AGRS?
>
> What do you all think? Any other ideas for the name of the rating system?
If
> everyone is ok with AAGRS, I am too. I'd like to see the initials
seperated
> out though in the logo for blind users via dashes though such as A-A-G-R-S
> so screen readers can pronounce the letters correctly and not just say
blah
> when it reads AAGRS.
>
> For example, a link might read: "this game is rated EC by the A-A-G-R-S".
>
> What do you all think? If not a big deal, okie, just figured I'd toss that
> out for some food for thought.
>
> Regards,
>
> Justin - BscGames.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs



From info at adoraentertainment.com  Wed Sep  1 10:46:07 2004
From: info at adoraentertainment.com (Adora Entertainment)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:46:07 -0700
Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
In-Reply-To: <006701c48fff$4a6015e0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
Message-ID: <413537EF.6143.A219B03@localhost>

Hey guys,

I know you've asked me to write up some descriptions and I will be doing that 
soon...probably later on today.

But, I thought that I'd reply to this right now, real quick.

AAGRS is perfect IMO, and here is why.

Accessible: implies games are aimed at a disabled (hate that term but fits here) group

Audio: Differentiates from video games and implies that the games are for the blind and 
visually impaired.  I think textual games fall into this category as well, since it is most 
likely that those playing the games will get the textual feedback auditorially anyway via 
synthetic or recorded speech.

Games Rating System: Rounds out the description nicely.

Just my two cents.

More later in the day. I'm swamped currently. *grin*

From:           	"AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
To:             	"AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Date sent:      	Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:40:08 +0200
Subject:        	Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?

> But then it should be Blind Accessible Games Rating System or Visually
> Impaired Accessible Games Rating System (because accessibility is not
> exclusive for visually impaired people). Oh dear...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
> To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:03 AM
> Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
> 
> 
> > BTW Mathew what does AAGRS stand for? accessible audio games rating
> system?
> > If so, maybe you might want to change it to not include the word
> > audio since, for example, I have several word games and a numbers
> > game that are not audio games but rather windows based forms/text
> > games of sorts. I'd
> like
> > to see the name of the rating system not reflect only audio games
> > but something more universal to accessible games in general which
> > would
> include,
> > of course, audio games.
> >
> > Perhaps something as simple as accessible games rating system AGRS?
> >
> > What do you all think? Any other ideas for the name of the rating
> > system?
> If
> > everyone is ok with AAGRS, I am too. I'd like to see the initials
> seperated
> > out though in the logo for blind users via dashes though such as
> > A-A-G-R-S so screen readers can pronounce the letters correctly and
> > not just say
> blah
> > when it reads AAGRS.
> >
> > For example, a link might read: "this game is rated EC by the
> > A-A-G-R-S".
> >
> > What do you all think? If not a big deal, okie, just figured I'd
> > toss that out for some food for thought.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Justin - BscGames.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AAGRS mailing list
> > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> 
> 




From info at adoraentertainment.com  Wed Sep  1 11:01:18 2004
From: info at adoraentertainment.com (Adora Entertainment)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 03:01:18 -0700
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
In-Reply-To: <014601c48f97$4be21d40$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <41353B7E.9567.A2F814D@localhost>

agreed on all your points here.  I really like the Universal label.


From:           	"JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
To:             	"AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Subject:        	Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages
Date sent:      	Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:15:44 -0400
Organization:   	BSC Games

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> 
> 




From info at adoraentertainment.com  Wed Sep  1 11:01:18 2004
From: info at adoraentertainment.com (Adora Entertainment)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 03:01:18 -0700
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
In-Reply-To: <1093987575.3891.313.camel@localhost>
References: <00a501c48f9a$5ee666f0$c6b00843@ocps.k12.fl.us>
Message-ID: <41353B7E.7135.A2F7F49@localhost>

I am pretty strongly opposed to the 13-17 category expansion.  There is just too huge of 
a gap between the mind set of a 13-year-old and a 17-year-old.

I'm also wary of these age brackets at all.  Here's a scenario:

Joe Cool is a twenty-something who likes fast paced accessible games like Alien 
Outback and also RPG's like Monkey Business.

He looks at the rating on a game labeled PG. The description for this category is 12-15.  
He passes over the game, figuring it is a bit beneath his level.  Both Alien Outback and 
Monkey Business would likely fall into this category.

Perhaps most wouldn't do this, but in an industry as small as ours, can we afford any to 
do it? Probably not.

So, briefly, here's my thoughts on category names and ages only.  As I said before, I'll 
post thorough descriptions later...

EC [Early Childhood] - for children under age 8
U [Universal] - for ages 8 and above
PG [Parental Guidance] - for ages 12 and above
T [Teen] - For ages 15 and above
A [Adult] - for ages 18 and above

Note the "and above" explicitly noted for each category.  From a business stand point, I 
think this is important.

Thoughts?

Subject:        	Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages
From:           	"Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
To:             	AAGRS list <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Date sent:      	Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:26:15 +0100

> '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>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Wed Sep  1 12:32:02 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:32:02 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
In-Reply-To: <41353B7E.7135.A2F7F49@localhost>
References: <00a501c48f9a$5ee666f0$c6b00843@ocps.k12.fl.us>
	<41353B7E.7135.A2F7F49@localhost>
Message-ID: <1094038322.1640.6.camel@localhost>

'ello,

I completely agree with the ``and above'' instead of a numerical upper
limit to the age ranges.  I think the points you made there about people
avoiding games they might enjoy (and buy! :-)) are very true.

I will make this change (can't imagine anyone would disagree on this
point -- I'll give it a little while but I expect to be making this
alteration soon).

I mentioned yesterday that I'd update to the new category names in a few
days time if nobody objects.  It looks like people are happy with the
suggestions, so when I make those changes I'll do the ``and above'' for
the age ranges, too.

bye just now,


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



From justind at BscGames.com  Wed Sep  1 13:12:48 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:12:48 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
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><1093987575.3891.313.camel@localhost><006c01c48fb7$1f0f2590$4a6fca42@COMSTER>
	<006701c48fff$4a6015e0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
Message-ID: <006501c4901c$ff6f8840$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

good point Richard, what do others think?


Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?


> But then it should be Blind Accessible Games Rating System or Visually
> Impaired Accessible Games Rating System (because accessibility is not
> exclusive for visually impaired people). Oh dear...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
> To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:03 AM
> Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
>
>
> > BTW Mathew what does AAGRS stand for? accessible audio games rating
> system?
> > If so, maybe you might want to change it to not include the word audio
> > since, for example, I have several word games and a numbers game that
are
> > not audio games but rather windows based forms/text games of sorts. I'd
> like
> > to see the name of the rating system not reflect only audio games but
> > something more universal to accessible games in general which would
> include,
> > of course, audio games.
> >
> > Perhaps something as simple as accessible games rating system AGRS?
> >
> > What do you all think? Any other ideas for the name of the rating
system?
> If
> > everyone is ok with AAGRS, I am too. I'd like to see the initials
> seperated
> > out though in the logo for blind users via dashes though such as
A-A-G-R-S
> > so screen readers can pronounce the letters correctly and not just say
> blah
> > when it reads AAGRS.
> >
> > For example, a link might read: "this game is rated EC by the
A-A-G-R-S".
> >
> > What do you all think? If not a big deal, okie, just figured I'd toss
that
> > out for some food for thought.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Justin - BscGames.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AAGRS mailing list
> > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs



From justind at BscGames.com  Wed Sep  1 13:20:39 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:20:39 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
References: <00a501c48f9a$5ee666f0$c6b00843@ocps.k12.fl.us>
	<41353B7E.7135.A2F7F49@localhost>
Message-ID: <007601c4901e$181a1e40$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Josh and all.

I like your category names and age ranges Josh. I put in a vote to use what
Josh has outlined for category names and ages. You have a good point Josh
about arcade style games such as alien outback etc. However, don't you think
word of mouth may smash out any pre-conceived ideas of the rating of the
game? I do understand your concern, and do share it to a certain degree, but
word of mouth spreds quickly in our small market and some feedback from the
community that alien outback is cool from adult purchasers will help joe
cool get past the assumptions IMO. I.E if alien outback is PG, does that
really mean it isn't cool for Joe cool? Also, you stated...

Note the "and above" explicitly noted for each category.  From a business
stand point, I
think this is important.


Why do you think the "and above" is important from a business standpoint?
Please share.

Thanks.


Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages


> I am pretty strongly opposed to the 13-17 category expansion.  There is
just too huge of
> a gap between the mind set of a 13-year-old and a 17-year-old.
>
> I'm also wary of these age brackets at all.  Here's a scenario:
>
> Joe Cool is a twenty-something who likes fast paced accessible games like
Alien
> Outback and also RPG's like Monkey Business.
>
> He looks at the rating on a game labeled PG. The description for this
category is 12-15.
> He passes over the game, figuring it is a bit beneath his level.  Both
Alien Outback and
> Monkey Business would likely fall into this category.
>
> Perhaps most wouldn't do this, but in an industry as small as ours, can we
afford any to
> do it? Probably not.
>
> So, briefly, here's my thoughts on category names and ages only.  As I
said before, I'll
> post thorough descriptions later...
>
> EC [Early Childhood] - for children under age 8
> U [Universal] - for ages 8 and above
> PG [Parental Guidance] - for ages 12 and above
> T [Teen] - For ages 15 and above
> A [Adult] - for ages 18 and above
>
> Note the "and above" explicitly noted for each category.  From a business
stand point, I
> think this is important.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Subject:        Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages
> From:           "Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
> To:             AAGRS list <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Date sent:      Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:26:15 +0100
>
> > '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>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AAGRS mailing list
> > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs



From justind at BscGames.com  Wed Sep  1 13:21:39 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:21:39 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
References: <00a501c48f9a$5ee666f0$c6b00843@ocps.k12.fl.us><41353B7E.7135.A2F7F49@localhost>
	<1094038322.1640.6.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <007d01c4901e$3bf299f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

yes, use josh's suggested category names and his and above suggestion too.
Looks great to me.


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: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages


> 'ello,
>
> I completely agree with the ``and above'' instead of a numerical upper
> limit to the age ranges.  I think the points you made there about people
> avoiding games they might enjoy (and buy! :-)) are very true.
>
> I will make this change (can't imagine anyone would disagree on this
> point -- I'll give it a little while but I expect to be making this
> alteration soon).
>
> I mentioned yesterday that I'd update to the new category names in a few
> days time if nobody objects.  It looks like people are happy with the
> suggestions, so when I make those changes I'll do the ``and above'' for
> the age ranges, too.
>
> 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 justind at BscGames.com  Wed Sep  1 13:54:29 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:54:29 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
References: <413537EF.6143.A219B03@localhost>
Message-ID: <012401c49022$d234f3f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

that is a good point Josh about audio being spoken via screen readers in
text games but I dunno, I'm just not quite certain if audio is the best term
for the name. What do others think? I'm thinking something more open ended
such as accessible computer games rating system


Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?


> Hey guys,
>
> I know you've asked me to write up some descriptions and I will be doing
that
> soon...probably later on today.
>
> But, I thought that I'd reply to this right now, real quick.
>
> AAGRS is perfect IMO, and here is why.
>
> Accessible: implies games are aimed at a disabled (hate that term but fits
here) group
>
> Audio: Differentiates from video games and implies that the games are for
the blind and
> visually impaired.  I think textual games fall into this category as well,
since it is most
> likely that those playing the games will get the textual feedback
auditorially anyway via
> synthetic or recorded speech.
>
> Games Rating System: Rounds out the description nicely.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> More later in the day. I'm swamped currently. *grin*
>
> From:           "AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
> To:             "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Date sent:      Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:40:08 +0200
> Subject:        Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
>
> > But then it should be Blind Accessible Games Rating System or Visually
> > Impaired Accessible Games Rating System (because accessibility is not
> > exclusive for visually impaired people). Oh dear...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
> > To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:03 AM
> > Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
> >
> >
> > > BTW Mathew what does AAGRS stand for? accessible audio games rating
> > system?
> > > If so, maybe you might want to change it to not include the word
> > > audio since, for example, I have several word games and a numbers
> > > game that are not audio games but rather windows based forms/text
> > > games of sorts. I'd
> > like
> > > to see the name of the rating system not reflect only audio games
> > > but something more universal to accessible games in general which
> > > would
> > include,
> > > of course, audio games.
> > >
> > > Perhaps something as simple as accessible games rating system AGRS?
> > >
> > > What do you all think? Any other ideas for the name of the rating
> > > system?
> > If
> > > everyone is ok with AAGRS, I am too. I'd like to see the initials
> > seperated
> > > out though in the logo for blind users via dashes though such as
> > > A-A-G-R-S so screen readers can pronounce the letters correctly and
> > > not just say
> > blah
> > > when it reads AAGRS.
> > >
> > > For example, a link might read: "this game is rated EC by the
> > > A-A-G-R-S".
> > >
> > > What do you all think? If not a big deal, okie, just figured I'd
> > > toss that out for some food for thought.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Justin - BscGames.com
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > AAGRS mailing list
> > > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AAGRS mailing list
> > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs



From info at adoraentertainment.com  Wed Sep  1 14:31:49 2004
From: info at adoraentertainment.com (Adora Entertainment)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 06:31:49 -0700
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
In-Reply-To: <007601c4901e$181a1e40$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <41356CD5.12394.AF03CA8@localhost>

To answer your question...using the "and above" eliminates, as far as we can eliminate it, 
the Joe Cool's mis-perceptions.  You make a good point about word of mouth, but I think 
the simple use of "and above" makes it so we don't have to rely so heavily on word of 
mouth.

And, in my experience, there is a massive portion of the blind community who still are 
clueless that these games exist.  Word of mouth sure ain't helping us there.  I don't want 
to stray too far off topic, but I feel really strongly that the industry as a whole needs some 
massive PR work done to educate those who haven't been exposed to our games.

For an example, I used to work for Marriott hotels, making their reservation software 
accessible for blind reservation agents.  At its peak, there were 21 visually impaired 
employees working on the floor.  Of those 21, nearly all of them had computers at home.  
Of those 21, only one of them knew anything about accessible games, and that 
knowledge was limited to the old DOS PCS games.

Anyway, this is not the purpose of this list and I will get off my soap box now. LOL


From:           	"JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
To:             	"AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Subject:        	Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages
Date sent:      	Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:20:39 -0400
Organization:   	BSC Games

> Josh and all.
> 
> I like your category names and age ranges Josh. I put in a vote to use
> what Josh has outlined for category names and ages. You have a good
> point Josh about arcade style games such as alien outback etc.
> However, don't you think word of mouth may smash out any pre-conceived
> ideas of the rating of the game? I do understand your concern, and do
> share it to a certain degree, but word of mouth spreds quickly in our
> small market and some feedback from the community that alien outback
> is cool from adult purchasers will help joe cool get past the
> assumptions IMO. I.E if alien outback is PG, does that really mean it
> isn't cool for Joe cool? Also, you stated...
> 
> Note the "and above" explicitly noted for each category.  From a
> business stand point, I think this is important.
> 
> 
> Why do you think the "and above" is important from a business
> standpoint? Please share.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Justin - BSC Games
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
> To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 6:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages
> 
> 
> > I am pretty strongly opposed to the 13-17 category expansion.  There
> > is
> just too huge of
> > a gap between the mind set of a 13-year-old and a 17-year-old.
> >
> > I'm also wary of these age brackets at all.  Here's a scenario:
> >
> > Joe Cool is a twenty-something who likes fast paced accessible games
> > like
> Alien
> > Outback and also RPG's like Monkey Business.
> >
> > He looks at the rating on a game labeled PG. The description for
> > this
> category is 12-15.
> > He passes over the game, figuring it is a bit beneath his level. 
> > Both
> Alien Outback and
> > Monkey Business would likely fall into this category.
> >
> > Perhaps most wouldn't do this, but in an industry as small as ours,
> > can we
> afford any to
> > do it? Probably not.
> >
> > So, briefly, here's my thoughts on category names and ages only.  As
> > I
> said before, I'll
> > post thorough descriptions later...
> >
> > EC [Early Childhood] - for children under age 8
> > U [Universal] - for ages 8 and above
> > PG [Parental Guidance] - for ages 12 and above
> > T [Teen] - For ages 15 and above
> > A [Adult] - for ages 18 and above
> >
> > Note the "and above" explicitly noted for each category.  From a
> > business
> stand point, I
> > think this is important.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Subject:        Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages
> > From:           "Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
> > To:             AAGRS list <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > Date sent:      Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:26:15 +0100
> >
> > > '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>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > AAGRS mailing list
> > > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AAGRS mailing list
> > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> 
> 




From justind at BscGames.com  Wed Sep  1 15:22:51 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:22:51 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
References: <41356CD5.12394.AF03CA8@localhost>
Message-ID: <01e901c4902f$2a668140$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Yes Josh, I agree that there are many in the market who do not know about
our products and word of mouth flat out sucks. I've seen the exact  same
results as what you illistrated. Quite frustrating. I'd be quite interested
in seeing some sort of PR organization rise up in addition to the ratings
system to help market the products. If you have any thoughts on this, please
share.


Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages


> To answer your question...using the "and above" eliminates, as far as we
can eliminate it,
> the Joe Cool's mis-perceptions.  You make a good point about word of
mouth, but I think
> the simple use of "and above" makes it so we don't have to rely so heavily
on word of
> mouth.
>
> And, in my experience, there is a massive portion of the blind community
who still are
> clueless that these games exist.  Word of mouth sure ain't helping us
there.  I don't want
> to stray too far off topic, but I feel really strongly that the industry
as a whole needs some
> massive PR work done to educate those who haven't been exposed to our
games.
>
> For an example, I used to work for Marriott hotels, making their
reservation software
> accessible for blind reservation agents.  At its peak, there were 21
visually impaired
> employees working on the floor.  Of those 21, nearly all of them had
computers at home.
> Of those 21, only one of them knew anything about accessible games, and
that
> knowledge was limited to the old DOS PCS games.
>
> Anyway, this is not the purpose of this list and I will get off my soap
box now. LOL
>
>
> From:           "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
> To:             "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Subject:        Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages
> Date sent:      Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:20:39 -0400
> Organization:   BSC Games
>
> > Josh and all.
> >
> > I like your category names and age ranges Josh. I put in a vote to use
> > what Josh has outlined for category names and ages. You have a good
> > point Josh about arcade style games such as alien outback etc.
> > However, don't you think word of mouth may smash out any pre-conceived
> > ideas of the rating of the game? I do understand your concern, and do
> > share it to a certain degree, but word of mouth spreds quickly in our
> > small market and some feedback from the community that alien outback
> > is cool from adult purchasers will help joe cool get past the
> > assumptions IMO. I.E if alien outback is PG, does that really mean it
> > isn't cool for Joe cool? Also, you stated...
> >
> > Note the "and above" explicitly noted for each category.  From a
> > business stand point, I think this is important.
> >
> >
> > Why do you think the "and above" is important from a business
> > standpoint? Please share.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Justin - BSC Games
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
> > To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 6:01 AM
> > Subject: Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages
> >
> >
> > > I am pretty strongly opposed to the 13-17 category expansion.  There
> > > is
> > just too huge of
> > > a gap between the mind set of a 13-year-old and a 17-year-old.
> > >
> > > I'm also wary of these age brackets at all.  Here's a scenario:
> > >
> > > Joe Cool is a twenty-something who likes fast paced accessible games
> > > like
> > Alien
> > > Outback and also RPG's like Monkey Business.
> > >
> > > He looks at the rating on a game labeled PG. The description for
> > > this
> > category is 12-15.
> > > He passes over the game, figuring it is a bit beneath his level.
> > > Both
> > Alien Outback and
> > > Monkey Business would likely fall into this category.
> > >
> > > Perhaps most wouldn't do this, but in an industry as small as ours,
> > > can we
> > afford any to
> > > do it? Probably not.
> > >
> > > So, briefly, here's my thoughts on category names and ages only.  As
> > > I
> > said before, I'll
> > > post thorough descriptions later...
> > >
> > > EC [Early Childhood] - for children under age 8
> > > U [Universal] - for ages 8 and above
> > > PG [Parental Guidance] - for ages 12 and above
> > > T [Teen] - For ages 15 and above
> > > A [Adult] - for ages 18 and above
> > >
> > > Note the "and above" explicitly noted for each category.  From a
> > > business
> > stand point, I
> > > think this is important.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Subject:        Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages
> > > From:           "Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
> > > To:             AAGRS list <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > > Date sent:      Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:26:15 +0100
> > >
> > > > '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>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > AAGRS mailing list
> > > > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > > > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > AAGRS mailing list
> > > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AAGRS mailing list
> > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Wed Sep  1 18:49:55 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:49:55 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
In-Reply-To: <007d01c4901e$3bf299f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <00a501c48f9a$5ee666f0$c6b00843@ocps.k12.fl.us>
	<41353B7E.7135.A2F7F49@localhost> <1094038322.1640.6.camel@localhost>
	<007d01c4901e$3bf299f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1094060995.6932.13.camel@localhost>

'ello,

On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 13:21, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> yes, use josh's suggested category names and his and above suggestion too.
> Looks great to me.

I think they're very good too but could I ask that we /don't/ put both
``Universal'' and ``PG'' together in those positions?  The reason is
that U and PG are the first two film categories in the UK (but would be
the 2nd and 3rd in AAGRS) and I am sure that parents would get confused
due to these naming conventions.  To illustrate:

In our film classification system, U is for 0-8y/o and PG is for
8-12y/o.  In AAGRS we would be saying that U is for 8-12y/o and PG is
where ``Young Teen'' was, i.e. for 12-15y/o.  It just worries me a bit
that parents who don't pay enough attention (easy to do if you're busy)
may think that an AAGRS PG game is suitable for their 8y/o child if we
put both ratings together.  This is, of course, something a rating
system exists to prevent :-).

So, Universal on it's own is no problem IMHO, but would it be OK for us
to keep ``Young Teen'' where Josh has suggested ``PG''?  My concern is
that AAGRS will be somewhat weakened in the UK otherwise.  I realise it
is an international system but, to my knowledge, I don't think this
clash would occur anywhere else if we kept `Young Teens''.

I am a bit tied up ATM (finishing off work and packing up to go back to
Uni) but should be able to make these changes tomorrow or Friday.

BTW, re the PR issue; I think chain stores like GAME and Electronics
Boutique should be approached with suggestions to sell Accessible and
Audio Games.  I am sure they'd be more willing to do this if such games
had a rating system in place, so it looks to me like we're doing the
right thing for the future :-).

I've noticed the naming issue but really don't have any preference ATM
so I'll do whatever most people want in the end :-).

bye just now,


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



From info at adoraentertainment.com  Wed Sep  1 18:57:12 2004
From: info at adoraentertainment.com (Adora Entertainment)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:57:12 -0700
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
In-Reply-To: <1094060995.6932.13.camel@localhost>
References: <007d01c4901e$3bf299f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <4135AB08.8084.BE333FF@localhost>

I was actually partial to the YT [Young Teens] category previously, but thought there was 
some objections to it.

Y T is fine with me.


Subject:        	Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages
From:           	"Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
To:             	AAGRS list <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Date sent:      	Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:49:55 +0100

> 'ello,
> 
> On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 13:21, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> > yes, use josh's suggested category names and his and above
> > suggestion too. Looks great to me.
> 
> I think they're very good too but could I ask that we /don't/ put both
> ``Universal'' and ``PG'' together in those positions?  The reason is
> that U and PG are the first two film categories in the UK (but would
> be the 2nd and 3rd in AAGRS) and I am sure that parents would get
> confused due to these naming conventions.  To illustrate:
> 
> In our film classification system, U is for 0-8y/o and PG is for
> 8-12y/o.  In AAGRS we would be saying that U is for 8-12y/o and PG is
> where ``Young Teen'' was, i.e. for 12-15y/o.  It just worries me a bit
> that parents who don't pay enough attention (easy to do if you're
> busy) may think that an AAGRS PG game is suitable for their 8y/o child
> if we put both ratings together.  This is, of course, something a
> rating system exists to prevent :-).
> 
> So, Universal on it's own is no problem IMHO, but would it be OK for
> us to keep ``Young Teen'' where Josh has suggested ``PG''?  My concern
> is that AAGRS will be somewhat weakened in the UK otherwise.  I
> realise it is an international system but, to my knowledge, I don't
> think this clash would occur anywhere else if we kept `Young Teens''.
> 
> I am a bit tied up ATM (finishing off work and packing up to go back
> to Uni) but should be able to make these changes tomorrow or Friday.
> 
> BTW, re the PR issue; I think chain stores like GAME and Electronics
> Boutique should be approached with suggestions to sell Accessible and
> Audio Games.  I am sure they'd be more willing to do this if such
> games had a rating system in place, so it looks to me like we're doing
> the right thing for the future :-).
> 
> I've noticed the naming issue but really don't have any preference ATM
> so I'll do whatever most people want in the end :-).
> 
> 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 justind at BscGames.com  Wed Sep  1 20:08:40 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:08:40 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
References: <007d01c4901e$3bf299f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<4135AB08.8084.BE333FF@localhost>
Message-ID: <034a01c49057$1833d0e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

sure, young teens is fine by me.

Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages


> I was actually partial to the YT [Young Teens] category previously, but
thought there was
> some objections to it.
>
> Y T is fine with me.
>
>
> Subject:        Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages
> From:           "Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
> To:             AAGRS list <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Date sent:      Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:49:55 +0100
>
> > 'ello,
> >
> > On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 13:21, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> > > yes, use josh's suggested category names and his and above
> > > suggestion too. Looks great to me.
> >
> > I think they're very good too but could I ask that we /don't/ put both
> > ``Universal'' and ``PG'' together in those positions?  The reason is
> > that U and PG are the first two film categories in the UK (but would
> > be the 2nd and 3rd in AAGRS) and I am sure that parents would get
> > confused due to these naming conventions.  To illustrate:
> >
> > In our film classification system, U is for 0-8y/o and PG is for
> > 8-12y/o.  In AAGRS we would be saying that U is for 8-12y/o and PG is
> > where ``Young Teen'' was, i.e. for 12-15y/o.  It just worries me a bit
> > that parents who don't pay enough attention (easy to do if you're
> > busy) may think that an AAGRS PG game is suitable for their 8y/o child
> > if we put both ratings together.  This is, of course, something a
> > rating system exists to prevent :-).
> >
> > So, Universal on it's own is no problem IMHO, but would it be OK for
> > us to keep ``Young Teen'' where Josh has suggested ``PG''?  My concern
> > is that AAGRS will be somewhat weakened in the UK otherwise.  I
> > realise it is an international system but, to my knowledge, I don't
> > think this clash would occur anywhere else if we kept `Young Teens''.
> >
> > I am a bit tied up ATM (finishing off work and packing up to go back
> > to Uni) but should be able to make these changes tomorrow or Friday.
> >
> > BTW, re the PR issue; I think chain stores like GAME and Electronics
> > Boutique should be approached with suggestions to sell Accessible and
> > Audio Games.  I am sure they'd be more willing to do this if such
> > games had a rating system in place, so it looks to me like we're doing
> > the right thing for the future :-).
> >
> > I've noticed the naming issue but really don't have any preference ATM
> > so I'll do whatever most people want in the end :-).
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs



From justind at BscGames.com  Wed Sep  1 20:12:59 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:12:59 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
References: <00a501c48f9a$5ee666f0$c6b00843@ocps.k12.fl.us><41353B7E.7135.A2F7F49@localhost>
	<1094038322.1640.6.camel@localhost><007d01c4901e$3bf299f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1094060995.6932.13.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <036d01c49057$b1ea18c0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

BTW thanks Matthew for taking this project on and getting developers
involved. I really appreciate your time in doing this and I think it is a
great move.

Thanks again.


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: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] category names and ages


> 'ello,
>
> On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 13:21, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> > yes, use josh's suggested category names and his and above suggestion
too.
> > Looks great to me.
>
> I think they're very good too but could I ask that we /don't/ put both
> ``Universal'' and ``PG'' together in those positions?  The reason is
> that U and PG are the first two film categories in the UK (but would be
> the 2nd and 3rd in AAGRS) and I am sure that parents would get confused
> due to these naming conventions.  To illustrate:
>
> In our film classification system, U is for 0-8y/o and PG is for
> 8-12y/o.  In AAGRS we would be saying that U is for 8-12y/o and PG is
> where ``Young Teen'' was, i.e. for 12-15y/o.  It just worries me a bit
> that parents who don't pay enough attention (easy to do if you're busy)
> may think that an AAGRS PG game is suitable for their 8y/o child if we
> put both ratings together.  This is, of course, something a rating
> system exists to prevent :-).
>
> So, Universal on it's own is no problem IMHO, but would it be OK for us
> to keep ``Young Teen'' where Josh has suggested ``PG''?  My concern is
> that AAGRS will be somewhat weakened in the UK otherwise.  I realise it
> is an international system but, to my knowledge, I don't think this
> clash would occur anywhere else if we kept `Young Teens''.
>
> I am a bit tied up ATM (finishing off work and packing up to go back to
> Uni) but should be able to make these changes tomorrow or Friday.
>
> BTW, re the PR issue; I think chain stores like GAME and Electronics
> Boutique should be approached with suggestions to sell Accessible and
> Audio Games.  I am sure they'd be more willing to do this if such games
> had a rating system in place, so it looks to me like we're doing the
> right thing for the future :-).
>
> I've noticed the naming issue but really don't have any preference ATM
> so I'll do whatever most people want in the end :-).
>
> 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  Thu Sep  2 09:24:02 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:24:02 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] category names and ages
In-Reply-To: <036d01c49057$b1ea18c0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <00a501c48f9a$5ee666f0$c6b00843@ocps.k12.fl.us>
	<41353B7E.7135.A2F7F49@localhost> <1094038322.1640.6.camel@localhost>
	<007d01c4901e$3bf299f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1094060995.6932.13.camel@localhost>
	<036d01c49057$b1ea18c0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1094113442.8212.5.camel@localhost>

'ello,

On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 20:12, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> BTW thanks Matthew for taking this project on and getting developers
> involved. I really appreciate your time in doing this and I think it is a
> great move.

Cheers :-).  It certainly would not be happening without you developers
subscribing, so thanks for doing so! :-)

I hope that when we've got the system all ready for use other developers
will come in and join too.  It'd be really nice to see the community
start to use it.

I'll make all those changes now...

bye just now,


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



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Thu Sep  2 09:37:03 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:37:03 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
Message-ID: <1094114223.8212.9.camel@localhost>

'ello,

The idea of this topic is to come up with a schedule for the
improvements to and subsequent use of AAGRS.  I have got a few ideas on
how we could go about this, which I'll write down here.  It seems to me
that it would be a good idea for us to know exactly when we expect this
thing to be ready and when we are going to think about using it.

The first thing we need to sort out is are we going to use AAGRS?  What
I'm basically asking is this:  Is AAGRS a good enough basis for a system
in your opinions?  Is it something that you think is basically OK and
could be made great by some improvements.  If it is, then we should use
it.  If not then we should start again.  I think Richard (of
AudioGames.net) had a good idea when he suggested content themes having
a big emphasis, for example.  My personal opinion is that the current
incarnation of the ratings page provides a pretty decent effort at this
and with small improvements it could be made even better (for example,
another page could be added that simply lists the categories present in
each rating in a pictorial-type way, as Richard suggested).  So I would
say that we should try and iron out what bugs remain with the existing
system as most people seem to be at least OK with it.

If this is the general opinion on the list -- which it does appear to be
at the moment -- then that's what we should probably do.  If people
would rather scrap what we have and start again, then now's the time to
say so.

Given the recent discussion, I'll assume that we're going to continue
improving the existing system, so I have come up with this example
schedule we could use...

Like most standards, it is a good idea to have a period in which people
can make suggestions and they are implemented pretty much ASAP (if
people agree).  I'd say that his period shouldn't last more than two
months with AAGRS, which means that on the 1st of November, it would be
ending.

After this, it would seem that we (the main team behind the system) are
quite happy with it.  A good idea would be to let it simmer for a time
whilst we rate our games with it and prepare our web sites to display
those ratings (shouldn't take long but you never know what issues may
crop up).  I'd say this should last only about a month because we
probably already know what we want to say about our own games.  So
during November we can rate our games and compare ratings to try and
iron out any remaining bugs in the system.

After this, I'd say we could ``go live'' and start officially using the
system -- that'd be on the 1st of December 2004.  In summary:

>From - To - Details
Now - 1st November 2004 - Suggestions and Improvements Period
1st November 2004 - 1st December 2004 - Internal Trial Period
1st December 2004 - End of Civilisation as we know it - Use of AAGRS

(Seriously, if some big changes need to occur we can consider things
like: automatic redirection to other systems' web pages, for example. 
We'd need to really be careful on issues like this; hence the need for a
decent base system now, that could be improved upon (e.g. by the
addition of theme icons/earcons) later on, even whilst AAGRS is in use.)

I think it would be nice to see AAGRS in use by 2005 and even if we have
a month's worth of delays in the above plan we can still ensure that
this happens.

Is this example schedule OK with everyone?  I don't want us to rush as
that could have really tragic consequences.  Obviously if people want
more time, they can always ask and we can amend our time-table.  I just
think it would be a good idea for us all to know where we're at.

I'll put the schedule on the web site when it has been amended/agreed
upon.

One final note:  I am going back to University on the 6th of September
(though term doesn't start until October).  I may not have steady 'net
access until October so please by all means continue the discussion and
I'll make any changes that are needed to the site as soon as I can do so
(it's most likely that things won't be delayed that much).

bye just now,


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



From richard at audiogames.net  Thu Sep  2 10:43:26 2004
From: richard at audiogames.net (AudioGames.net)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:43:26 +0200
Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
References: <413537EF.6143.A219B03@localhost>
	<012401c49022$d234f3f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <006e01c490d1$4c4659a0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>

Hi!

This discussion is progressing very good, I think! But I do have one nagging
thought about the whole rating thing.

Maybe it's time to focus on the difference IN RATING between a regular
computer game and an accessible computer game (whether or not for the blind)
? And also what's the difference IN RATING between a video game and an audio
game? What is the reason that a different rating system should be created
solely for games that have text- or audio output only instead of a combined
media output (text+video+audio)?

Based on my gut feeling I know these kind of games could very well require a
different rating system. But if I had the answer the question above to a
team of professionals who setup the video game rating standard, I can't
really say why. So I wanted to find out why I have this kind of feeling
(which probably this lists also shares otherwise  why bother).

I had a look at examples of rated video games that were transformed to
another medium, in order to see what happened to the rating. I recieved a
copy of Doom 3 yesterday for my birthday so I had a look at that one.
The game is rated 18+ according the the Europian ISFE rating system
(http://www.ps2home.co.uk/pan_european_video_games_age_rat.htm) . The ISFE
also uses "descriptor icons", just like the Kijkwijzer-rating system I
referred to earlier (http://www.kijkwijzer.nl/engels/ekijkwijzer.html).
Doom 3 uses only a descriptor icon for VIOLENCE. This first struck me as
odd, because the game focuses highly on frightening the player but it
doesn't have the FEAR icon (and is advertised this way). But this probably
has something to to with FEAR being rated 16+ and VIOLENCE as 18+. And that
only the highest rating is shown.

Okay, so then I had a look at Doom 3- the boardgame
(http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/10640) . Yep, there's a Doom 3 board game
coming up in Ocober, for those who didn't know! Here a short description:

QUOTE
"Following on the heels of Warcraft: The Board Game, Fantasy Flight will
publish Doom: The Boardgame in October, Inrcorporating graphics and themes
from the upcoming Doom3 with the innovation and quality found in Fantasy
Flight's Games. Doom: The Board Game will include scores of sculpted plastic
miniatures, specialized oversized dice, board pieces for players to make
their own custom maps, and enough weapons to drive back the legions of Hell.
Doom: The Board Game. Keep your guns close and your dice closer."
QUOTE END

Now, I couldn't find a rating for Doom 3- the boardgame anywhere. Not on the
website of the developer or on any of the review sites. But I could find a
preview of the game:

QUOTE
"We quickly grabbed the weapons in the room and took up positions in front
of one of the doors to the room. Before we even had a chance to open the
door, a monster spawned at the other side of room and started attacking us
(the monsters weren't wasting any time!). We took a slight amount of damage
but the two of us dispatched the monster swiftly.

We opened the door and were welcomed by a three monsters. Matt dispatched
two of them quickly with his chainsaw while I moved up behind him to watch
his back. I killed the other monster with my shotgun. Matt then sprinted
down the hallway, past a couple of slower monsters, to get to the next
door - picking up a health pack and some grenades on the way. The next door
revealed another room that was blocked by barriers that we had to find our
way around. After getting past the first barrier we found a corpse on the
floor that was clutching the key card that we needed. We grabbed the card
and headed for the next door.

Opening the next door revealed a few more monsters. We were already pretty
badly wounded and the monsters ended up fragging both of us. This being
Doom, we did respawn and were able to sprint towards the final door,
squeezing through it with the monsters hot on our heels.

All in all, a very fun game. Kevin has done a very good job of recreating
the world of Doom in a boardgame setting. All the things you like about Doom
are here - all the weapons, monsters, shooting, dodging, etc. He has even
included some specialized Doom moves like rocket jumps. This really is the
Doom experience in a boardgame. Now we just have to wait a few months until
the game is released!"
QUOTE END

Well, this seems like a genuine Doom Experience :).

The reason for me comparing Doom 3 the video game and Doom 3 the boardgame
is that I wanted to see if there's a difference in rating because of the
transformation of a multimedia computer experience into a less explicit
board game experience. I have not found a rating for Doom the boardgame yet
and I think I will not find one. This is probably because ratings for board
games are very different by nature (a difficulty level instead of a warning
system). And even if I could find one, I think that the rating would not be
18+ but 16 + or 12+ -something because the board game is less explicit than
the video game. I believe there's no suggestion of a thing like blood, for
example. A lot of the "could-be-offensive"-stuff in Doom the boardgame is
made up in the players' imagination. The player fills in the gaps that he
doesn't see by pretending to be the plastic character that's on the table.
That what makes the boardgame fun in my opinion. Doom 3 the video game
leaves no room for imagination because it is all there: in video and audio
and text.

My point is: audio games and text games differ from video games in the sense
of feedback. It is harder to be more explicit in text or audio alone that it
is in video+audio+text. So this would be the answer to my gut feeling that a
different rating system could be needed for audio games.

Let's say there was an in-between version of Doom3, the Doom 3 audio game.
The concept of violence is the same throughout the 3 games. In all games you
can kill monsters with a chainsaw. In Doom the boardgame you roll a dice,
substract some health points and the monster is taken of the board. In Doom
the audio game you press a button and you hear the monster raging and the
sounds of the chainsaw and some liquid splatter (suggesting blood, or
whatever monster have in their bodies). In Doom the video game you see the
chainsaw going into the monster, you see the suggestion of blood (red
pixels) spray out of the monster accompanied by the appropiate sounds and
music.

Now how would Doom the audio game be rated? The same as the video game? The
same as the board game? Or use it's own (audio game) rating? I think I'd
vote for the last one. But if you'd use the last one, how effective would it
be for a fourth possibility: Doom the text game. Because Doom the text game
is probably even less explicit than Doom the board game (or is it?). But
this one is considered as a blind-accessible game as well! So, considering
all of the above, should text-based games have a different rating than audio
games (meaning there would be more than one rating system for "games for the
blind"), or should there be a general blind-accessible game rating? If it
was to be the last (a general blind-accessible game rating), what is its
unique value when compared to existing video game rating systems?

Greets,

Richard

PS: all of the above only focuses on the physical feedback of games. Media
ratings also focus on ideas and concepts that are communicated (the content
feedback). A Mario Bros look and feel game would certainly be banned (or at
least rated 18+) of Mario was this white neonazi type of character killing
blacks and jews instead of turtles. This has to do with the concept of
discrimination. Another example: Let's say in Grand Theft Auto, there's a
conversation between two characters discriminating a third character.
They're only attacking the third character verbally, not physically, and
it's not part of the interaction of the player (like in a movie). Such a
game would still include discrimination and would therefore be rated 12+ or
16+ or something. Discrimination can be very explicit or very subtle but
it's still the same concept and would probably be rated equally, or not? A
game that includes discrimination would be rated "contains discrimination"
and then it does not really matter if it is a video game or an audio game or
a text game. Or am I wrong here and does the rating depend on the explicit
manner in which the discrimination is communicated? Saying "kill all smurfs"
is considered harmless but "kill all haitians" (in GTA3) is bad because you
can actuallly offend someone by saying the last in real life. But maybe here
I'm closing in on the edge between rating and censorship (which are two
completely different things) so let's not go there....




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?


> that is a good point Josh about audio being spoken via screen readers in
> text games but I dunno, I'm just not quite certain if audio is the best
term
> for the name. What do others think? I'm thinking something more open ended
> such as accessible computer games rating system
>
>
> Regards,
> Justin - BSC Games
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
> To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 5:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
>
>
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I know you've asked me to write up some descriptions and I will be doing
> that
> > soon...probably later on today.
> >
> > But, I thought that I'd reply to this right now, real quick.
> >
> > AAGRS is perfect IMO, and here is why.
> >
> > Accessible: implies games are aimed at a disabled (hate that term but
fits
> here) group
> >
> > Audio: Differentiates from video games and implies that the games are
for
> the blind and
> > visually impaired.  I think textual games fall into this category as
well,
> since it is most
> > likely that those playing the games will get the textual feedback
> auditorially anyway via
> > synthetic or recorded speech.
> >
> > Games Rating System: Rounds out the description nicely.
> >
> > Just my two cents.
> >
> > More later in the day. I'm swamped currently. *grin*
> >
> > From:           "AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
> > To:             "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > Date sent:      Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:40:08 +0200
> > Subject:        Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
> >
> > > But then it should be Blind Accessible Games Rating System or Visually
> > > Impaired Accessible Games Rating System (because accessibility is not
> > > exclusive for visually impaired people). Oh dear...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
> > > To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:03 AM
> > > Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
> > >
> > >
> > > > BTW Mathew what does AAGRS stand for? accessible audio games rating
> > > system?
> > > > If so, maybe you might want to change it to not include the word
> > > > audio since, for example, I have several word games and a numbers
> > > > game that are not audio games but rather windows based forms/text
> > > > games of sorts. I'd
> > > like
> > > > to see the name of the rating system not reflect only audio games
> > > > but something more universal to accessible games in general which
> > > > would
> > > include,
> > > > of course, audio games.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps something as simple as accessible games rating system AGRS?
> > > >
> > > > What do you all think? Any other ideas for the name of the rating
> > > > system?
> > > If
> > > > everyone is ok with AAGRS, I am too. I'd like to see the initials
> > > seperated
> > > > out though in the logo for blind users via dashes though such as
> > > > A-A-G-R-S so screen readers can pronounce the letters correctly and
> > > > not just say
> > > blah
> > > > when it reads AAGRS.
> > > >
> > > > For example, a link might read: "this game is rated EC by the
> > > > A-A-G-R-S".
> > > >
> > > > What do you all think? If not a big deal, okie, just figured I'd
> > > > toss that out for some food for thought.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Justin - BscGames.com



From richard at audiogames.net  Thu Sep  2 10:57:01 2004
From: richard at audiogames.net (AudioGames.net)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:57:01 +0200
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
References: <1094114223.8212.9.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <012b01c490d3$3208c030$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>

Hi,


*QUOTE*
> The first thing we need to sort out is are we going to use AAGRS?  What
> I'm basically asking is this:  Is AAGRS a good enough basis for a system
> in your opinions?  Is it something that you think is basically OK and
> could be made great by some improvements.  If it is, then we should use
> it.  If not then we should start again.  I think Richard (of
> AudioGames.net) had a good idea when he suggested content themes having
> a big emphasis, for example.  My personal opinion is that the current
> incarnation of the ratings page provides a pretty decent effort at this
> and with small improvements it could be made even better (for example,
> another page could be added that simply lists the categories present in
> each rating in a pictorial-type way, as Richard suggested).  So I would
> say that we should try and iron out what bugs remain with the existing
> system as most people seem to be at least OK with it.
*QUOTE END *

Yep, I prefer the combination of an age guide (16+ for instance) with a
content descriptor (icon or word or whatever), like the Europian ISFE game
rating.

*QUOTE*
> >From - To - Details
> Now - 1st November 2004 - Suggestions and Improvements Period
> 1st November 2004 - 1st December 2004 - Internal Trial Period
> 1st December 2004 - End of Civilisation as we know it - Use of AAGRS
>
> (Seriously, if some big changes need to occur we can consider things
> like: automatic redirection to other systems' web pages, for example.
> We'd need to really be careful on issues like this; hence the need for a
> decent base system now, that could be improved upon (e.g. by the
> addition of theme icons/earcons) later on, even whilst AAGRS is in use.)
>
> I think it would be nice to see AAGRS in use by 2005 and even if we have
> a month's worth of delays in the above plan we can still ensure that
> this happens.
>
> Is this example schedule OK with everyone?
*QUOTE END*

Yep. But I do want to get some fundamental issues out of the way first. Is
this going to be a rating for audio games, or for blind-accessible games,
or... ?



From info at adoraentertainment.com  Thu Sep  2 11:35:12 2004
From: info at adoraentertainment.com (Adora Entertainment)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:35:12 -0700
Subject: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
Message-ID: <413694F0.24992.F74E47A@localhost>

Hello all,

Well, I've used what's on the site and some things discussed on the list here to write up 
some descriptions per your request.  I've tried to keep things simple without sacrificing 
detail of the descriptions.

Some notes on changes I made...

The descriptions I've pasted below reflect a couple of minor changes that I'd also like to 
suggest.  I don't expect these to be used exactly as is, and I'm sure there's lots more 
debate to go through.

First, as previously discussed on the list, "imitable" may not be intuitive as a category 
name.  I know I had to read it a few times before getting the jist. *wink*  In the 
descriptions below, I've replaced this with a similar category that I've headed 
"Delinquency".  As you read through the description, I think its use will be quite 
understandable and intuitive.  Let me know what you think.

In the Young Teens category, I've eliminated some of the wording about undetailed 
combat techniques.  My thinking is that games under compareable categories in the 
mainstream would depict, for example, martial arts visually.  A young teen playing these 
games would be inherently instructed on how to imitate such moves.  This isn't even 
something that applies to our medium, IMO, and is probably too strict.

If I'm outvoted on that one, I have no problem with it.  I just thought it was perhaps a bit of 
an extreme.

I know we've gone 'round with the  horror versus suspense versus fear term.  On their 
own, I'm not happy with any of those.  In the below descriptions, I have changed it to 
Horror/Suspense which I think embodies everything we want, and think the category is a 
good one.

There are other minor changes and rewordings that I think help simplify and clarify 
everything, without leaving them too open ended.  Let me know if you want me to write 
up anything more extensive or detailed for any of these.

Glad to help...so...on with the descriptions...

Early Childhood [EC]
for children under age 8

Games with this classification should be playable by people of all ages.  They are 
typically, though not always, targeted at 
children under eight years of age and will often be educational in nature.

Games rated EC may include:
Violence = None
Horror/Suspense = None
Strong Language = None
Sex = No sexual content or innuendo
Illegal Drug Use = None
Delinquency = No glorification of realistic delinquent, anti-social, dangerous, or illegal 
activity


Universal [U]
for ages 8 and above

Games with this classification should be suitable for ages eight and above.  Parents are 
encouraged to take an active role in 
determining whether games with this rating are appropriate for their individual children.

Games rated U may include:
Violence = Ocasional, non-realistic
Horror/Suspense = occasional, mild threat/menace
Strong Language = Occasional, very mild
Sex = occasional very mild/discrete references or innuendo
Illegal Drug Use = None
Delinquency = No glorification of realistic delinquent, anti-social, dangerous, or illegal 
activity


Young Teens [YT]
for ages 12 and above

Games with this classification may incorporate some mature themes, presented suitably 
for young teenagers.  They should be 
appropriate for people aged twelve and above.

Games rated YT may include:
Violence = Yes. No explicit emphasis on pain/injury
Horror/Suspense = Sustained threat/menace, occasional mild gore
Strong Language = Occasional, moderate
Sex = No explicit sexual content, references to sexual activity or innuendo suitable for 
young teenagers only
Illegal Drug Use = Occasional references justified by context.  The dangers of use should 
be noted within the game.
Delinquency = No glorification/glamorisation of contemporary weapons.  Moderate 
presentation of dangerous stunts or combat 
techniques is permitted if presented without explicit description.


Mature Teens [MT]
for ages 15 and above

Games with this classification may include any theme presented appropriately for 
teenagers fifteen years of age and above.

Games rated MT may include:
Violence = Strong violence. No detailed presentation of the infliction of pain and/or 
injuries. Sexual violence, if 
presented, must be brief, justified by context, and without explicit description
Horror/Suspense = Sustained threat/menace.  Ocasional gore.
Strong Language = Frequent.  No prolonged or excessively aggressive use is permitted.
Sex = Sexual activity may be presented without the use of explicit description or 
pornographic material.
Illegal Drug Use = May be presented without explicit description or promotion.
Delinquency = If used, emphasis should not be placed on delinquent, anti-social, 
dangerous, or illegal activities nor on the 
use of contemporary weapons.


Adult [A]
for ages 18 and above

Adults should be allowed to choose their own entertainment, within applicable law. For 
this reason, almost any content is 
allowed under this category (again, as long as it is compliant with the law).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.agrip.org.uk/pipermail/aagrs/attachments/20040902/bb9c9852/attachment.htm>

From info at adoraentertainment.com  Thu Sep  2 12:01:31 2004
From: info at adoraentertainment.com (Adora Entertainment)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 04:01:31 -0700
Subject: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
In-Reply-To: <413694F0.24992.F74E47A@localhost>
Message-ID: <41369B1B.10243.F8CFD0E@localhost>

Replying to myself...a sign of impending mental collapse, the late great Douglas Adams 
would've said.

I forgot to mention that, I changed the AO category to just Adult, and thus just the 
abbreviation "A". AO is a common acronym for our game "Alien Outback" and I would 
really not like the association between that game and the rating system's most free-for-all 
rating. *laugh*  I will bow down to the wishes of all those here if they feel the AO is really 
necessary though.



From info at adoraentertainment.com  Thu Sep  2 12:01:30 2004
From: info at adoraentertainment.com (Adora Entertainment)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 04:01:30 -0700
Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
In-Reply-To: <006e01c490d1$4c4659a0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
Message-ID: <41369B1A.31103.F8CF9E2@localhost>

Hi Richard,

I think you'll like some of the descriptions I wrote up in my last email.  I address both the 
textual and discrimination issues in it.

"explicit description" which I used repeatedly, is meant to apply to both audio ad textual 
feedback and I think that point comes across well.

"anti-social behavior" would cover things like discrimination nicely.

I think, because of our medium, accessible games will be, by at large, rated lower than 
mainstream counterparts.  "Shades of Doom" from GMA would probably be rated YT, not 
A in our system.


From:           	"AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
To:             	<aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Date sent:      	Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:43:26 +0200
Subject:        	Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?

> Hi!
> 
> This discussion is progressing very good, I think! But I do have one
> nagging thought about the whole rating thing.
> 
> Maybe it's time to focus on the difference IN RATING between a regular
> computer game and an accessible computer game (whether or not for the
> blind) ? And also what's the difference IN RATING between a video game
> and an audio game? What is the reason that a different rating system
> should be created solely for games that have text- or audio output
> only instead of a combined media output (text+video+audio)?
> 
> Based on my gut feeling I know these kind of games could very well
> require a different rating system. But if I had the answer the
> question above to a team of professionals who setup the video game
> rating standard, I can't really say why. So I wanted to find out why I
> have this kind of feeling (which probably this lists also shares
> otherwise  why bother).
> 
> I had a look at examples of rated video games that were transformed to
> another medium, in order to see what happened to the rating. I
> recieved a copy of Doom 3 yesterday for my birthday so I had a look at
> that one. The game is rated 18+ according the the Europian ISFE rating
> system (http://www.ps2home.co.uk/pan_european_video_games_age_rat.htm)
> . The ISFE also uses "descriptor icons", just like the
> Kijkwijzer-rating system I referred to earlier
> (http://www.kijkwijzer.nl/engels/ekijkwijzer.html). Doom 3 uses only a
> descriptor icon for VIOLENCE. This first struck me as odd, because the
> game focuses highly on frightening the player but it doesn't have the
> FEAR icon (and is advertised this way). But this probably has
> something to to with FEAR being rated 16+ and VIOLENCE as 18+. And
> that only the highest rating is shown.
> 
> Okay, so then I had a look at Doom 3- the boardgame
> (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/10640) . Yep, there's a Doom 3
> board game coming up in Ocober, for those who didn't know! Here a
> short description:
> 
> QUOTE
> "Following on the heels of Warcraft: The Board Game, Fantasy Flight
> will publish Doom: The Boardgame in October, Inrcorporating graphics
> and themes from the upcoming Doom3 with the innovation and quality
> found in Fantasy Flight's Games. Doom: The Board Game will include
> scores of sculpted plastic miniatures, specialized oversized dice,
> board pieces for players to make their own custom maps, and enough
> weapons to drive back the legions of Hell. Doom: The Board Game. Keep
> your guns close and your dice closer." QUOTE END
> 
> Now, I couldn't find a rating for Doom 3- the boardgame anywhere. Not
> on the website of the developer or on any of the review sites. But I
> could find a preview of the game:
> 
> QUOTE
> "We quickly grabbed the weapons in the room and took up positions in
> front of one of the doors to the room. Before we even had a chance to
> open the door, a monster spawned at the other side of room and started
> attacking us (the monsters weren't wasting any time!). We took a
> slight amount of damage but the two of us dispatched the monster
> swiftly.
> 
> We opened the door and were welcomed by a three monsters. Matt
> dispatched two of them quickly with his chainsaw while I moved up
> behind him to watch his back. I killed the other monster with my
> shotgun. Matt then sprinted down the hallway, past a couple of slower
> monsters, to get to the next door - picking up a health pack and some
> grenades on the way. The next door revealed another room that was
> blocked by barriers that we had to find our way around. After getting
> past the first barrier we found a corpse on the floor that was
> clutching the key card that we needed. We grabbed the card and headed
> for the next door.
> 
> Opening the next door revealed a few more monsters. We were already
> pretty badly wounded and the monsters ended up fragging both of us.
> This being Doom, we did respawn and were able to sprint towards the
> final door, squeezing through it with the monsters hot on our heels.
> 
> All in all, a very fun game. Kevin has done a very good job of
> recreating the world of Doom in a boardgame setting. All the things
> you like about Doom are here - all the weapons, monsters, shooting,
> dodging, etc. He has even included some specialized Doom moves like
> rocket jumps. This really is the Doom experience in a boardgame. Now
> we just have to wait a few months until the game is released!" QUOTE
> END
> 
> Well, this seems like a genuine Doom Experience :).
> 
> The reason for me comparing Doom 3 the video game and Doom 3 the
> boardgame is that I wanted to see if there's a difference in rating
> because of the transformation of a multimedia computer experience into
> a less explicit board game experience. I have not found a rating for
> Doom the boardgame yet and I think I will not find one. This is
> probably because ratings for board games are very different by nature
> (a difficulty level instead of a warning system). And even if I could
> find one, I think that the rating would not be 18+ but 16 + or 12+
> -something because the board game is less explicit than the video
> game. I believe there's no suggestion of a thing like blood, for
> example. A lot of the "could-be-offensive"-stuff in Doom the boardgame
> is made up in the players' imagination. The player fills in the gaps
> that he doesn't see by pretending to be the plastic character that's
> on the table. That what makes the boardgame fun in my opinion. Doom 3
> the video game leaves no room for imagination because it is all there:
> in video and audio and text.
> 
> My point is: audio games and text games differ from video games in the
> sense of feedback. It is harder to be more explicit in text or audio
> alone that it is in video+audio+text. So this would be the answer to
> my gut feeling that a different rating system could be needed for
> audio games.
> 
> Let's say there was an in-between version of Doom3, the Doom 3 audio
> game. The concept of violence is the same throughout the 3 games. In
> all games you can kill monsters with a chainsaw. In Doom the boardgame
> you roll a dice, substract some health points and the monster is taken
> of the board. In Doom the audio game you press a button and you hear
> the monster raging and the sounds of the chainsaw and some liquid
> splatter (suggesting blood, or whatever monster have in their bodies).
> In Doom the video game you see the chainsaw going into the monster,
> you see the suggestion of blood (red pixels) spray out of the monster
> accompanied by the appropiate sounds and music.
> 
> Now how would Doom the audio game be rated? The same as the video
> game? The same as the board game? Or use it's own (audio game) rating?
> I think I'd vote for the last one. But if you'd use the last one, how
> effective would it be for a fourth possibility: Doom the text game.
> Because Doom the text game is probably even less explicit than Doom
> the board game (or is it?). But this one is considered as a
> blind-accessible game as well! So, considering all of the above,
> should text-based games have a different rating than audio games
> (meaning there would be more than one rating system for "games for the
> blind"), or should there be a general blind-accessible game rating? If
> it was to be the last (a general blind-accessible game rating), what
> is its unique value when compared to existing video game rating
> systems?
> 
> Greets,
> 
> Richard
> 
> PS: all of the above only focuses on the physical feedback of games.
> Media ratings also focus on ideas and concepts that are communicated
> (the content feedback). A Mario Bros look and feel game would
> certainly be banned (or at least rated 18+) of Mario was this white
> neonazi type of character killing blacks and jews instead of turtles.
> This has to do with the concept of discrimination. Another example:
> Let's say in Grand Theft Auto, there's a conversation between two
> characters discriminating a third character. They're only attacking
> the third character verbally, not physically, and it's not part of the
> interaction of the player (like in a movie). Such a game would still
> include discrimination and would therefore be rated 12+ or 16+ or
> something. Discrimination can be very explicit or very subtle but it's
> still the same concept and would probably be rated equally, or not? A
> game that includes discrimination would be rated "contains
> discrimination" and then it does not really matter if it is a video
> game or an audio game or a text game. Or am I wrong here and does the
> rating depend on the explicit manner in which the discrimination is
> communicated? Saying "kill all smurfs" is considered harmless but
> "kill all haitians" (in GTA3) is bad because you can actuallly offend
> someone by saying the last in real life. But maybe here I'm closing in
> on the edge between rating and censorship (which are two completely
> different things) so let's not go there....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
> To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
> 
> 
> > that is a good point Josh about audio being spoken via screen
> > readers in text games but I dunno, I'm just not quite certain if
> > audio is the best
> term
> > for the name. What do others think? I'm thinking something more open
> > ended such as accessible computer games rating system
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Justin - BSC Games
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
> > To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 5:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
> >
> >
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > I know you've asked me to write up some descriptions and I will be
> > > doing
> > that
> > > soon...probably later on today.
> > >
> > > But, I thought that I'd reply to this right now, real quick.
> > >
> > > AAGRS is perfect IMO, and here is why.
> > >
> > > Accessible: implies games are aimed at a disabled (hate that term
> > > but
> fits
> > here) group
> > >
> > > Audio: Differentiates from video games and implies that the games
> > > are
> for
> > the blind and
> > > visually impaired.  I think textual games fall into this category
> > > as
> well,
> > since it is most
> > > likely that those playing the games will get the textual feedback
> > auditorially anyway via
> > > synthetic or recorded speech.
> > >
> > > Games Rating System: Rounds out the description nicely.
> > >
> > > Just my two cents.
> > >
> > > More later in the day. I'm swamped currently. *grin*
> > >
> > > From:           "AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
> > > To:             "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > > Date sent:      Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:40:08 +0200
> > > Subject:        Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
> > >
> > > > But then it should be Blind Accessible Games Rating System or
> > > > Visually Impaired Accessible Games Rating System (because
> > > > accessibility is not exclusive for visually impaired people). Oh
> > > > dear...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > > From: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
> > > > To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:03 AM
> > > > Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > BTW Mathew what does AAGRS stand for? accessible audio games
> > > > > rating
> > > > system?
> > > > > If so, maybe you might want to change it to not include the
> > > > > word audio since, for example, I have several word games and a
> > > > > numbers game that are not audio games but rather windows based
> > > > > forms/text games of sorts. I'd
> > > > like
> > > > > to see the name of the rating system not reflect only audio
> > > > > games but something more universal to accessible games in
> > > > > general which would
> > > > include,
> > > > > of course, audio games.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps something as simple as accessible games rating system
> > > > > AGRS?
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you all think? Any other ideas for the name of the
> > > > > rating system?
> > > > If
> > > > > everyone is ok with AAGRS, I am too. I'd like to see the
> > > > > initials
> > > > seperated
> > > > > out though in the logo for blind users via dashes though such
> > > > > as A-A-G-R-S so screen readers can pronounce the letters
> > > > > correctly and not just say
> > > > blah
> > > > > when it reads AAGRS.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, a link might read: "this game is rated EC by the
> > > > > A-A-G-R-S".
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you all think? If not a big deal, okie, just figured
> > > > > I'd toss that out for some food for thought.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Justin - BscGames.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> 
> 




From info at adoraentertainment.com  Thu Sep  2 12:07:17 2004
From: info at adoraentertainment.com (Adora Entertainment)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 04:07:17 -0700
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
In-Reply-To: <1094114223.8212.9.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <41369C75.17788.F924366@localhost>

Your schedule looks fine to me.

I'd say, with a few more modifications and such, we can definitley mold AAGRS into a 
useful and efficient rating system.

So, my vote is, yes, let's use it.



From info at adoraentertainment.com  Thu Sep  2 12:09:15 2004
From: info at adoraentertainment.com (Adora Entertainment)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 04:09:15 -0700
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
In-Reply-To: <012b01c490d3$3208c030$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
Message-ID: <41369CEB.31097.F94118E@localhost>


Richard wrote:
> Yep. But I do want to get some fundamental issues out of the way
> first. Is this going to be a rating for audio games, or for
> blind-accessible games, or... ?

My thought is that this system should be useable for either type, but with an emphasis on 
audio based games.  Text games really don't need a rating system, any more than books 
do, IMO.  There's not a whole lot of difference between playing Interactive Fiction or 
reading JK Rowling.  If a developer chooses to rate his text games with this systme, we 
should account for that, but the primary goal should be rating audio games.

Thoughts?



From justind at BscGames.com  Thu Sep  2 14:00:42 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:00:42 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
References: <41369CEB.31097.F94118E@localhost>
Message-ID: <006e01c490ec$da98b8e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

My thought is this should only be used for computer games designed
specifically for the blind, no matter the style of game, and no othre type
of game. I.E it should not be used to rate accessible board games,
accessible card games, and so on. We are basing this system off computer
games that we have currently created and other computer game rating systems.
The suggestions we have presented to date have all been for computer games,
not board games or any other type game. I say accessible computer games
only. This is why I suggest Accessible Computer Games Rating System ACGRS
instead of AAGRS. Besides, ACGRS is spoken better by screen readers *laugh*.


Others?



Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS


>
> Richard wrote:
> > Yep. But I do want to get some fundamental issues out of the way
> > first. Is this going to be a rating for audio games, or for
> > blind-accessible games, or... ?
>
> My thought is that this system should be useable for either type, but with
an emphasis on
> audio based games.  Text games really don't need a rating system, any more
than books
> do, IMO.  There's not a whole lot of difference between playing
Interactive Fiction or
> reading JK Rowling.  If a developer chooses to rate his text games with
this systme, we
> should account for that, but the primary goal should be rating audio
games.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs



From justind at BscGames.com  Thu Sep  2 14:04:51 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:04:51 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
References: <1094114223.8212.9.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <008501c490ed$6f206760$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

I am not liking that you will not have steady internet access until October.
Can you get some sort of dialup access and a laptop to stay in
daily/constant tune  with the list? I feel that you are leading this project
up and need to be in tight constant interaction with the progression of this
project. If you cannot get steady internet until October, I say we postpoan
the development of this system until October when you can get steady
internet access. Again, you are leading this project and I don't see it as a
logical option to have the leader of a project be absent, or at best,
hit/miss for an entire month.



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: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:37 AM
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS


> 'ello,
>
> The idea of this topic is to come up with a schedule for the
> improvements to and subsequent use of AAGRS.  I have got a few ideas on
> how we could go about this, which I'll write down here.  It seems to me
> that it would be a good idea for us to know exactly when we expect this
> thing to be ready and when we are going to think about using it.
>
> The first thing we need to sort out is are we going to use AAGRS?  What
> I'm basically asking is this:  Is AAGRS a good enough basis for a system
> in your opinions?  Is it something that you think is basically OK and
> could be made great by some improvements.  If it is, then we should use
> it.  If not then we should start again.  I think Richard (of
> AudioGames.net) had a good idea when he suggested content themes having
> a big emphasis, for example.  My personal opinion is that the current
> incarnation of the ratings page provides a pretty decent effort at this
> and with small improvements it could be made even better (for example,
> another page could be added that simply lists the categories present in
> each rating in a pictorial-type way, as Richard suggested).  So I would
> say that we should try and iron out what bugs remain with the existing
> system as most people seem to be at least OK with it.
>
> If this is the general opinion on the list -- which it does appear to be
> at the moment -- then that's what we should probably do.  If people
> would rather scrap what we have and start again, then now's the time to
> say so.
>
> Given the recent discussion, I'll assume that we're going to continue
> improving the existing system, so I have come up with this example
> schedule we could use...
>
> Like most standards, it is a good idea to have a period in which people
> can make suggestions and they are implemented pretty much ASAP (if
> people agree).  I'd say that his period shouldn't last more than two
> months with AAGRS, which means that on the 1st of November, it would be
> ending.
>
> After this, it would seem that we (the main team behind the system) are
> quite happy with it.  A good idea would be to let it simmer for a time
> whilst we rate our games with it and prepare our web sites to display
> those ratings (shouldn't take long but you never know what issues may
> crop up).  I'd say this should last only about a month because we
> probably already know what we want to say about our own games.  So
> during November we can rate our games and compare ratings to try and
> iron out any remaining bugs in the system.
>
> After this, I'd say we could ``go live'' and start officially using the
> system -- that'd be on the 1st of December 2004.  In summary:
>
> >From - To - Details
> Now - 1st November 2004 - Suggestions and Improvements Period
> 1st November 2004 - 1st December 2004 - Internal Trial Period
> 1st December 2004 - End of Civilisation as we know it - Use of AAGRS
>
> (Seriously, if some big changes need to occur we can consider things
> like: automatic redirection to other systems' web pages, for example.
> We'd need to really be careful on issues like this; hence the need for a
> decent base system now, that could be improved upon (e.g. by the
> addition of theme icons/earcons) later on, even whilst AAGRS is in use.)
>
> I think it would be nice to see AAGRS in use by 2005 and even if we have
> a month's worth of delays in the above plan we can still ensure that
> this happens.
>
> Is this example schedule OK with everyone?  I don't want us to rush as
> that could have really tragic consequences.  Obviously if people want
> more time, they can always ask and we can amend our time-table.  I just
> think it would be a good idea for us all to know where we're at.
>
> I'll put the schedule on the web site when it has been amended/agreed
> upon.
>
> One final note:  I am going back to University on the 6th of September
> (though term doesn't start until October).  I may not have steady 'net
> access until October so please by all means continue the discussion and
> I'll make any changes that are needed to the site as soon as I can do so
> (it's most likely that things won't be delayed that much).
>
> 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 info at adoraentertainment.com  Thu Sep  2 14:08:31 2004
From: info at adoraentertainment.com (Adora Entertainment)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 06:08:31 -0700
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
In-Reply-To: <006e01c490ec$da98b8e0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <4136B8DF.27753.100141A4@localhost>

Yeah...I hadn't ever really entertained the notion that this would be used for anything 
other than computer games. *grin*

Braille Chess...rated...EC? Nothing to offend anyone, but if you've got a kid under age 5 
who can play this game, you belong on Ripley's Believe It or Not! *laugh*

From:           	"JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
To:             	"AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Subject:        	Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
Date sent:      	Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:00:42 -0400
Organization:   	BSC Games

> My thought is this should only be used for computer games designed
> specifically for the blind, no matter the style of game, and no othre
> type of game. I.E it should not be used to rate accessible board
> games, accessible card games, and so on. We are basing this system off
> computer games that we have currently created and other computer game
> rating systems. The suggestions we have presented to date have all
> been for computer games, not board games or any other type game. I say
> accessible computer games only. This is why I suggest Accessible
> Computer Games Rating System ACGRS instead of AAGRS. Besides, ACGRS is
> spoken better by screen readers *laugh*.
> 
> 
> Others?
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Justin - BSC Games
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
> To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 7:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
> 
> 
> >
> > Richard wrote:
> > > Yep. But I do want to get some fundamental issues out of the way
> > > first. Is this going to be a rating for audio games, or for
> > > blind-accessible games, or... ?
> >
> > My thought is that this system should be useable for either type,
> > but with
> an emphasis on
> > audio based games.  Text games really don't need a rating system,
> > any more
> than books
> > do, IMO.  There's not a whole lot of difference between playing
> Interactive Fiction or
> > reading JK Rowling.  If a developer chooses to rate his text games
> > with
> this systme, we
> > should account for that, but the primary goal should be rating audio
> games.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AAGRS mailing list
> > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> 
> 




From justind at BscGames.com  Thu Sep  2 14:09:23 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:09:23 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
References: <413537EF.6143.A219B03@localhost><012401c49022$d234f3f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<006e01c490d1$4c4659a0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
Message-ID: <009401c490ee$11544c90$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Greets Richard.

Hey thanks for the awesome detailed email packed full of thought! Yes, I was
checking out doom 3 this past week, the video game version of it, and loved
it! Here in the states it was rated mature by the ESRB which is age 17 and
above.

My thoughts on one of your queries... if you had to  describe why we want
our own ratings system to educators it is IMO because we rate our games from
a blindness perspective, not a sighted perspective. We focus on audio and
text content and not graphical content thus feel the need to have our own
ratings system taylored to our customers/market.


Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
To: <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 5:43 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?


> Hi!
>
> This discussion is progressing very good, I think! But I do have one
nagging
> thought about the whole rating thing.
>
> Maybe it's time to focus on the difference IN RATING between a regular
> computer game and an accessible computer game (whether or not for the
blind)
> ? And also what's the difference IN RATING between a video game and an
audio
> game? What is the reason that a different rating system should be created
> solely for games that have text- or audio output only instead of a
combined
> media output (text+video+audio)?
>
> Based on my gut feeling I know these kind of games could very well require
a
> different rating system. But if I had the answer the question above to a
> team of professionals who setup the video game rating standard, I can't
> really say why. So I wanted to find out why I have this kind of feeling
> (which probably this lists also shares otherwise  why bother).
>
> I had a look at examples of rated video games that were transformed to
> another medium, in order to see what happened to the rating. I recieved a
> copy of Doom 3 yesterday for my birthday so I had a look at that one.
> The game is rated 18+ according the the Europian ISFE rating system
> (http://www.ps2home.co.uk/pan_european_video_games_age_rat.htm) . The ISFE
> also uses "descriptor icons", just like the Kijkwijzer-rating system I
> referred to earlier (http://www.kijkwijzer.nl/engels/ekijkwijzer.html).
> Doom 3 uses only a descriptor icon for VIOLENCE. This first struck me as
> odd, because the game focuses highly on frightening the player but it
> doesn't have the FEAR icon (and is advertised this way). But this probably
> has something to to with FEAR being rated 16+ and VIOLENCE as 18+. And
that
> only the highest rating is shown.
>
> Okay, so then I had a look at Doom 3- the boardgame
> (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/10640) . Yep, there's a Doom 3 board
game
> coming up in Ocober, for those who didn't know! Here a short description:
>
> QUOTE
> "Following on the heels of Warcraft: The Board Game, Fantasy Flight will
> publish Doom: The Boardgame in October, Inrcorporating graphics and themes
> from the upcoming Doom3 with the innovation and quality found in Fantasy
> Flight's Games. Doom: The Board Game will include scores of sculpted
plastic
> miniatures, specialized oversized dice, board pieces for players to make
> their own custom maps, and enough weapons to drive back the legions of
Hell.
> Doom: The Board Game. Keep your guns close and your dice closer."
> QUOTE END
>
> Now, I couldn't find a rating for Doom 3- the boardgame anywhere. Not on
the
> website of the developer or on any of the review sites. But I could find a
> preview of the game:
>
> QUOTE
> "We quickly grabbed the weapons in the room and took up positions in front
> of one of the doors to the room. Before we even had a chance to open the
> door, a monster spawned at the other side of room and started attacking us
> (the monsters weren't wasting any time!). We took a slight amount of
damage
> but the two of us dispatched the monster swiftly.
>
> We opened the door and were welcomed by a three monsters. Matt dispatched
> two of them quickly with his chainsaw while I moved up behind him to watch
> his back. I killed the other monster with my shotgun. Matt then sprinted
> down the hallway, past a couple of slower monsters, to get to the next
> door - picking up a health pack and some grenades on the way. The next
door
> revealed another room that was blocked by barriers that we had to find our
> way around. After getting past the first barrier we found a corpse on the
> floor that was clutching the key card that we needed. We grabbed the card
> and headed for the next door.
>
> Opening the next door revealed a few more monsters. We were already pretty
> badly wounded and the monsters ended up fragging both of us. This being
> Doom, we did respawn and were able to sprint towards the final door,
> squeezing through it with the monsters hot on our heels.
>
> All in all, a very fun game. Kevin has done a very good job of recreating
> the world of Doom in a boardgame setting. All the things you like about
Doom
> are here - all the weapons, monsters, shooting, dodging, etc. He has even
> included some specialized Doom moves like rocket jumps. This really is the
> Doom experience in a boardgame. Now we just have to wait a few months
until
> the game is released!"
> QUOTE END
>
> Well, this seems like a genuine Doom Experience :).
>
> The reason for me comparing Doom 3 the video game and Doom 3 the boardgame
> is that I wanted to see if there's a difference in rating because of the
> transformation of a multimedia computer experience into a less explicit
> board game experience. I have not found a rating for Doom the boardgame
yet
> and I think I will not find one. This is probably because ratings for
board
> games are very different by nature (a difficulty level instead of a
warning
> system). And even if I could find one, I think that the rating would not
be
> 18+ but 16 + or 12+ -something because the board game is less explicit
than
> the video game. I believe there's no suggestion of a thing like blood, for
> example. A lot of the "could-be-offensive"-stuff in Doom the boardgame is
> made up in the players' imagination. The player fills in the gaps that he
> doesn't see by pretending to be the plastic character that's on the table.
> That what makes the boardgame fun in my opinion. Doom 3 the video game
> leaves no room for imagination because it is all there: in video and audio
> and text.
>
> My point is: audio games and text games differ from video games in the
sense
> of feedback. It is harder to be more explicit in text or audio alone that
it
> is in video+audio+text. So this would be the answer to my gut feeling that
a
> different rating system could be needed for audio games.
>
> Let's say there was an in-between version of Doom3, the Doom 3 audio game.
> The concept of violence is the same throughout the 3 games. In all games
you
> can kill monsters with a chainsaw. In Doom the boardgame you roll a dice,
> substract some health points and the monster is taken of the board. In
Doom
> the audio game you press a button and you hear the monster raging and the
> sounds of the chainsaw and some liquid splatter (suggesting blood, or
> whatever monster have in their bodies). In Doom the video game you see the
> chainsaw going into the monster, you see the suggestion of blood (red
> pixels) spray out of the monster accompanied by the appropiate sounds and
> music.
>
> Now how would Doom the audio game be rated? The same as the video game?
The
> same as the board game? Or use it's own (audio game) rating? I think I'd
> vote for the last one. But if you'd use the last one, how effective would
it
> be for a fourth possibility: Doom the text game. Because Doom the text
game
> is probably even less explicit than Doom the board game (or is it?). But
> this one is considered as a blind-accessible game as well! So, considering
> all of the above, should text-based games have a different rating than
audio
> games (meaning there would be more than one rating system for "games for
the
> blind"), or should there be a general blind-accessible game rating? If it
> was to be the last (a general blind-accessible game rating), what is its
> unique value when compared to existing video game rating systems?
>
> Greets,
>
> Richard
>
> PS: all of the above only focuses on the physical feedback of games. Media
> ratings also focus on ideas and concepts that are communicated (the
content
> feedback). A Mario Bros look and feel game would certainly be banned (or
at
> least rated 18+) of Mario was this white neonazi type of character killing
> blacks and jews instead of turtles. This has to do with the concept of
> discrimination. Another example: Let's say in Grand Theft Auto, there's a
> conversation between two characters discriminating a third character.
> They're only attacking the third character verbally, not physically, and
> it's not part of the interaction of the player (like in a movie). Such a
> game would still include discrimination and would therefore be rated 12+
or
> 16+ or something. Discrimination can be very explicit or very subtle but
> it's still the same concept and would probably be rated equally, or not? A
> game that includes discrimination would be rated "contains discrimination"
> and then it does not really matter if it is a video game or an audio game
or
> a text game. Or am I wrong here and does the rating depend on the explicit
> manner in which the discrimination is communicated? Saying "kill all
smurfs"
> is considered harmless but "kill all haitians" (in GTA3) is bad because
you
> can actuallly offend someone by saying the last in real life. But maybe
here
> I'm closing in on the edge between rating and censorship (which are two
> completely different things) so let's not go there....
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
> To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
>
>
> > that is a good point Josh about audio being spoken via screen readers in
> > text games but I dunno, I'm just not quite certain if audio is the best
> term
> > for the name. What do others think? I'm thinking something more open
ended
> > such as accessible computer games rating system
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Justin - BSC Games
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
> > To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 5:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
> >
> >
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > I know you've asked me to write up some descriptions and I will be
doing
> > that
> > > soon...probably later on today.
> > >
> > > But, I thought that I'd reply to this right now, real quick.
> > >
> > > AAGRS is perfect IMO, and here is why.
> > >
> > > Accessible: implies games are aimed at a disabled (hate that term but
> fits
> > here) group
> > >
> > > Audio: Differentiates from video games and implies that the games are
> for
> > the blind and
> > > visually impaired.  I think textual games fall into this category as
> well,
> > since it is most
> > > likely that those playing the games will get the textual feedback
> > auditorially anyway via
> > > synthetic or recorded speech.
> > >
> > > Games Rating System: Rounds out the description nicely.
> > >
> > > Just my two cents.
> > >
> > > More later in the day. I'm swamped currently. *grin*
> > >
> > > From:           "AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
> > > To:             "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > > Date sent:      Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:40:08 +0200
> > > Subject:        Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
> > >
> > > > But then it should be Blind Accessible Games Rating System or
Visually
> > > > Impaired Accessible Games Rating System (because accessibility is
not
> > > > exclusive for visually impaired people). Oh dear...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > > From: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
> > > > To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:03 AM
> > > > Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > BTW Mathew what does AAGRS stand for? accessible audio games
rating
> > > > system?
> > > > > If so, maybe you might want to change it to not include the word
> > > > > audio since, for example, I have several word games and a numbers
> > > > > game that are not audio games but rather windows based forms/text
> > > > > games of sorts. I'd
> > > > like
> > > > > to see the name of the rating system not reflect only audio games
> > > > > but something more universal to accessible games in general which
> > > > > would
> > > > include,
> > > > > of course, audio games.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps something as simple as accessible games rating system
AGRS?
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you all think? Any other ideas for the name of the rating
> > > > > system?
> > > > If
> > > > > everyone is ok with AAGRS, I am too. I'd like to see the initials
> > > > seperated
> > > > > out though in the logo for blind users via dashes though such as
> > > > > A-A-G-R-S so screen readers can pronounce the letters correctly
and
> > > > > not just say
> > > > blah
> > > > > when it reads AAGRS.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, a link might read: "this game is rated EC by the
> > > > > A-A-G-R-S".
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you all think? If not a big deal, okie, just figured I'd
> > > > > toss that out for some food for thought.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Justin - BscGames.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs



From justind at BscGames.com  Thu Sep  2 14:30:14 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:30:14 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
References: <41369B1B.10243.F8CFD0E@localhost>
Message-ID: <00e801c490f0$fae83810$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

I'm ok with A for adult.

Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
To: "aAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions


> Replying to myself...a sign of impending mental collapse, the late great
Douglas Adams
> would've said.
>
> I forgot to mention that, I changed the AO category to just Adult, and
thus just the
> abbreviation "A". AO is a common acronym for our game "Alien Outback" and
I would
> really not like the association between that game and the rating system's
most free-for-all
> rating. *laugh*  I will bow down to the wishes of all those here if they
feel the AO is really
> necessary though.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Thu Sep  2 15:01:14 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:01:14 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
In-Reply-To: <41369B1B.10243.F8CFD0E@localhost>
References: <41369B1B.10243.F8CFD0E@localhost>
Message-ID: <1094133674.16462.4.camel@localhost>

'ello,

I have looked over your descriptions and overall I think they're fine. 
I will have to really read them carefully before I form a full opinion
on them but after the first read they seem great.

I will wait to see what the others think before I make any changes.

On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 12:01, Adora Entertainment wrote:
> Replying to myself...a sign of impending mental collapse, the late great Douglas Adams 
> would've said.

:-).  He was.  Today is Thursday, so I wouldn't worry too much --
anything odd/extreme can be easily put down to that :-).

> I forgot to mention that, I changed the AO category to just Adult, and thus just the 
> abbreviation "A". AO is a common acronym for our game "Alien Outback" and I would 
> really not like the association between that game and the rating system's most free-for-all 
> rating. *laugh*  I will bow down to the wishes of all those here if they feel the AO is really 
> necessary though.

I am fine with this.  As I side note, yesterday I made a very similar
request, so it would be unreasonable of me to say no to this one :-).  A
for adult is fine by me.

bye just now,


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



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Thu Sep  2 15:13:11 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:13:11 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
In-Reply-To: <012b01c490d3$3208c030$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
References: <1094114223.8212.9.camel@localhost>
	<012b01c490d3$3208c030$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
Message-ID: <1094134391.16520.24.camel@localhost>

'ello,

On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 10:57, AudioGames.net wrote:
> Yep. But I do want to get some fundamental issues out of the way first. Is
> this going to be a rating for audio games, or for blind-accessible games,
> or... ?

Thanks, Richard, for your thoughts.  I have noticed that a post of yours
is awaiting my moderation due to it being long (as it has an
attachment).  I will get it sent through to the list ASAP.

I _really_ want AAGRS to be for accessible /and/ audio games.  This
includes IF, games that are made to be explicitly accessible and audio
games (such as the ones Richard has made).

I am confident that all of these games could co-exist ratings-wise and I
hope that we will all be happy with the result.  I suppose this will
unfold as time goes on...

bye just now,


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



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Thu Sep  2 15:22:20 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:22:20 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
In-Reply-To: <008501c490ed$6f206760$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <1094114223.8212.9.camel@localhost>
	<008501c490ed$6f206760$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1094134940.16462.44.camel@localhost>

'ello,

On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 14:04, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> I am not liking that you will not have steady internet access until October.
> Can you get some sort of dialup access and a laptop to stay in
> daily/constant tune  with the list? I feel that you are leading this project
> up and need to be in tight constant interaction with the progression of this
> project. If you cannot get steady internet until October, I say we postpoan
> the development of this system until October when you can get steady
> internet access. Again, you are leading this project and I don't see it as a
> logical option to have the leader of a project be absent, or at best,
> hit/miss for an entire month.

I am hoping to be able to plug my laptop into the Uni network when I am
there working on my project, which would be almost every day.

I ought to point out that for the first week (i.e. until the 12th) I'll
be ``on holiday'' (a friend is coming to visit me down there so I won't
have easy access to my department to connect up).

Sorry for not really thinking this one through; it was more than a
little irresponsible.  I will contact my friend who is organising the
'net access to see how far he's got.  I will reply here with the result
(i.e. that we'll have to pause for a while or that we can go ahead) when
I know.

Unfortunately I can't get dial-up because we don't/won't have a phone
line in our house.  As much as I detest mobiles, it works out cheaper
for us to just get cable 'net access and forget a land-line phone.

Sorry again for the confusion; I'll give you an answer as soon as I can.

bye just now,


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



From richard at audiogames.net  Thu Sep  2 13:48:27 2004
From: richard at audiogames.net (AudioGames.net)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:48:27 +0200
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
References: <41369CEB.31097.F94118E@localhost>
Message-ID: <002001c490eb$251209f0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>

Hi,

"Blind-accessible games" (or "visually impaired accessible games") would
include more games than just audio games or text-based games, for instance
games WITH a graphical interface like Terraformers, The Curb Game, Quake
with AGRIP, etc.

I don't want to make things complicated, but I think a lot of the discussion
depends on what we're rating. The problem with a "visually impaired
accessible games rating" is that some video games (especially future games)
might also be accessible for visually impaired gamers.For instance, Space
Station Number 5 Part 2, a playstation Bop-It type game is about 95%
accessible for blind gamers. If developers DO pick up game accessibility for
visually impaired gamers and incorporate it in a video game, which then in
turn is rated via current video game standards, where does it leave  "our"
standard? What is its value?

The biggest problem with the AudioGames.net website has always been
determining what games to add and which ones to leave out. We left out text
adventures but what about text adventures which use sound? And what about
The Curb Game, which is actually a blind-accessible game instead of an
'true' audio game as how I personally define it.

I personally think that sticking to an "audio game rating system" is the
easiest option, since most recent games for VI gamers have been audio games.
I personally think it also makes the rating system a whole lot more
attractive and unique. I have a problem with "accessible game rating system"
because "accessible" suggests a huge scope which it will probably not cover.
It also contradicts with audio games as such since audio games are
inaccessible for deaf gamers and deafblind gamers (there have been some
experimental games for deafblind people).

But then, of course, we would limit ourselves a lot. Not that that is a bad
thing (usually for the better), but it should be well considered.
I had a look at www.pegi.info, and found the PEGI/ISFE rating form. I've
attached it to this email.

When you look at it, such a system is very easy to use when you change
visual to auditory in the case of audio games alone. If you change it to
"auditory/textually or graphically" then it would indeed cover the scope of
"visually impaired accessible game rating" .

So then I wouldn't have a problem with "visually impaired accessible game
rating" .

Greets,

Richard


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS


>
> Richard wrote:
> > Yep. But I do want to get some fundamental issues out of the way
> > first. Is this going to be a rating for audio games, or for
> > blind-accessible games, or... ?
>
> My thought is that this system should be useable for either type, but with
an emphasis on
> audio based games.  Text games really don't need a rating system, any more
than books
> do, IMO.  There's not a whole lot of difference between playing
Interactive Fiction or
> reading JK Rowling.  If a developer chooses to rate his text games with
this systme, we
> should account for that, but the primary goal should be rating audio
games.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rating_form_english.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 88064 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.agrip.org.uk/pipermail/aagrs/attachments/20040902/7645fe12/attachment.doc>

From justind at BscGames.com  Thu Sep  2 15:29:01 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:29:01 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
References: <413694F0.24992.F74E47A@localhost>
Message-ID: <014d01c490f9$315866b0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Thanks Josh for doing this. Overall, I like it. I do have some ideas which I'll imbed in your descriptions with * and an ending * or I will start my comment with a single *.

Early Childhood [EC]
for children under age 8

Games with this classification should be playable by people of all ages.  They are typically, though not always, targeted at
children under eight years of age and will often be educational in nature *but not always*.

* What I mean is it might be a bop it game for example.

Games rated EC may include:
Violence = None
Horror/Suspense = None
Strong Language = None
Sex = No sexual content or innuendo
Illegal Drug Use = None
Delinquency = No glorification of realistic delinquent, anti-social, dangerous, or illegal activity

* I still think Delinquency  is not fully expressing the thought here, yes getting closer, but not fully expressing the thought behind this point that Matthew wants to portray. 

Universal [U]
for ages 8 and above

* bare in mind troopanum will fall into this category from what I gather.

Games with this classification should be suitable for ages eight and above.  Parents are encouraged to take an active role in
determining whether games with this rating are appropriate for their individual children.

Games rated U may include:
Violence = Ocasional, *witty*/ non-realistic
Horror/Suspense = occasional, *very* mild threat/menace
Strong Language = *rarely*, very mild *or witty natured*
Sex = *none*
Illegal Drug Use = None
Delinquency = No glorification of realistic delinquent, anti-social, dangerous, or illegal activity

Young Teens [YT]
for ages 12 and above

Games with this classification may incorporate some *semi-mature* themes, presented suitably for young teenagers.  They should be
appropriate for people aged twelve and above.

Games rated YT may include:
Violence = Yes. No explicit emphasis on pain/injury
Horror/Suspense = Sustained threat/menace, occasional mild gore
Strong Language = Occasional, moderate
Sex = No explicit sexual content, references to sexual activity or innuendo suitable for young teenagers only
Illegal Drug Use = Occasional references justified by context.  The dangers of use should be noted within the game.
Delinquency = No glorification/glamorisation of contemporary weapons.  Moderate presentation of dangerous stunts or combat
techniques is permitted if presented without explicit description.

Mature Teens [MT]
for ages 15 and above

Games with this classification may include any theme presented appropriately for teenagers fifteen years of age and above.

Games rated MT may include:
Violence = Strong violence. No detailed presentation of the infliction of pain and/or injuries. Sexual violence, if
presented, must be brief, justified by context, and without explicit description
Horror/Suspense = Sustained threat/menace.  *moderate* gore.
Strong Language = Frequent.  No prolonged or excessively aggressive use is permitted.
Sex = Sexual activity may be presented without the use of explicit description or pornographic material.
Illegal Drug Use = May be presented without explicit description or promotion.
Delinquency = If used, emphasis should not be placed on delinquent, anti-social, dangerous, or illegal activities nor on the
use of contemporary weapons.

* huh? why not? shooting someone is an illegal behavior, robbing someone is an illegal behavior and there is to be no illegal behavior illistrated in this category? No use of modern weapons like a knife or chainsaw? I am not keen to this point at all I say 100% remove it. So far, we haven't come close IMO to even nailing down what we are trying to say and besides, IMO, the other points cover it clearly so why do we need it? Further more, it further complicates to a developer how to classify his game. It is just overall muddy to me and I don't think it should be included in the ratings system. I say remove it. Thoughts everyone?

Adult [A]
for ages 18 and above

Adult looks good. I do think we should flush out the points in the adult category though just for completions sake. For example:

Games rated A may include:
Violence = Strong violence. may include full detailed presentation of the infliction of pain and/or injuries. Sexual violence, if
presented, may be detailed and may include explicit description
Horror/Suspense = Sustained threat/menace.  may include strong gore.
Strong Language = Frequent.  may include prolonged or excessive aggressive use .
Sex = Sexual activity may be presented with the use of explicit description 
Illegal Drug Use = May be presented with explicit description or promotion.



Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.agrip.org.uk/pipermail/aagrs/attachments/20040902/fca4b363/attachment.htm>

From justind at BscGames.com  Thu Sep  2 15:35:11 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:35:11 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
References: <41369CEB.31097.F94118E@localhost>
	<002001c490eb$251209f0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
Message-ID: <016901c490fa$0dfa0790$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Hi Richard.

no no, I don't think anyone, or if I did I am sorry, suggested "accessible
game rating system". That is to open ended as we discussed. I say use
"Accessible Computer Games Rating System". The word computer defines exactly
what type of game we are rating here. The term accessible explains it is for
those with a disability. Heck if we use accessible computer games rating
system, we could, in theory, rate a game designed for the def, blind,
developly disabled, and so on. So, if you have accessible computer game in
the title, it lets us developers rate any accessible computer game
regardless of the style, and leaves that aspect open ended for all of us.
I.E text adventures, muds, audo games, and so on fall under the category of
"accessible computer games".

I say we term the ratings system ACGRS.

Others?

Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS


> Hi,
>
> "Blind-accessible games" (or "visually impaired accessible games") would
> include more games than just audio games or text-based games, for instance
> games WITH a graphical interface like Terraformers, The Curb Game, Quake
> with AGRIP, etc.
>
> I don't want to make things complicated, but I think a lot of the
discussion
> depends on what we're rating. The problem with a "visually impaired
> accessible games rating" is that some video games (especially future
games)
> might also be accessible for visually impaired gamers.For instance, Space
> Station Number 5 Part 2, a playstation Bop-It type game is about 95%
> accessible for blind gamers. If developers DO pick up game accessibility
for
> visually impaired gamers and incorporate it in a video game, which then in
> turn is rated via current video game standards, where does it leave  "our"
> standard? What is its value?
>
> The biggest problem with the AudioGames.net website has always been
> determining what games to add and which ones to leave out. We left out
text
> adventures but what about text adventures which use sound? And what about
> The Curb Game, which is actually a blind-accessible game instead of an
> 'true' audio game as how I personally define it.
>
> I personally think that sticking to an "audio game rating system" is the
> easiest option, since most recent games for VI gamers have been audio
games.
> I personally think it also makes the rating system a whole lot more
> attractive and unique. I have a problem with "accessible game rating
system"
> because "accessible" suggests a huge scope which it will probably not
cover.
> It also contradicts with audio games as such since audio games are
> inaccessible for deaf gamers and deafblind gamers (there have been some
> experimental games for deafblind people).
>
> But then, of course, we would limit ourselves a lot. Not that that is a
bad
> thing (usually for the better), but it should be well considered.
> I had a look at www.pegi.info, and found the PEGI/ISFE rating form. I've
> attached it to this email.
>
> When you look at it, such a system is very easy to use when you change
> visual to auditory in the case of audio games alone. If you change it to
> "auditory/textually or graphically" then it would indeed cover the scope
of
> "visually impaired accessible game rating" .
>
> So then I wouldn't have a problem with "visually impaired accessible game
> rating" .
>
> Greets,
>
> Richard
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
> To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 1:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
>
>
> >
> > Richard wrote:
> > > Yep. But I do want to get some fundamental issues out of the way
> > > first. Is this going to be a rating for audio games, or for
> > > blind-accessible games, or... ?
> >
> > My thought is that this system should be useable for either type, but
with
> an emphasis on
> > audio based games.  Text games really don't need a rating system, any
more
> than books
> > do, IMO.  There's not a whole lot of difference between playing
> Interactive Fiction or
> > reading JK Rowling.  If a developer chooses to rate his text games with
> this systme, we
> > should account for that, but the primary goal should be rating audio
> games.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AAGRS mailing list
> > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
>



From justind at BscGames.com  Thu Sep  2 15:40:55 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:40:55 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
References: <41369CEB.31097.F94118E@localhost>
	<002001c490eb$251209f0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
Message-ID: <019101c490fa$dac23180$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Greets Richard.

I understand your question about sony and accessibility and ratings. Here is
my thoughts on that query.

I don't think sony entertainment nor microsoft, who already is huge on
accessibility, will any time soon be adopting *large scaled* accessibility
into their games. However, lets just say they did down the road. Well, if
microsoft created the game, or sony entertainment, then they have to use the
ESRB since that is what they currently use. However, if a strict accessible
game developer/company wants to rate their games, it will be strongly
encouraged by established accessible game developers/companies, who are
already using our ratings system,  to use our ratings system.

In other words, fine, use the ESRB if you are sony or microsoft, but if you
are like us blindies, we encourage you to use our ratings system or we'll
poke your eyes out *laugh*.


Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS


> Hi,
>
> "Blind-accessible games" (or "visually impaired accessible games") would
> include more games than just audio games or text-based games, for instance
> games WITH a graphical interface like Terraformers, The Curb Game, Quake
> with AGRIP, etc.
>
> I don't want to make things complicated, but I think a lot of the
discussion
> depends on what we're rating. The problem with a "visually impaired
> accessible games rating" is that some video games (especially future
games)
> might also be accessible for visually impaired gamers.For instance, Space
> Station Number 5 Part 2, a playstation Bop-It type game is about 95%
> accessible for blind gamers. If developers DO pick up game accessibility
for
> visually impaired gamers and incorporate it in a video game, which then in
> turn is rated via current video game standards, where does it leave  "our"
> standard? What is its value?
>
> The biggest problem with the AudioGames.net website has always been
> determining what games to add and which ones to leave out. We left out
text
> adventures but what about text adventures which use sound? And what about
> The Curb Game, which is actually a blind-accessible game instead of an
> 'true' audio game as how I personally define it.
>
> I personally think that sticking to an "audio game rating system" is the
> easiest option, since most recent games for VI gamers have been audio
games.
> I personally think it also makes the rating system a whole lot more
> attractive and unique. I have a problem with "accessible game rating
system"
> because "accessible" suggests a huge scope which it will probably not
cover.
> It also contradicts with audio games as such since audio games are
> inaccessible for deaf gamers and deafblind gamers (there have been some
> experimental games for deafblind people).
>
> But then, of course, we would limit ourselves a lot. Not that that is a
bad
> thing (usually for the better), but it should be well considered.
> I had a look at www.pegi.info, and found the PEGI/ISFE rating form. I've
> attached it to this email.
>
> When you look at it, such a system is very easy to use when you change
> visual to auditory in the case of audio games alone. If you change it to
> "auditory/textually or graphically" then it would indeed cover the scope
of
> "visually impaired accessible game rating" .
>
> So then I wouldn't have a problem with "visually impaired accessible game
> rating" .
>
> Greets,
>
> Richard
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
> To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 1:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
>
>
> >
> > Richard wrote:
> > > Yep. But I do want to get some fundamental issues out of the way
> > > first. Is this going to be a rating for audio games, or for
> > > blind-accessible games, or... ?
> >
> > My thought is that this system should be useable for either type, but
with
> an emphasis on
> > audio based games.  Text games really don't need a rating system, any
more
> than books
> > do, IMO.  There's not a whole lot of difference between playing
> Interactive Fiction or
> > reading JK Rowling.  If a developer chooses to rate his text games with
> this systme, we
> > should account for that, but the primary goal should be rating audio
> games.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AAGRS mailing list
> > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> _______________________________________________
> 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  Thu Sep  2 15:49:47 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:49:47 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
In-Reply-To: <016901c490fa$0dfa0790$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <41369CEB.31097.F94118E@localhost>
	<002001c490eb$251209f0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
	<016901c490fa$0dfa0790$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1094136587.16462.95.camel@localhost>

'ello,

On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 15:35, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> I say we term the ratings system ACGRS.
> 
> Others?

I think that it is a good idea to say accessible because we can then
rate IF, MUDs, deaf games, etc.

But to me the audio is important because audio games are only partly
related to accessible games.  Some audio games may not be accessible
(due to menu UI or something like that).  Even so, they're designed with
a completely different intention.  They may provide /implicit/
accessibility through the use of cool audio techniques (e.g. Teraformers
or what I want to do with AudioQuake), but they're not for the
blind/deaf alone.

That's my tuppance, anyway.  As I said, I will go along with what most
people vote on.  If enough people can't agree on the same thing I vote
that we leave it alone for a few weeks and move on.

I think we're doing well here and even though we don't always agree with
each other I think that we've managed to come up with a number of good
improvements.  If we do encounter something we can't agree on I vote we
ignore it for a while, concentrate on the stuff we can agree on and
we'll probably find that later on we do agree on the stuff we left
behind.

bye just now,


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



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Thu Sep  2 15:50:23 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:50:23 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
In-Reply-To: <006e01c490d1$4c4659a0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
References: <413537EF.6143.A219B03@localhost>
	<012401c49022$d234f3f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<006e01c490d1$4c4659a0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
Message-ID: <1094136623.16520.99.camel@localhost>

'ello,

On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 10:43, AudioGames.net wrote:
> Hi!
<snip>

Thanks for the very detailed and informative post.  I agree that because
there is no visual part of our medium that ratings would probably be
lower (I'd say that Shades of Doom would be a MT, however, due to the
strong, sustained and gory (the sounds are sick! :-)) violence).

I would say, though, that a game like the Lurking Horror, is extremely
explicit and gory (with both text and audio) and contains continued
suspense.  I would go as far as to say that could even be an adult game,
as it really does go into the details of injury and pain inflicted by
and on the player.

IMHO the content types (fear, violence, discrimination, drugs, strong
language, sex) should not be tied in any way to an age rating -- they
should just be a way of describing would /could/ be present in games
classified under a certain age rating.  I think that, as you pointed
out, the idea of fear turning to violence when a game goes from 15+ to
18+ is confusing and unnecessary.

bye just now,


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



From justind at BscGames.com  Thu Sep  2 15:47:28 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:47:28 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
References: <41369CEB.31097.F94118E@localhost>
	<002001c490eb$251209f0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
Message-ID: <01bd01c490fb$c527d6d0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Hi Richard and all.

Thanks for sending along this document. I have looked over it and it looks
interesting. I can see some things that might work in our system. Josh,
after you take a look at it, or anyone else on the list, let us know if you
think any of the terms, explanations, etc. should be integrated into our
ratings system we are all working on.


Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS


> Hi,
>
> "Blind-accessible games" (or "visually impaired accessible games") would
> include more games than just audio games or text-based games, for instance
> games WITH a graphical interface like Terraformers, The Curb Game, Quake
> with AGRIP, etc.
>
> I don't want to make things complicated, but I think a lot of the
discussion
> depends on what we're rating. The problem with a "visually impaired
> accessible games rating" is that some video games (especially future
games)
> might also be accessible for visually impaired gamers.For instance, Space
> Station Number 5 Part 2, a playstation Bop-It type game is about 95%
> accessible for blind gamers. If developers DO pick up game accessibility
for
> visually impaired gamers and incorporate it in a video game, which then in
> turn is rated via current video game standards, where does it leave  "our"
> standard? What is its value?
>
> The biggest problem with the AudioGames.net website has always been
> determining what games to add and which ones to leave out. We left out
text
> adventures but what about text adventures which use sound? And what about
> The Curb Game, which is actually a blind-accessible game instead of an
> 'true' audio game as how I personally define it.
>
> I personally think that sticking to an "audio game rating system" is the
> easiest option, since most recent games for VI gamers have been audio
games.
> I personally think it also makes the rating system a whole lot more
> attractive and unique. I have a problem with "accessible game rating
system"
> because "accessible" suggests a huge scope which it will probably not
cover.
> It also contradicts with audio games as such since audio games are
> inaccessible for deaf gamers and deafblind gamers (there have been some
> experimental games for deafblind people).
>
> But then, of course, we would limit ourselves a lot. Not that that is a
bad
> thing (usually for the better), but it should be well considered.
> I had a look at www.pegi.info, and found the PEGI/ISFE rating form. I've
> attached it to this email.
>
> When you look at it, such a system is very easy to use when you change
> visual to auditory in the case of audio games alone. If you change it to
> "auditory/textually or graphically" then it would indeed cover the scope
of
> "visually impaired accessible game rating" .
>
> So then I wouldn't have a problem with "visually impaired accessible game
> rating" .
>
> Greets,
>
> Richard
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
> To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 1:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
>
>
> >
> > Richard wrote:
> > > Yep. But I do want to get some fundamental issues out of the way
> > > first. Is this going to be a rating for audio games, or for
> > > blind-accessible games, or... ?
> >
> > My thought is that this system should be useable for either type, but
with
> an emphasis on
> > audio based games.  Text games really don't need a rating system, any
more
> than books
> > do, IMO.  There's not a whole lot of difference between playing
> Interactive Fiction or
> > reading JK Rowling.  If a developer chooses to rate his text games with
> this systme, we
> > should account for that, but the primary goal should be rating audio
> games.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AAGRS mailing list
> > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
>



From justind at BscGames.com  Thu Sep  2 15:50:39 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:50:39 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
References: <1094114223.8212.9.camel@localhost><008501c490ed$6f206760$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1094134940.16462.44.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <01dd01c490fc$367e6d30$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

ok, thank you. I appreciate that. Keep us updated on this one...


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: Thursday, September 02, 2004 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS


> 'ello,
>
> On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 14:04, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> > I am not liking that you will not have steady internet access until
October.
> > Can you get some sort of dialup access and a laptop to stay in
> > daily/constant tune  with the list? I feel that you are leading this
project
> > up and need to be in tight constant interaction with the progression of
this
> > project. If you cannot get steady internet until October, I say we
postpoan
> > the development of this system until October when you can get steady
> > internet access. Again, you are leading this project and I don't see it
as a
> > logical option to have the leader of a project be absent, or at best,
> > hit/miss for an entire month.
>
> I am hoping to be able to plug my laptop into the Uni network when I am
> there working on my project, which would be almost every day.
>
> I ought to point out that for the first week (i.e. until the 12th) I'll
> be ``on holiday'' (a friend is coming to visit me down there so I won't
> have easy access to my department to connect up).
>
> Sorry for not really thinking this one through; it was more than a
> little irresponsible.  I will contact my friend who is organising the
> 'net access to see how far he's got.  I will reply here with the result
> (i.e. that we'll have to pause for a while or that we can go ahead) when
> I know.
>
> Unfortunately I can't get dial-up because we don't/won't have a phone
> line in our house.  As much as I detest mobiles, it works out cheaper
> for us to just get cable 'net access and forget a land-line phone.
>
> Sorry again for the confusion; I'll give you an answer as soon as I can.
>
> 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 justind at BscGames.com  Thu Sep  2 15:56:11 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:56:11 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
References: <413537EF.6143.A219B03@localhost><012401c49022$d234f3f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com><006e01c490d1$4c4659a0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
	<1094136623.16520.99.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <020501c490fc$fcf88400$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

BTW Matthew below I have no clue who you were replying to (I think Josh) but
can you leave a little more in the post from the original poster so I can
figure it out *chuckle*.

Matthew, you stated...

IMHO the content types (fear, violence, discrimination, drugs, strong
language, sex) should not be tied in any way to an age rating -- they
should just be a way of describing would /could/ be present in games

I don't see it that way. I see the content types helping to define the
summary Josh typed out. I think it is key though, to use "may include"
since, for example, strong language may not be in the game where as moderate
violence may be  etc. So, may include strong language or could include
moderate violence. I.E using may, could, might, etc. in the content types.
Others?

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: Thursday, September 02, 2004 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?


> 'ello,
>
> On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 10:43, AudioGames.net wrote:
> > Hi!
> <snip>
>
> Thanks for the very detailed and informative post.  I agree that because
> there is no visual part of our medium that ratings would probably be
> lower (I'd say that Shades of Doom would be a MT, however, due to the
> strong, sustained and gory (the sounds are sick! :-)) violence).
>
> I would say, though, that a game like the Lurking Horror, is extremely
> explicit and gory (with both text and audio) and contains continued
> suspense.  I would go as far as to say that could even be an adult game,
> as it really does go into the details of injury and pain inflicted by
> and on the player.
>
> IMHO the content types (fear, violence, discrimination, drugs, strong
> language, sex) should not be tied in any way to an age rating -- they
> should just be a way of describing would /could/ be present in games
> classified under a certain age rating.  I think that, as you pointed
> out, the idea of fear turning to violence when a game goes from 15+ to
> 18+ is confusing and unnecessary.
>
> 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  Thu Sep  2 16:08:27 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:08:27 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
In-Reply-To: <020501c490fc$fcf88400$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <413537EF.6143.A219B03@localhost>
	<012401c49022$d234f3f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<006e01c490d1$4c4659a0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
	<1094136623.16520.99.camel@localhost>
	<020501c490fc$fcf88400$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1094137707.16520.120.camel@localhost>

'ello,

On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 15:56, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> BTW Matthew below I have no clue who you were replying to (I think Josh) but
> can you leave a little more in the post from the original poster so I can
> figure it out *chuckle*.

It was a reply to Richard's post relating to what medium a game is (in
which he mentioned the DooM3 board game).

BTW I am quite, quite jealous of you lot if you have rigs that can
support DooM3! :-)

> I don't see it that way. I see the content types helping to define the
> summary Josh typed out. I think it is key though, to use "may include"
> since, for example, strong language may not be in the game where as moderate
> violence may be  etc. So, may include strong language or could include
> moderate violence. I.E using may, could, might, etc. in the content types.
> Others?

Sorry, I meant that I don't think there should be any rules saying
things like ``In a 15 game suspense comes under the fear category and in
an 18 it comes under the violence category''.  That's what Richard said
the situation seemed to be with Doom3's rating and to me it just
complicates things.

I agree with saying how /much/ of a certain category (fear, violence,
language) is in a certain rating (e.g. U, YT, MT) -- that's how AAGRS is
at the moment and also applies to Josh's improvements.

Like I said before, it's Thursday.  That's my excuse for making no sense
and I'm sticking to it :-).  (I hope this has cleared up what I meant to
say.)

bye just now,


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



From richard at audiogames.net  Fri Sep  3 00:08:32 2004
From: richard at audiogames.net (AudioGames.net)
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 01:08:32 +0200
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
References: <41369CEB.31097.F94118E@localhost><002001c490eb$251209f0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
	<016901c490fa$0dfa0790$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <006201c49141$c53875d0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>

Hi Justin and everyone,

Sorry for not adding "computer" in my description. I was at no time
referring to a non-computer game, I didn't add it as I assumed we were only
talking about computer entertainment. What I meant:

I work for the Dutch Accessibility foundation (http://www.accessibility.nl).
It is my job to know a lot about accessibility (my work focuses mainly on
digital accessibility). And in my line of work it is EXTREMELY important to
explain the type of accessibilty you are talking about to be taken serious
by the public.

If you just say "accessibility" people assume you mean accessible for people
with ALL handicaps: hearing impairments, visual impairments, seniors (yes,
old people!), mental impairments (not only Down syndrom as most people think
but also dyslexic, dyspraxic, temporary memory loss, etc.) and physical
impairments.

So if you are only going to use the word "accessible" while only trying to
refer to people with a visual impairment then you're wrong.
Then you have to add something like "blind accessible" or something similar.

That's what I mean.

So if we have a rating system which is called the "Accessible Computer Games
Rating System" then parents with a dyslexic 10 year old child could assume
the rating system also is appropiate for their child. This totally
contradicts with (to use Justins words):

"My thoughts on one of your queries... if you had to  describe why we want
our own ratings system to educators it is IMO because we rate our games from
a blindness perspective, not a sighted perspective. We focus on audio and
text content and not graphical content thus feel the need to have our own
ratings system taylored to our customers/market."

So if this is going to be a rating system from a blindness perspective, then
it should include the word "blind" somewhere in the title, like the " Blind
Accessible Computer Games Rating System".

*QUOTE*
Heck if we use accessible computer games rating system, we could, in theory,
rate a game designed for the def, blind, developly disabled, and so on. So,
if you have accessible computer game in the title, it lets us developers
rate any accessible computer game regardless of the style, and leaves that
aspect open ended for all of us. I.E text adventures, muds, audo games, and
so on fall under the category of "accessible computer games".
*QUOTE END*

Of course, we could design a rating system for every game out there. But
since there are already 3 or more international standards for game rating
out there, why should we make our own? What is so unique about our rating? I
believe that (like Justin said) that "games are rated from a blindness
perspective, not a sighted perspective" is what makes it valuable. But then
we should not focus on every type of accessible game out there.

What are your thoughts about this?

Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS


> Hi Richard.
>
> no no, I don't think anyone, or if I did I am sorry, suggested "accessible
> game rating system". That is to open ended as we discussed. I say use
> "Accessible Computer Games Rating System". The word computer defines
exactly
> what type of game we are rating here. The term accessible explains it is
for
> those with a disability. Heck if we use accessible computer games rating
> system, we could, in theory, rate a game designed for the def, blind,
> developly disabled, and so on. So, if you have accessible computer game in
> the title, it lets us developers rate any accessible computer game
> regardless of the style, and leaves that aspect open ended for all of us.
> I.E text adventures, muds, audo games, and so on fall under the category
of
> "accessible computer games".
>
> I say we term the ratings system ACGRS.
>
> Others?
>
> Regards,
> Justin - BSC Games
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
> To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > "Blind-accessible games" (or "visually impaired accessible games") would
> > include more games than just audio games or text-based games, for
instance
> > games WITH a graphical interface like Terraformers, The Curb Game, Quake
> > with AGRIP, etc.
> >
> > I don't want to make things complicated, but I think a lot of the
> discussion
> > depends on what we're rating. The problem with a "visually impaired
> > accessible games rating" is that some video games (especially future
> games)
> > might also be accessible for visually impaired gamers.For instance,
Space
> > Station Number 5 Part 2, a playstation Bop-It type game is about 95%
> > accessible for blind gamers. If developers DO pick up game accessibility
> for
> > visually impaired gamers and incorporate it in a video game, which then
in
> > turn is rated via current video game standards, where does it leave
"our"
> > standard? What is its value?
> >
> > The biggest problem with the AudioGames.net website has always been
> > determining what games to add and which ones to leave out. We left out
> text
> > adventures but what about text adventures which use sound? And what
about
> > The Curb Game, which is actually a blind-accessible game instead of an
> > 'true' audio game as how I personally define it.
> >
> > I personally think that sticking to an "audio game rating system" is the
> > easiest option, since most recent games for VI gamers have been audio
> games.
> > I personally think it also makes the rating system a whole lot more
> > attractive and unique. I have a problem with "accessible game rating
> system"
> > because "accessible" suggests a huge scope which it will probably not
> cover.
> > It also contradicts with audio games as such since audio games are
> > inaccessible for deaf gamers and deafblind gamers (there have been some
> > experimental games for deafblind people).
> >
> > But then, of course, we would limit ourselves a lot. Not that that is a
> bad
> > thing (usually for the better), but it should be well considered.
> > I had a look at www.pegi.info, and found the PEGI/ISFE rating form. I've
> > attached it to this email.
> >
> > When you look at it, such a system is very easy to use when you change
> > visual to auditory in the case of audio games alone. If you change it to
> > "auditory/textually or graphically" then it would indeed cover the scope
> of
> > "visually impaired accessible game rating" .
> >
> > So then I wouldn't have a problem with "visually impaired accessible
game
> > rating" .
> >
> > Greets,
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
> > To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 1:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Richard wrote:
> > > > Yep. But I do want to get some fundamental issues out of the way
> > > > first. Is this going to be a rating for audio games, or for
> > > > blind-accessible games, or... ?
> > >
> > > My thought is that this system should be useable for either type, but
> with
> > an emphasis on
> > > audio based games.  Text games really don't need a rating system, any
> more
> > than books
> > > do, IMO.  There's not a whole lot of difference between playing
> > Interactive Fiction or
> > > reading JK Rowling.  If a developer chooses to rate his text games
with
> > this systme, we
> > > should account for that, but the primary goal should be rating audio
> > games.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > AAGRS mailing list
> > > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > AAGRS mailing list
> > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs



From richard at audiogames.net  Fri Sep  3 00:09:05 2004
From: richard at audiogames.net (AudioGames.net)
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 01:09:05 +0200
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
References: <41369CEB.31097.F94118E@localhost><002001c490eb$251209f0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
	<019101c490fa$dac23180$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <007801c49141$d89c7310$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>

Hi,

Just thought I'd mention that currently both Microsoft and EAGames are
involved in a Europian research project concerning accessible gaming with
MediaLT (http://www.medialt.no/). About 30 games of Microsoft and EAGames
are being tested on accessibility and after the test period of one the games
(either a Microsoft game or an EA game) will be made accessible. Or so is
the project description.

Richard



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS


> Greets Richard.
>
> I understand your question about sony and accessibility and ratings. Here
is
> my thoughts on that query.
>
> I don't think sony entertainment nor microsoft, who already is huge on
> accessibility, will any time soon be adopting *large scaled* accessibility
> into their games. However, lets just say they did down the road. Well, if
> microsoft created the game, or sony entertainment, then they have to use
the
> ESRB since that is what they currently use. However, if a strict
accessible
> game developer/company wants to rate their games, it will be strongly
> encouraged by established accessible game developers/companies, who are
> already using our ratings system,  to use our ratings system.
>
> In other words, fine, use the ESRB if you are sony or microsoft, but if
you
> are like us blindies, we encourage you to use our ratings system or we'll
> poke your eyes out *laugh*.
>
>
> Regards,
> Justin - BSC Games
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
> To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > "Blind-accessible games" (or "visually impaired accessible games") would
> > include more games than just audio games or text-based games, for
instance
> > games WITH a graphical interface like Terraformers, The Curb Game, Quake
> > with AGRIP, etc.
> >
> > I don't want to make things complicated, but I think a lot of the
> discussion
> > depends on what we're rating. The problem with a "visually impaired
> > accessible games rating" is that some video games (especially future
> games)
> > might also be accessible for visually impaired gamers.For instance,
Space
> > Station Number 5 Part 2, a playstation Bop-It type game is about 95%
> > accessible for blind gamers. If developers DO pick up game accessibility
> for
> > visually impaired gamers and incorporate it in a video game, which then
in
> > turn is rated via current video game standards, where does it leave
"our"
> > standard? What is its value?
> >
> > The biggest problem with the AudioGames.net website has always been
> > determining what games to add and which ones to leave out. We left out
> text
> > adventures but what about text adventures which use sound? And what
about
> > The Curb Game, which is actually a blind-accessible game instead of an
> > 'true' audio game as how I personally define it.
> >
> > I personally think that sticking to an "audio game rating system" is the
> > easiest option, since most recent games for VI gamers have been audio
> games.
> > I personally think it also makes the rating system a whole lot more
> > attractive and unique. I have a problem with "accessible game rating
> system"
> > because "accessible" suggests a huge scope which it will probably not
> cover.
> > It also contradicts with audio games as such since audio games are
> > inaccessible for deaf gamers and deafblind gamers (there have been some
> > experimental games for deafblind people).
> >
> > But then, of course, we would limit ourselves a lot. Not that that is a
> bad
> > thing (usually for the better), but it should be well considered.
> > I had a look at www.pegi.info, and found the PEGI/ISFE rating form. I've
> > attached it to this email.
> >
> > When you look at it, such a system is very easy to use when you change
> > visual to auditory in the case of audio games alone. If you change it to
> > "auditory/textually or graphically" then it would indeed cover the scope
> of
> > "visually impaired accessible game rating" .
> >
> > So then I wouldn't have a problem with "visually impaired accessible
game
> > rating" .
> >
> > Greets,
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
> > To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 1:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Richard wrote:
> > > > Yep. But I do want to get some fundamental issues out of the way
> > > > first. Is this going to be a rating for audio games, or for
> > > > blind-accessible games, or... ?
> > >
> > > My thought is that this system should be useable for either type, but
> with
> > an emphasis on
> > > audio based games.  Text games really don't need a rating system, any
> more
> > than books
> > > do, IMO.  There's not a whole lot of difference between playing
> > Interactive Fiction or
> > > reading JK Rowling.  If a developer chooses to rate his text games
with
> > this systme, we
> > > should account for that, but the primary goal should be rating audio
> > games.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > AAGRS mailing list
> > > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > AAGRS mailing list
> > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAGRS mailing list
> AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs



From richard at audiogames.net  Fri Sep  3 00:15:41 2004
From: richard at audiogames.net (AudioGames.net)
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 01:15:41 +0200
Subject: [AAGRS] name for rating system AAGRS?
References: <413537EF.6143.A219B03@localhost><012401c49022$d234f3f0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com><006e01c490d1$4c4659a0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport><1094136623.16520.99.camel@localhost><020501c490fc$fcf88400$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1094137707.16520.120.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <009001c49142$c4889150$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>

Hi,


> BTW I am quite, quite jealous of you lot if you have rigs that can
> support DooM3! :-)

I can just play it with anti-aliasing on 2x and a resolution of 640x480...
but it is a great game from the sound perspective. I like it very much
because the light keeps getting turned of due to power failures and you can
only see a little bit of your surroundings. A great auditory exercise!

> Sorry, I meant that I don't think there should be any rules saying
> things like ``In a 15 game suspense comes under the fear category and in
> an 18 it comes under the violence category''.  That's what Richard said
> the situation seemed to be with Doom3's rating and to me it just
> complicates things.

No that was not what I said. Suspense or Fear is rated 16+. Extreme violence
is rated 18+. If a game contains both than only the top-rating is mentioned.
There's no point is saying Doom3 is rated 16+ for fear and 18+ for violence.
It's just rated 18+ and violence. And since fear is already for over 16+, it
is not worth mentioning to 18 year olds (or parents of 12 year olds).
moment and also applies to Josh's improvements.


> Like I said before, it's Thursday.  That's my excuse for making no sense
> and I'm sticking to it :-).  (I hope this has cleared up what I meant to
> say.)

hihihi!

Greets,

Richard



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Fri Sep  3 00:38:11 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 00:38:11 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
In-Reply-To: <014d01c490f9$315866b0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <413694F0.24992.F74E47A@localhost>
	<014d01c490f9$315866b0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1094168291.8232.41.camel@localhost>

'ello,

This is about the ratings descriptions that Josh wrote, and Justin's
comments on them.

I've now read all the material on this thread more thoroughly and am
still really happy with it.  Here are my extra thoughts...

On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 15:29, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> Early Childhood [EC]
<snip>
>  nature *but not always*.

I don't see any harm in putting that ``but not always'' clause.

> * I still think Delinquency  is not fully expressing the thought here,
> yes getting closer, but not fully expressing the thought behind this
> point that Matthew wants to portray. 

Yep, it's a lot closer.  We can certainly work on this and scrap my
equivalent stuff.

> * bare in mind troopanum will fall into this category from what I
> gather.

I must look up that game; I have not yet come across it (forgive my
relative ignorance; I usually have to ask people who've played it as I
don't have access to a Windows box).

> Mature Teens [MT]
> for ages 15 and above
<snip>
> Delinquency = If used, emphasis should not be placed on delinquent,
> anti-social, dangerous, or illegal activities nor on the
> use of contemporary weapons.
>  
> * huh? why not? shooting someone is an illegal behavior, robbing
> someone is an illegal behavior and there is to be no illegal behavior
> illistrated in this category? No use of modern weapons like a knife or
> chainsaw? I am not keen to this point at all I say 100% remove it. So
> far, we haven't come close IMO to even nailing down what we are trying
> to say and besides, IMO, the other points cover it clearly so why do
> we need it? Further more, it further complicates to a developer how to
> classify his game. It is just overall muddy to me and I don't think it
> should be included in the ratings system. I say remove it. Thoughts
> everyone?

Would this be better if ``emphasis'' was changed ``glamorisation''? 
Basically we'd be allowing that stuff in there (as the ESRB/BBFC etc do)
but we'd not be saying ``look how cool this is''.  Also, no details of
infliction of pain or injury are allowed in MT (as with the ESRB/BBFC),
so glamorisation would not be too hard to avoid.  Given all that, would
this change tone it down enough?

I'll update the site as soon as we've agreed on these points.  When this
is done, we'll have a really solid base for the ratings (if other people
are happy with Josh's suggestions).  We'll only need to sort out the
name, then :-).

bye just now,


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



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Fri Sep  3 00:38:29 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 00:38:29 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
In-Reply-To: <006201c49141$c53875d0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
References: <41369CEB.31097.F94118E@localhost>
	<002001c490eb$251209f0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
	<016901c490fa$0dfa0790$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<006201c49141$c53875d0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
Message-ID: <1094168309.8229.43.camel@localhost>

'ello,

On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 00:08, AudioGames.net wrote:
> Of course, we could design a rating system for every game out there. But
> since there are already 3 or more international standards for game rating
> out there, why should we make our own? What is so unique about our rating? I
> believe that (like Justin said) that "games are rated from a blindness
> perspective, not a sighted perspective" is what makes it valuable. But then
> we should not focus on every type of accessible game out there.
> 
> What are your thoughts about this?

That's a good point -- we've been saying all along that we can justify
not using the ESRB system as it is less appropriate to our market.  If
we have such a definite angle on this, we can't really say ``oh it's
bound to be appropriate for the deaf, too''.  It would be a little
presumptuous, perhaps.

Maybe we should just call it the ``Audio Computer Game Rating System'',
as that encompasses most accessible (VI/blind) games and Audio games,
which are also used by the VI/blind.

If we still wish to include other games that the blind play, e.g. IF,
which I think we probably should, perhaps we could call it something
that implies that it is for Audio and Blind/VI-Accessible games.

BTW, Richard, re DooM3; yes I've heard it's quite an audio fest due to
the moody lights.  Of course the technical reason is that when yo do
most lights in real-time, as this engine does, there is no PC available
that could cope if the game was any brighter :-).  The result, however,
is perhaps an opportunity to say how great Audio games are...

And finally... it's no longer Thursday, but I'm tried so will not push
my luck by posting any more just now :-).

bye just now,


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



From justind at BscGames.com  Fri Sep  3 01:49:17 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:49:17 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
References: <41369CEB.31097.F94118E@localhost><002001c490eb$251209f0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
	<019101c490fa$dac23180$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<003b01c4913e$fe127980$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
Message-ID: <007001c4914f$d8aae9a0$aa6fca42@COMSTER>

yes, I am aware of them investigating it some but I still do not think this
will sky rocket in the near future. If anything, they might make a few games
accessible, view some sales,and then quickly determine it wasn't worth the
additional overhead tot he development cycle and resources. Yes, I know,
pessimistic *laugh*.

Regards,

Justin - BscGames.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
To: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS


> Hi,
>
> Just thought I'd mention that currently both Microsoft and EAGames are
> involved in a Europian research project concerning accessible gaming with
> MediaLT (http://www.medialt.no/). About 30 games of Microsoft and EAGames
> are being tested on accessibility and after the test period of one the
games
> (either a Microsoft game or an EA game) will be made accessible. Or so is
> the project description.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "JustinFromBSCGames" <justind at BscGames.com>
> To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
>
>
> > Greets Richard.
> >
> > I understand your question about sony and accessibility and ratings.
Here
> is
> > my thoughts on that query.
> >
> > I don't think sony entertainment nor microsoft, who already is huge on
> > accessibility, will any time soon be adopting *large scaled*
accessibility
> > into their games. However, lets just say they did down the road. Well,
if
> > microsoft created the game, or sony entertainment, then they have to use
> the
> > ESRB since that is what they currently use. However, if a strict
> accessible
> > game developer/company wants to rate their games, it will be strongly
> > encouraged by established accessible game developers/companies, who are
> > already using our ratings system,  to use our ratings system.
> >
> > In other words, fine, use the ESRB if you are sony or microsoft, but if
> you
> > are like us blindies, we encourage you to use our ratings system or
we'll
> > poke your eyes out *laugh*.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Justin - BSC Games
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "AudioGames.net" <richard at audiogames.net>
> > To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:48 AM
> > Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
> >
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > "Blind-accessible games" (or "visually impaired accessible games")
would
> > > include more games than just audio games or text-based games, for
> instance
> > > games WITH a graphical interface like Terraformers, The Curb Game,
Quake
> > > with AGRIP, etc.
> > >
> > > I don't want to make things complicated, but I think a lot of the
> > discussion
> > > depends on what we're rating. The problem with a "visually impaired
> > > accessible games rating" is that some video games (especially future
> > games)
> > > might also be accessible for visually impaired gamers.For instance,
> Space
> > > Station Number 5 Part 2, a playstation Bop-It type game is about 95%
> > > accessible for blind gamers. If developers DO pick up game
accessibility
> > for
> > > visually impaired gamers and incorporate it in a video game, which
then
> in
> > > turn is rated via current video game standards, where does it leave
> "our"
> > > standard? What is its value?
> > >
> > > The biggest problem with the AudioGames.net website has always been
> > > determining what games to add and which ones to leave out. We left out
> > text
> > > adventures but what about text adventures which use sound? And what
> about
> > > The Curb Game, which is actually a blind-accessible game instead of an
> > > 'true' audio game as how I personally define it.
> > >
> > > I personally think that sticking to an "audio game rating system" is
the
> > > easiest option, since most recent games for VI gamers have been audio
> > games.
> > > I personally think it also makes the rating system a whole lot more
> > > attractive and unique. I have a problem with "accessible game rating
> > system"
> > > because "accessible" suggests a huge scope which it will probably not
> > cover.
> > > It also contradicts with audio games as such since audio games are
> > > inaccessible for deaf gamers and deafblind gamers (there have been
some
> > > experimental games for deafblind people).
> > >
> > > But then, of course, we would limit ourselves a lot. Not that that is
a
> > bad
> > > thing (usually for the better), but it should be well considered.
> > > I had a look at www.pegi.info, and found the PEGI/ISFE rating form.
I've
> > > attached it to this email.
> > >
> > > When you look at it, such a system is very easy to use when you change
> > > visual to auditory in the case of audio games alone. If you change it
to
> > > "auditory/textually or graphically" then it would indeed cover the
scope
> > of
> > > "visually impaired accessible game rating" .
> > >
> > > So then I wouldn't have a problem with "visually impaired accessible
> game
> > > rating" .
> > >
> > > Greets,
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "Adora Entertainment" <info at adoraentertainment.com>
> > > To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 1:09 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard wrote:
> > > > > Yep. But I do want to get some fundamental issues out of the way
> > > > > first. Is this going to be a rating for audio games, or for
> > > > > blind-accessible games, or... ?
> > > >
> > > > My thought is that this system should be useable for either type,
but
> > with
> > > an emphasis on
> > > > audio based games.  Text games really don't need a rating system,
any
> > more
> > > than books
> > > > do, IMO.  There's not a whole lot of difference between playing
> > > Interactive Fiction or
> > > > reading JK Rowling.  If a developer chooses to rate his text games
> with
> > > this systme, we
> > > > should account for that, but the primary goal should be rating audio
> > > games.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > AAGRS mailing list
> > > > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > > > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----
> >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > AAGRS mailing list
> > > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AAGRS mailing list
> > AAGRS at oblique.agrip.org.uk
> > http://oblique.agrip.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aagrs
>
>



From justind at BscGames.com  Fri Sep  3 02:01:32 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:01:32 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS
References: <41369CEB.31097.F94118E@localhost><002001c490eb$251209f0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport><016901c490fa$0dfa0790$cd0ecb42@cboss.com><006201c49141$c53875d0$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
	<1094168309.8229.43.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <008501c49151$8eb7df90$aa6fca42@COMSTER>

Maybe we should just call it the ``Audio Computer Game Rating System'',
as that encompasses most accessible (VI/blind) games and Audio games,
which are also used by the VI/blind.

that works for me really. In fact, would there be any harm in someone using
the ACGRS rating system to rate muds? text games? I mean if they really
wanted to. For example, word strain volume 1, volume 2, and 15 numbers at my
site www.BscGames.com are not audio games at all, but, as Josh pointed out,
you have to use screen readers if blind to play them and screen readers is
audio. So, I say it would be ok for other style *computer* games for the
blind to use the ACGRS if they wanted to.

What do others think?

BTW yes, I see Richards point and point taken about being to open ended for
def, mentally disabled, and so on and that we should narrow in on an audio
games title.

More less I was brainstorming some ideas is all and if accessible computer
games rateing system is too open ended, I'm ok with audio computer games
rating system as long as it is ok for other style computer games for the
blind to be rated by it if desired by developers.

Others? thoughts/views?


Regards,

Justin - BscGames.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Schedule for the Improvement and Use of AAGRS


> 'ello,
>
> On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 00:08, AudioGames.net wrote:
> > Of course, we could design a rating system for every game out there. But
> > since there are already 3 or more international standards for game
rating
> > out there, why should we make our own? What is so unique about our
rating? I
> > believe that (like Justin said) that "games are rated from a blindness
> > perspective, not a sighted perspective" is what makes it valuable. But
then
> > we should not focus on every type of accessible game out there.
> >
> > What are your thoughts about this?
>
> That's a good point -- we've been saying all along that we can justify
> not using the ESRB system as it is less appropriate to our market.  If
> we have such a definite angle on this, we can't really say ``oh it's
> bound to be appropriate for the deaf, too''.  It would be a little
> presumptuous, perhaps.
>
> Maybe we should just call it the ``Audio Computer Game Rating System'',
> as that encompasses most accessible (VI/blind) games and Audio games,
> which are also used by the VI/blind.
>
> If we still wish to include other games that the blind play, e.g. IF,
> which I think we probably should, perhaps we could call it something
> that implies that it is for Audio and Blind/VI-Accessible games.
>
> BTW, Richard, re DooM3; yes I've heard it's quite an audio fest due to
> the moody lights.  Of course the technical reason is that when yo do
> most lights in real-time, as this engine does, there is no PC available
> that could cope if the game was any brighter :-).  The result, however,
> is perhaps an opportunity to say how great Audio games are...
>
> And finally... it's no longer Thursday, but I'm tried so will not push
> my luck by posting any more just now :-).
>
> 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 justind at BscGames.com  Fri Sep  3 02:10:49 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:10:49 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
References: <413694F0.24992.F74E47A@localhost><014d01c490f9$315866b0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1094168291.8232.41.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <009601c49152$da542570$aa6fca42@COMSTER>

a question on this. You stated that no details of
infliction of pain or injury are allowed in MT. So, what is detailed? How is
that defined? If I shoot someone and hear a splat, indicating guts, that is
not allowed in MT? If so, then shades of doom would have to be rated Adult
and is it really adult?

BTW I am assuming SOD has splats here and there having never really played
it but see my point. If it has no strong language, no sex, no drugs, and a
few splats from gun shots, this description states it is not permitted and
has to be put up to an adult status and adult status can pretty much be near
violent porn. I am being extreme here to prove my point. This goes back to
what Josh was saying at first... the ratings system could hurt acception of
the product, or cause some to pass on the game based on the rating, if it is
not laid out properly.

I strongly feel the detail points need further refined under each category
so we don't shoot our selves in the foot, nor other developers, based on the
points being to open ended or not descriptive enough of words. I'd like to
see the category names, summaries, and detail points we have currently
defined in a post so we all can rehash some of it. Matthew, can you please
post what you have so far in a new post so we all can see it?

thanks.
Regards,

Justin - BscGames.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions


> 'ello,
>
> This is about the ratings descriptions that Josh wrote, and Justin's
> comments on them.
>
> I've now read all the material on this thread more thoroughly and am
> still really happy with it.  Here are my extra thoughts...
>
> On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 15:29, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> > Early Childhood [EC]
> <snip>
> >  nature *but not always*.
>
> I don't see any harm in putting that ``but not always'' clause.
>
> > * I still think Delinquency  is not fully expressing the thought here,
> > yes getting closer, but not fully expressing the thought behind this
> > point that Matthew wants to portray.
>
> Yep, it's a lot closer.  We can certainly work on this and scrap my
> equivalent stuff.
>
> > * bare in mind troopanum will fall into this category from what I
> > gather.
>
> I must look up that game; I have not yet come across it (forgive my
> relative ignorance; I usually have to ask people who've played it as I
> don't have access to a Windows box).
>
> > Mature Teens [MT]
> > for ages 15 and above
> <snip>
> > Delinquency = If used, emphasis should not be placed on delinquent,
> > anti-social, dangerous, or illegal activities nor on the
> > use of contemporary weapons.
> >
> > * huh? why not? shooting someone is an illegal behavior, robbing
> > someone is an illegal behavior and there is to be no illegal behavior
> > illistrated in this category? No use of modern weapons like a knife or
> > chainsaw? I am not keen to this point at all I say 100% remove it. So
> > far, we haven't come close IMO to even nailing down what we are trying
> > to say and besides, IMO, the other points cover it clearly so why do
> > we need it? Further more, it further complicates to a developer how to
> > classify his game. It is just overall muddy to me and I don't think it
> > should be included in the ratings system. I say remove it. Thoughts
> > everyone?
>
> Would this be better if ``emphasis'' was changed ``glamorisation''?
> Basically we'd be allowing that stuff in there (as the ESRB/BBFC etc do)
> but we'd not be saying ``look how cool this is''.  Also, no details of
> infliction of pain or injury are allowed in MT (as with the ESRB/BBFC),
> so glamorisation would not be too hard to avoid.  Given all that, would
> this change tone it down enough?
>
> I'll update the site as soon as we've agreed on these points.  When this
> is done, we'll have a really solid base for the ratings (if other people
> are happy with Josh's suggestions).  We'll only need to sort out the
> name, then :-).
>
> 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  Fri Sep  3 13:07:03 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:07:03 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
In-Reply-To: <009601c49152$da542570$aa6fca42@COMSTER>
References: <413694F0.24992.F74E47A@localhost>
	<014d01c490f9$315866b0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1094168291.8232.41.camel@localhost>
	<009601c49152$da542570$aa6fca42@COMSTER>
Message-ID: <1094213223.22682.24.camel@localhost>

'ello,

On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 02:10, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> a question on this. You stated that no details of
> infliction of pain or injury are allowed in MT. So, what is detailed? How is
> that defined? If I shoot someone and hear a splat, indicating guts, that is
> not allowed in MT? If so, then shades of doom would have to be rated Adult
> and is it really adult?

The short answer to this question is that I agree with you and have
tried to put wording in the MT category to get around this issue.  I
would like to explain my reasoning, though...

I think this point goes back to the issue of medium.  The BBFC mentioned
this as the reason they rated Quake 15 as opposed to 18.  If Quake had
been a film, it would have definitely been an 18 (for the reason that it
contained sustained and detailed violence).

Of course at the time (1996) the computer game was not capable of
showing detailed violence and the fact that it was sustained was
mitigated by the fact that the setting was not realistic and the
violence could not be detailed due to technical limitations.

As far as Shades of Doom goes, I already (as an example) put it as an MT
title.  This goes along with Quake and AccessibleQuake/AudioQuake.  I
put a note in the MT rating to the effect that ``sustained violence in a
fantasy setting /is/ allowed in MT but only as long as the infliction of
pain and/or injury is not dwelt upon'' and warned that this is a
divergence from most film rating systems.  In fast-paced games like
Shades of Doom, such inflictions aren't dwelt upon.  This covers the
loophole that would otherwise mean we rated violent games too strictly.

I would say detailed does encompass splats for guts.  I think Shades of
Doom /doesn't/ have much in the way of that from what I've heard.  IMHO,
some (but not loads of) such splatting would be acceptable in MT.  My
experience of it is that the weapon sounds are the worst and when
something you shoot dies, it is quickly over and doesn't dwell on what
you've done.

A game that I would class as A is Lurking Horror by Infocom.  This is
because it is set in a contemporary location and contains a large number
of detailed textual descriptions of fatal injuries and the pain they
inflict (both on and by the player).  It also contains sounds that
describe some of these injuries.  It is also a really great game IMHO,
but is way too realistic and gratuitous for anyone under 18.

In other words, being set in a totally unrealistic environment allows
stuff in AAGRS (or ACGRS :-)) that wouldn't be allowed in films.  Partly
because games (especially audio-rendered games) are still less detailed
than films (the medium thing, as Richard pointed out yesterday).

So, in summary, agree and have already tried to take steps to prevent us
from ``shooting ourselves in the foot'' :-).  I hope this is OK with all
others.

Justin, when you asked me to post what I've got already, did you mean my
stuff or Josh's stuff?  I was going to replace a lot of what I've got
with what Josh posted yesterday, if people were happy with it.

bye just now,


P.S. ``audio-rendered'' -- wouldn't that cover Accessible (Blind/VI)
/and/ Audio games???
-- 
Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>



From justind at BscGames.com  Fri Sep  3 14:04:31 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:04:31 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
References: <413694F0.24992.F74E47A@localhost><014d01c490f9$315866b0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com><1094168291.8232.41.camel@localhost><009601c49152$da542570$aa6fca42@COMSTER>
	<1094213223.22682.24.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <007401c491b6$8db71d80$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Doom3 was rated mature by the ESRB and it has blood, detailed depictions of
death, and so on. Mature is the same as MT in our system we are working on.
If I create a game that chops off a head, you hear a splat or gurgle in a
throat, you take a chainsaw and cut off an arm and a person screams, you
blast someone's guts out and hear splat, you hear the crack of a whip and
hear a scream, this would be classified as adult under the current system we
are molding and is it really detailed gore? The ESRB would rate it mature,
not Adult.


For example, I have an arcade game called hunter. In one scene of the game,
a monster cracks a whip at the user, you hear the user scream, the monster
grabs the user, you hear bones being broken, a neck snap, and a gurgle in
the throat, and blood being sucked. This would have to be rated as adult
from the one scene in hunter and no other aspect of the game has any of this
in it. On my site, I have a disclaimer that states:

DISCLAIMER

Due to the graphic nature of some of the sounds in the Hunter game, BSC
Games recommends that this game should not be played by people under the age
of
13. Some of the sounds are graphic. Not many, but some.



I have had numerous parents email into me thanking me for the disclaimer but
actually seeing it as extreme and stating they found nothing the matter with
the content in it but appreciated the heads up and purchased the game for
their kid. I have also had young adult gamers, 18 to 25 or so, email in
saying where is the graphical content I can't hear any.

My point is this, if we make this to rigid, developers will not use it and
just stick to their own ratings on their site. For example, Dave has a
disclaimer up for SOD that a person should be 13 or older to play SOD. If he
had to rate SOD to be MT or adult, considering he currently has it at 13,
with no detail points rating violence, sex, language, and so on, would he
use the system? Would a status of MT or Adult hurt sales based on the detail
points that list what could be in the game? Probably. You see folks, people
read what they want to read just like people hear what they want to hear.
The majority are not as logical to read down the detail points and say, oh,
ok, this *might* be in the content but it isn't saying it will be no matter
how many "mays" or "mights" we put in the detail points. Nope, the average
Joe will read the detail points and say, hmmm, this looks a little strong
for me so think I'll pass.  Yes, this seems like I am not giving consumers
enough credit and to a certain degree, I am not. Why do you think the ESRB
leaves some of their ratings open ended for folks to fill insome details?
BTW I am not saying ESRB is the best by all means just pointing out how a
ratings system can really hurt sales.


This is why I was initially agreeing with Josh saying we should just use a
summary to explain what the content contains and not the detailed points. I
feel the the detail points are ok to include out of respect for those
wanting them in, but I also feel that they are dangerous. Bare in mind, the
ESRB in the states here that we are used to is a different more open ended
ratings system than that in the UK and I think we are all trying to find the
middle of the road here to suit one another. I just think we have a ways to
go with the detail points is all and am quite concerned that they will hurt
sales if I had to be frank about it.

This is why I asked you Josh to post your current revision of the
categories, summaries, and detail points for us to look over and ponder.



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: Friday, September 03, 2004 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions


> 'ello,
>
> On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 02:10, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> > a question on this. You stated that no details of
> > infliction of pain or injury are allowed in MT. So, what is detailed?
How is
> > that defined? If I shoot someone and hear a splat, indicating guts, that
is
> > not allowed in MT? If so, then shades of doom would have to be rated
Adult
> > and is it really adult?
>
> The short answer to this question is that I agree with you and have
> tried to put wording in the MT category to get around this issue.  I
> would like to explain my reasoning, though...
>
> I think this point goes back to the issue of medium.  The BBFC mentioned
> this as the reason they rated Quake 15 as opposed to 18.  If Quake had
> been a film, it would have definitely been an 18 (for the reason that it
> contained sustained and detailed violence).
>
> Of course at the time (1996) the computer game was not capable of
> showing detailed violence and the fact that it was sustained was
> mitigated by the fact that the setting was not realistic and the
> violence could not be detailed due to technical limitations.
>
> As far as Shades of Doom goes, I already (as an example) put it as an MT
> title.  This goes along with Quake and AccessibleQuake/AudioQuake.  I
> put a note in the MT rating to the effect that ``sustained violence in a
> fantasy setting /is/ allowed in MT but only as long as the infliction of
> pain and/or injury is not dwelt upon'' and warned that this is a
> divergence from most film rating systems.  In fast-paced games like
> Shades of Doom, such inflictions aren't dwelt upon.  This covers the
> loophole that would otherwise mean we rated violent games too strictly.
>
> I would say detailed does encompass splats for guts.  I think Shades of
> Doom /doesn't/ have much in the way of that from what I've heard.  IMHO,
> some (but not loads of) such splatting would be acceptable in MT.  My
> experience of it is that the weapon sounds are the worst and when
> something you shoot dies, it is quickly over and doesn't dwell on what
> you've done.
>
> A game that I would class as A is Lurking Horror by Infocom.  This is
> because it is set in a contemporary location and contains a large number
> of detailed textual descriptions of fatal injuries and the pain they
> inflict (both on and by the player).  It also contains sounds that
> describe some of these injuries.  It is also a really great game IMHO,
> but is way too realistic and gratuitous for anyone under 18.
>
> In other words, being set in a totally unrealistic environment allows
> stuff in AAGRS (or ACGRS :-)) that wouldn't be allowed in films.  Partly
> because games (especially audio-rendered games) are still less detailed
> than films (the medium thing, as Richard pointed out yesterday).
>
> So, in summary, agree and have already tried to take steps to prevent us
> from ``shooting ourselves in the foot'' :-).  I hope this is OK with all
> others.
>
> Justin, when you asked me to post what I've got already, did you mean my
> stuff or Josh's stuff?  I was going to replace a lot of what I've got
> with what Josh posted yesterday, if people were happy with it.
>
> bye just now,
>
>
> P.S. ``audio-rendered'' -- wouldn't that cover Accessible (Blind/VI)
> /and/ Audio games???
> -- 
> 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  Fri Sep  3 14:38:54 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:38:54 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
In-Reply-To: <007401c491b6$8db71d80$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <413694F0.24992.F74E47A@localhost>
	<014d01c490f9$315866b0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1094168291.8232.41.camel@localhost>
	<009601c49152$da542570$aa6fca42@COMSTER>
	<1094213223.22682.24.camel@localhost>
	<007401c491b6$8db71d80$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1094218734.22678.56.camel@localhost>

'ello,

On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 14:04, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> This would have to be rated as adult
> from the one scene in hunter and no other aspect of the game has any of this
> in it.

Just a very quick reply... I'd say that, like the BBFC, we would have to
take into account that a game only had one instance of such a violent
outburst.  I would personally say that as long as it is only one or two
short occurrences, it would be OK to rate it MT.

In comparison to Hunter (which I have played, as it happens), The
Lurking Horror constantly describes in great detail such things (as
there are violent encounters and death all around -- especially if
you're not good at playing the game :-)).

So, regarding being too rigid, I am also against that; we should be able
to be a little flexible and I would say that Hunter is not as violent or
gory a game as Lurking Horror by a long way.  I personally would say it
could be classified MT.

The technical reason why the current system would allow it to be rated
as MT is that (a) game-play isn't in a contemporary setting and (b) the
violence, though detailed, is certainly not sustained (it happens in one
place only, of course).

That's my interpretation of the current MT rating, anyway.  I hope this
is OK by everyone else.

bye just now,


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



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Sun Sep  5 15:59:09 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:59:09 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
In-Reply-To: <413694F0.24992.F74E47A@localhost>
References: <413694F0.24992.F74E47A@localhost>
Message-ID: <1094396349.8492.131.camel@localhost>

'ello,

Just wondering if people are OK with us adopting Josh's descriptions
from Thursday and working on them now?  Most people seem to be happy
with them.  I can upload them today/tomorrow if this is OK...

bye just now,


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



From justind at BscGames.com  Sun Sep  5 20:55:43 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 15:55:43 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
References: <413694F0.24992.F74E47A@localhost>
	<1094396349.8492.131.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <006b01c49382$55264720$1175b340@COMSTER>

Matthew, I still would like to see what you have formulated on your end for
the entire project up to this point: category names, descriptions,and
descriptive points. Please post it to the list. I had asked to see this
think it was towards the end of this past week.

Thanks.

BTW any update on your internet access for the next few weeks?

Regards,

Justin - BscGames.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions


> 'ello,
>
> Just wondering if people are OK with us adopting Josh's descriptions
> from Thursday and working on them now?  Most people seem to be happy
> with them.  I can upload them today/tomorrow if this is OK...
>
> 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  Sun Sep  5 21:23:53 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 21:23:53 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
In-Reply-To: <006b01c49382$55264720$1175b340@COMSTER>
References: <413694F0.24992.F74E47A@localhost>
	<1094396349.8492.131.camel@localhost>
	<006b01c49382$55264720$1175b340@COMSTER>
Message-ID: <1094415833.5018.9.camel@localhost.localdomain>

'ello,

On Sun, 2004-09-05 at 20:55, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> Matthew, I still would like to see what you have formulated on your end for
> the entire project up to this point: category names, descriptions,and
> descriptive points. Please post it to the list. I had asked to see this
> think it was towards the end of this past week.

Sorry, it seems I'd got the wrong end of the stick (I thought you were
asking Josh for the latest version of his stuff).  I wasn't around
yesterday due to being at a wedding but I'll get it all together and
post it ASAP.

Regarding the 'net access, I gather that we're waiting for the cable
company to process our order.  They're notoriously inefficient at
customer service (monopolies are such wonderful things...), so I'll keep
you posted as soon as I know the details.

I mentioned that I wouldn't be around for most of this next week due to
being on holiday.  I plan to find out what the situation is in more
detail during this time and send an e-mail to the list explaining when I
will be back on-line permenantly then.

Apologies again for the (potential) inconvenience; it may still be that
I can get easy access via University, but I will have to check up on
this to be absolutely sure.

bye just now,


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



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Mon Sep  6 12:25:55 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 12:25:55 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
In-Reply-To: <006b01c49382$55264720$1175b340@COMSTER>
References: <413694F0.24992.F74E47A@localhost>
	<1094396349.8492.131.camel@localhost>
	<006b01c49382$55264720$1175b340@COMSTER>
Message-ID: <1094469950.3324.40.camel@localhost.localdomain>

'ello,

Below is what I currently have got for the ratings, taken from the web
site.  My opinion is that we should definitely go for what Josh wrote
for the descriptions of each category.  I also think we'd do well to
start with his bullet points, too.

I am in favour of us changing Fear to Suspense/Horror if others are
happy with this.  I also prefer Josh's ``Delinquency'' points, but feel
we could come up with a snappier phrase for this.  Still, it does at
least get the point across in a comprehensible manner, much unlike mine
:-).

bye just now,


Matthew

------------------------------------

Early Childhood (EC)
for children under age 8

This classification means that anyone should be able to play the game
and not be offended or otherwise negatively affected by it. This means
that children of all ages should be able to play the game. 



Violence
        None whatsoever.
Fear
        None whatsoever.
Bad Language
        None whatsoever.
Sexual Content
        No sexual content (or innuendo) whatsoever.
Drugs
        No presentation of any drug?related issues whatsoever.
Imitable Behaviour
        No emphasis on real?world weapons or any dangerous stunts.


This category is expected to be used only by educational games for very
young (pre?school or less than eight years old) children. 

Note to developers/publishers: Think many times more than twice before
classifying your product as "Universal". 

back to top back to top 
Universal (U)
for children aged 8 and above

A Universal?classified game should aim to not upset or offend any child
aged eight or above. It is up to the parent/guardian of the child to
determine if the game is suitable after they've read this description. 



Violence
        Occasional, mild/fantasy. No details.
Fear
        Occasional mild threat/menace. Not drawn?out.
Bad Language
        Occasional mild bad language.
Sexual Content
        Very mild sexual references or innuendo only. No details and
        only discrete references permitted.
Drugs
        No presentation of any drug?related issues whatsoever.
Imitable Behaviour
        No glamorisation of real?world weapons or any dangerous stunts.
back to top back to top 
Young Teens (YT)
for ages 12 and above

Games classified under this rating may incorporate mature themes but the
treatment of them should be suitable for young teenagers. The target age
range of this rating is twelve to fifteen. 



Violence
        No explicit details of pain/injury.
Fear
        Sustained threat/menace. Occasional gory moments only.
Bad Language
        Occasional bad language.
Sexual Content
        No explicit or detailed content. References to sexual activity
        are permitted as long as they are presented in a manner suitable
        for younger teenagers.
Drugs
        Occasional references to "soft" drug?taking may be presented,
        but without any details whatsoever. Any references must be
        justified by context and point out the dangers involved.
Imitable Behaviour
        Dangerous stunts, if presented, must not contain details. No
        detail on dangerous combat techniques must be presented. No
        glamorisation of contemporary weapons.
back to top back to top 
Mature Teens (MT)
for ages 15 and above

Games under this category may have any theme, as long as the
presentation of the theme is appropriate for teenagers roughly fifteen
to eighteen years of age. 



Violence
        Strong violence. No detailed presentation of the infliction of
        pain and/or injuries. Sexual violence, if presented, must be
        brief, un?detailed and justified by context.
Fear
        Sustained threat/menace. Occasional gory moments.
Bad Language
        Frequent use of strong language. The strongest terms are not
        allowed, however. No continued and aggressive use of strong
        language.
Sexual Content
        Sexual activity is to be presented only without details.
Drugs
        Drug?taking may be presented without details. The game should
        not promote the use of drugs.
Imitable Behaviour
        Dangerous combat techniques must not be presented. No emphasis
        on the use of easily accessible lethal weapons (e.g. knives).


Note: In many film classification schemes, sustained or detailed
depiction of violence is not permitted. Due to the fact that computer
games are currently significantly less detailed than real life, this
classification of accessible or audio game does permit sustained
violence as long as the injuries inflicted are not dwelt upon and/or the
setting of the violence is not one that could be found in the real world
(i.e. is a fantasy setting). 

back to top back to top 
Adults Only (AO)
for ages 18 and above

Adults should be allowed to choose their own entertainment, within
applicable law. For this reason, almost any content is allowed under
this category (again, as long as it is compliant with the law). However,
instructive or detailed presentation of drug?taking or sexual violence
should not be presented. 

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



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Mon Sep  6 12:27:35 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 12:27:35 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] A week's break (for me)
Message-ID: <1094470054.3324.46.camel@localhost.localdomain>

'ello,

As previuosly mentioned, I'm on a short break now before I start my Uni
work again, leading up to the start of term.  I'll find out about the
'net access situation and am still quite confident that I'll be able to
continue AAGRS (or ACGRS, if we've decided now...).

I'll e-mail the list to confirm or deny this during the week.  Apologies
again for the inconvenience.

bye just now,


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



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Mon Sep  6 12:30:13 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 12:30:13 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] A week's break (for me)
In-Reply-To: <1094470054.3324.46.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1094470054.3324.46.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1094470212.3215.51.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Mental collapse has surely set in :-).  By all means, continue to post
whilst I'm not around this week; I'll catch up when I'm back.  If I am
going to have difficulty with accessing the 'net for an extended time,
I'll let you know and at that point it would be an idea to pause for a
while.

I still think it probably won't come to that, but will have to post
later to let you know.  In the meantime, please cointinue! :-)

bye just now,


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



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Fri Sep 10 13:32:09 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:32:09 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] A week's break (for me)
In-Reply-To: <1094470054.3324.46.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1094470054.3324.46.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1094818181.2820.2.camel@localhost.localdomain>

'ello,

This is just an update to let you know that I am now connected up at the
University and should be able to continue with the AAGRS discussion
until our cable is connected (currently scheduled for the 27th).

The department is closed early next week but I should be fully
up-and-running again by Wednesday.

I look forward to carrying on the work next week!

bye just now,



-- 

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



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Tue Sep 14 12:45:30 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:45:30 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Back Online
Message-ID: <1095162328.2940.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>

'ello,

Just to let you know that I am now back on-line every day via the Uni
network so we can continue discussion of Josh's new wordings for the
ratign categories.

Sorry again for the inconvenience this has caused.  Our cable should be
connected up on the 27th and then I'll be able to check my AAGRS mails
in almost real-time.  For now, though, I will be here at least once a
day.

(I said earlier that it would be Wednesday before I was back, but the
department turned out to be open today, too.)

Thanks to everyone for their patience over the past week; I hope we can
continue with the productive discussion now :-).

bye just now,


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



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Thu Sep 16 12:31:14 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:31:14 +0100
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions]
Message-ID: <1095334274.2813.2.camel@localhost.localdomain>

(Please find the message to the list attached.)

-- 
Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Paul G. Silva" <paul at allinplay.com>
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Descriptions and minor suggestions
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:04:22 -0400
Size: 3282
URL: <http://lists.agrip.org.uk/pipermail/aagrs/attachments/20040916/b97a8a24/attachment.eml>

From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Thu Sep 16 12:34:22 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:34:22 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Moving to using Josh's category wordings?
Message-ID: <1095334460.2823.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>

'ello all,

There were no posts when I came in yesterday so I thought I would get
the ball rolling by asking what people think of Josh's proposed wordings
for the categories.  IMHO, they portray what I meant in a more
understandable way.  I gather that's what most of you feel, but I would
like to check before we move to using (and subsequently tinkering, if
necessary, with) them.

There is also a post from a new member on the list; I forwarded it a few
moments ago.  It sounds like something that could be of benefit in the
future, when we have stabilised AAGRS (or ACGRS -- that's another thing
we've yet to decide 100% on :-)).

bye just now,


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



From justind at BscGames.com  Thu Sep 16 13:52:13 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:52:13 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Moving to using Josh's category wordings?
References: <1095334460.2823.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <008401c49beb$fd48e810$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

I want to tinker some with them, or at least have the time to look them over
closely. I would imagine things have been quite busy on everyone's ends is
why the list has been dead lately.


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: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:34 AM
Subject: [AAGRS] Moving to using Josh's category wordings?


> 'ello all,
>
> There were no posts when I came in yesterday so I thought I would get
> the ball rolling by asking what people think of Josh's proposed wordings
> for the categories.  IMHO, they portray what I meant in a more
> understandable way.  I gather that's what most of you feel, but I would
> like to check before we move to using (and subsequently tinkering, if
> necessary, with) them.
>
> There is also a post from a new member on the list; I forwarded it a few
> moments ago.  It sounds like something that could be of benefit in the
> future, when we have stabilised AAGRS (or ACGRS -- that's another thing
> we've yet to decide 100% on :-)).
>
> 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 justind at BscGames.com  Thu Sep 16 14:44:23 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:44:23 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Moving to using Josh's category wordings?
References: <1095334460.2823.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <006f01c49bf3$47147de0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

BTW when you say category wordings is that only meaning the category name
and brief description? Or is this also meaning the detail points?


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: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:34 AM
Subject: [AAGRS] Moving to using Josh's category wordings?


> 'ello all,
>
> There were no posts when I came in yesterday so I thought I would get
> the ball rolling by asking what people think of Josh's proposed wordings
> for the categories.  IMHO, they portray what I meant in a more
> understandable way.  I gather that's what most of you feel, but I would
> like to check before we move to using (and subsequently tinkering, if
> necessary, with) them.
>
> There is also a post from a new member on the list; I forwarded it a few
> moments ago.  It sounds like something that could be of benefit in the
> future, when we have stabilised AAGRS (or ACGRS -- that's another thing
> we've yet to decide 100% on :-)).
>
> 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 paul at allinplay.com  Thu Sep 16 20:54:56 2004
From: paul at allinplay.com (Paul G. Silva)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:54:56 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Other ways we might be able to work together
Message-ID: <4149EF90.6040500@allinplay.com>

I tried to send the below email last week, but wasn't clever enough to 
address it correctly, doh!  Here's to trying gain.

-----------

Hello gentlemen (and possibly ladies?  I can't find a list of us yet!),

I just want to say that it has been wonderful to watch how well everyone 
here is working together on such a difficult issue.  It bodes well for 
our dreams of building a vibrant (financially sustainable) industry, so 
we can all continue to get paid for doing what we love.

When this discussion is completed, I wonder if it would be of interest 
to the rest of you to discuss ways we might be able to work together to 
help our little industry grow.

One of my advisors is one of the founders of the socially responsible 
investing industry (now a #7 trillion industry), and he said that a 
critical aspect of his movement success (which was not at all certain at 
first, just like us), was everyone coming together to form a very 
informal "Association of Socially Responsible Investment Companies." 
This association that created press releases (which was pretty much its 
major function for a long time), and by the nature of it being an 
organization the press community took it much more seriously.

Again, there is already an active discussion on another topic right now, 
so I mean not to start another.  But when folks are ready, and if they 
are interested, I would love to brainstorm with you to see if this idea 
seems transferable to our fledgling industry.

I hope you all have a great weekend.  Happy gaming!
-- 
Paul G. Silva (psilva at allinplay.com | 413-585-9692)
Cofounder and Community Director
All inPlay - Bringing blind and sighted together as equals
http://www.allinplay.com





From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Fri Sep 17 12:41:00 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:41:00 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Moving to using Josh's category wordings?
In-Reply-To: <006f01c49bf3$47147de0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <1095334460.2823.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<006f01c49bf3$47147de0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1095421260.2793.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>

'ello,

On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 14:44, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> BTW when you say category wordings is that only meaning the category name
> and brief description? Or is this also meaning the detail points?

I would imagine that we'll adopt both and then start to tinker with
them.  I also think they need tinkering with but it seems to me that
most people on the list agree they're a better starting point than what
I had originally so I'm happy to adopt them as such :-).

Everyone:  Please let me know if this is the case and I can then upload
them to the site so we can mould them a bit and then come to a final
decision on them.  I will be able to upload them on Monday, as I have a
busy weekend ahead and may not get time to come in to the lab.

bye just now,


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



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Sun Sep 19 19:34:15 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:34:15 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] [OT] Won't be online on Monday as planned
Message-ID: <1095618855.3834.388.camel@localhost.localdomain>

'ello,

Well when I said I had a busy weekend ahead I meant helping one of my
friends move into our house at University.  Unfortunately what actually
happened is that I have had to come home because one of our dogs was
very ill and was put to sleep earlier today.

I will be travelling back to Uni on Monday and should be back
up-and-running on Tuesday.  I will then be able to upload the new
descriptions if people have responded to the thread I started last week.

bye just now,


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



From justind at BscGames.com  Mon Sep 20 13:57:08 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:57:08 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Moving to using Josh's category wordings?
References: <1095334460.2823.7.camel@localhost.localdomain><006f01c49bf3$47147de0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1095421260.2793.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <011601c49f11$56a04160$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

For the sake of progress, I'd say upload them, then let us look at them and
refine what we need to once we see what you have in place.


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: Friday, September 17, 2004 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Moving to using Josh's category wordings?


> 'ello,
>
> On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 14:44, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> > BTW when you say category wordings is that only meaning the category
name
> > and brief description? Or is this also meaning the detail points?
>
> I would imagine that we'll adopt both and then start to tinker with
> them.  I also think they need tinkering with but it seems to me that
> most people on the list agree they're a better starting point than what
> I had originally so I'm happy to adopt them as such :-).
>
> Everyone:  Please let me know if this is the case and I can then upload
> them to the site so we can mould them a bit and then come to a final
> decision on them.  I will be able to upload them on Monday, as I have a
> busy weekend ahead and may not get time to come in to the lab.
>
> 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 justind at BscGames.com  Mon Sep 20 13:58:06 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:58:06 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Other ways we might be able to work together
References: <4149EF90.6040500@allinplay.com>
Message-ID: <012101c49f11$7967c240$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Hi Paul.

We are in the midst of hashing out the ratings system right now so maybe we
can nip on this a little later down the road.

Sound ok?

Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul G. Silva" <paul at allinplay.com>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: [AAGRS] Other ways we might be able to work together


> I tried to send the below email last week, but wasn't clever enough to
> address it correctly, doh!  Here's to trying gain.
>
> -----------
>
> Hello gentlemen (and possibly ladies?  I can't find a list of us yet!),
>
> I just want to say that it has been wonderful to watch how well everyone
> here is working together on such a difficult issue.  It bodes well for
> our dreams of building a vibrant (financially sustainable) industry, so
> we can all continue to get paid for doing what we love.
>
> When this discussion is completed, I wonder if it would be of interest
> to the rest of you to discuss ways we might be able to work together to
> help our little industry grow.
>
> One of my advisors is one of the founders of the socially responsible
> investing industry (now a #7 trillion industry), and he said that a
> critical aspect of his movement success (which was not at all certain at
> first, just like us), was everyone coming together to form a very
> informal "Association of Socially Responsible Investment Companies."
> This association that created press releases (which was pretty much its
> major function for a long time), and by the nature of it being an
> organization the press community took it much more seriously.
>
> Again, there is already an active discussion on another topic right now,
> so I mean not to start another.  But when folks are ready, and if they
> are interested, I would love to brainstorm with you to see if this idea
> seems transferable to our fledgling industry.
>
> I hope you all have a great weekend.  Happy gaming!
> -- 
> Paul G. Silva (psilva at allinplay.com | 413-585-9692)
> Cofounder and Community Director
> All inPlay - Bringing blind and sighted together as equals
> http://www.allinplay.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Sep 21 15:46:25 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:46:25 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Moving to using Josh's category wordings?
In-Reply-To: <011601c49f11$56a04160$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <1095334460.2823.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<006f01c49bf3$47147de0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1095421260.2793.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<011601c49f11$56a04160$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1095777173.3787.2.camel@localhost.localdomain>

'ello,

On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 13:57, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> For the sake of progress, I'd say upload them, then let us look at them and
> refine what we need to once we see what you have in place.

Will do.  The job is taking a bit longer than I expected because I am
having to update a lot more markup than I expected.  I'll have it
uploaded tomorrow if I don't get the chance to finish it today.

bye just now,


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



From justind at BscGames.com  Tue Sep 21 16:01:51 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:01:51 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Moving to using Josh's category wordings?
References: <1095334460.2823.7.camel@localhost.localdomain><006f01c49bf3$47147de0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com><1095421260.2793.7.camel@localhost.localdomain><011601c49f11$56a04160$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1095777173.3787.2.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <018a01c49feb$ed45c4c0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

np, sounds good.

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, September 21, 2004 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Moving to using Josh's category wordings?


> 'ello,
>
> On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 13:57, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> > For the sake of progress, I'd say upload them, then let us look at them
and
> > refine what we need to once we see what you have in place.
>
> Will do.  The job is taking a bit longer than I expected because I am
> having to update a lot more markup than I expected.  I'll have it
> uploaded tomorrow if I don't get the chance to finish it today.
>
> 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  Wed Sep 22 16:03:46 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:03:46 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] New Descriptions Uploaded
Message-ID: <1095865426.2988.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>

'ello,

I have now uploaded the new category descriptions.  They can be found on
the web site at:

http://ratings.agrip.org.uk/ratings.shtml

The old ones have been archived but are still accessible (for those that
wish to compare the old with the new).

After spending some time marking up Josh's descriptions, I can honestly
say that I think they provide a great basis for AAGRS and are a distinct
improvement on what I originally proposed.  I am sure that we'll have a
lot less work to do now to reach an agreed system -- so please post and
let the list know what you think :-).

bye just now,


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



From matthew at agrip.org.uk  Wed Sep 22 16:06:01 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:06:01 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Other ways we might be able to work together
In-Reply-To: <4149EF90.6040500@allinplay.com>
References: <4149EF90.6040500@allinplay.com>
Message-ID: <1095865559.2987.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>

'ello,

On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 20:54, Paul G. Silva wrote:
> I tried to send the below email last week, but wasn't clever enough to 
> address it correctly, doh!  Here's to trying gain.

Thanks for re-sending.  I think I may have said this earlier but that
certainly sounds like something we should think about when we've
finalised our system -- thanks for bringing it to our attention.

bye just now,


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



From richard at audiogames.net  Wed Sep 22 16:47:52 2004
From: richard at audiogames.net (AudioGames.net)
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:47:52 +0200
Subject: [AAGRS] Another thought about rating systems.
References: <4149EF90.6040500@allinplay.com>
	<1095865559.2987.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <001801c4a0bb$8635ae50$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>

Hi Everyone,

This week I had a thought about game rating systems in general. I don't know
if this issue has been discussed already by the list, if so, ignore this
email. The issue I'm referring to is about how suitable a game is from a
gamers point of view and not from a parental guidance point of view.
I have recently been playing the Syberia and Syberia 2 adventure games
(really nice by the way) which are rated 3+ according to the PEGI. I fully
agree with this rating since there's no sex, violence, foul language or
whatever in the games. However, the games are not suitable for 3 year olds
due to the complexity of the game (puzzles, "grown up language", historic
references, etc). This struck me as a bit odd since I grew up with loads of
board games saying "for 6 and up" meaning that a certain game could be
played by children from 6 years and older (like Monopoly, Settlers of Catan,
etc). This type of rating focuses on the ability of a player to play a
certain game.
I had a look in a computer games shop this week because I wanted to find out
if there were any computer games that specifically said something on the
cover about this. Well, it turned out that there was a section somewhere in
the store with "childrens software". But it didn't say on any cover that the
game was suitable for 4 year olds or similar.

I noticed several requests from parents on the BlindGamers list asking for
"a game for my 6 year old daughter" or "audio games for 10 year olds". We
are currently mostly thinking about a parental advisory rating (of course
for everybody, not only parents) which functions as a warning for specific
content. But what would you guys think if we add a guide from a different
perspective to the rating system, one that gives a parent or a player a clue
of for instance the difficulty level of a game (since this is mostly what
this guide is about). The AAGRS rating is meant primarily for accessible
games (although the dust has to settle on that statement as well).
Accessible would also maybe include people with mental disabilities (in the
future). By adding a "difficulty/minimum age" rating buyers would recognize
if a game is maybe to hard for the player in question. This would assist a
parent buying a Teletubby game for their tottler instead of Zork III (which
probably are both rated 3+ by the PEGI).

Although this issue hasn't got a lot of priority, it may be nice to think
about adding something like it as well.

Greets,

Richard



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Other ways we might be able to work together


> 'ello,
>
> On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 20:54, Paul G. Silva wrote:
> > I tried to send the below email last week, but wasn't clever enough to
> > address it correctly, doh!  Here's to trying gain.
>
> Thanks for re-sending.  I think I may have said this earlier but that
> certainly sounds like something we should think about when we've
> finalised our system -- thanks for bringing it to our attention.
>
> 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  Fri Sep 24 18:48:16 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:48:16 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Another thought about rating systems.
In-Reply-To: <001801c4a0bb$8635ae50$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
References: <4149EF90.6040500@allinplay.com>
	<1095865559.2987.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<001801c4a0bb$8635ae50$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
Message-ID: <1096048096.3026.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>

'ello,

On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 16:47, AudioGames.net wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> This week I had a thought about game rating systems in general. I don't know

I think your point about ages being (perhaps) thought of as ``cognitive
levels'' is a good one and is certainly something we should be thinking
about for AAGRS -- even if we only put up a note that explains that
we're doing it from the parent's angle and the ages are not to be
interpreted as a reflection of the level of intelligence/experience
required to play the games.

Certainly something to think about when we're all happy with the rating
descriptions -- thanks again for the input!

bye just now (and have a good weekend, folks),


P.S. Our Internet connection is due on Monday (fingers crossed!).
-- 
Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>



From justind at BscGames.com  Tue Sep 28 13:23:23 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:23:23 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Another thought about rating systems.
References: <4149EF90.6040500@allinplay.com><1095865559.2987.8.camel@localhost.localdomain><001801c4a0bb$8635ae50$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
	<1096048096.3026.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <009b01c4a555$f300b6d0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

Hello Matthew and all.

I cannot believe the amount of work that has recently come onto my plate. I
can only assume that Josh and Richard are also busy and Matthew you as well
back in school.

I'm willing to put off discussing the ratings system for a while if others
are as well and pick it back up once things calm down on all of our ends. We
have gained great ground so far and if we do all decide to break, at least
we can come back fresh and ready to go.

What do you all think? Break or trudge through it?


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: Friday, September 24, 2004 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Another thought about rating systems.


> 'ello,
>
> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 16:47, AudioGames.net wrote:
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > This week I had a thought about game rating systems in general. I don't
know
>
> I think your point about ages being (perhaps) thought of as ``cognitive
> levels'' is a good one and is certainly something we should be thinking
> about for AAGRS -- even if we only put up a note that explains that
> we're doing it from the parent's angle and the ages are not to be
> interpreted as a reflection of the level of intelligence/experience
> required to play the games.
>
> Certainly something to think about when we're all happy with the rating
> descriptions -- thanks again for the input!
>
> bye just now (and have a good weekend, folks),
>
>
> P.S. Our Internet connection is due on Monday (fingers crossed!).
> -- 
> 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  Wed Sep 29 16:27:06 2004
From: matthew at agrip.org.uk (Matthew T. Atkinson)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:27:06 +0100
Subject: [AAGRS] Another thought about rating systems.
In-Reply-To: <009b01c4a555$f300b6d0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
References: <4149EF90.6040500@allinplay.com>
	<1095865559.2987.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<001801c4a0bb$8635ae50$cdfb8418@SoundSupport>
	<1096048096.3026.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<009b01c4a555$f300b6d0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
Message-ID: <1096471624.2820.13.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Hello everyone,

On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 13:23, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> What do you all think? Break or trudge through it?

I came in today because I wanted to post about something related to this
point.  I am very sorry to say that our Internet connection never
arrived on Monday.  After spending over ?20 and 4 hours on the phone to
them, it has become apparent that they've lost my order (hopefully my
bank details too, LOL).

This has had some major repercussions at this end -- one of which being
that my work is now behind before term has even started.  I needed two
things to take advantage of the extra time my department has given me
for my project (I'm VI, as you know).  One of these things was Internet
access and the other was access to the hardware I will be using.  Both,
through a series of mess-ups, have not happened.

I want to make it _absolutely_ clear that I fully intent do see the
development of AAGRS through, but as Justin has pointed out there has
not been much traffic here of late and it is probably a good idea to
wait until things calm down for everyone before we pick it up again.

I will keep coming in to the lab and checking progress.  if I have any
good news about my 'net access I will let you know.  Until then, please
post if you can.  I am sure that things will be sorted out and by the
time everyone else is less busy, I am bound to be back on-line.  I
really do look forward to being able to pick this up again when we're
all able to communicate 

I am really sorry for the problems of the last few weeks and I dont'
want any of you to think that I am losing interest or not valuing your
opinions -- I am grateful to all of you for the support you've given
this project and I know that we can make it something useful for
everyone in the end.

Once again, I will keep monitoring the list and when people come back
on-line due to having more free time/'net connections :-) we can carry
on.

bye just now,


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



From justind at BscGames.com  Wed Sep 29 16:49:09 2004
From: justind at BscGames.com (JustinFromBSCGames)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:49:09 -0400
Subject: [AAGRS] Another thought about rating systems.
References: <4149EF90.6040500@allinplay.com><1095865559.2987.8.camel@localhost.localdomain><001801c4a0bb$8635ae50$cdfb8418@SoundSupport><1096048096.3026.7.camel@localhost.localdomain><009b01c4a555$f300b6d0$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>
	<1096471624.2820.13.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <001e01c4a63b$dc185540$cd0ecb42@cboss.com>

sounds perfectly acceptable to me. I really do need to take a break from the
project since I have so much that just piled on my plate. Just for the
record, I also have an interest in continuing this project once things clear
off my plate some.

Regards,
Justin - BSC Games
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew T. Atkinson" <matthew at agrip.org.uk>
To: "AAGRS list" <aagrs at oblique.agrip.org.uk>
Cc: "Sabahattin Gucukoglu" <ngcl01920 at blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: [AAGRS] Another thought about rating systems.


> Hello everyone,
>
> On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 13:23, JustinFromBSCGames wrote:
> > What do you all think? Break or trudge through it?
>
> I came in today because I wanted to post about something related to this
> point.  I am very sorry to say that our Internet connection never
> arrived on Monday.  After spending over ?20 and 4 hours on the phone to
> them, it has become apparent that they've lost my order (hopefully my
> bank details too, LOL).
>
> This has had some major repercussions at this end -- one of which being
> that my work is now behind before term has even started.  I needed two
> things to take advantage of the extra time my department has given me
> for my project (I'm VI, as you know).  One of these things was Internet
> access and the other was access to the hardware I will be using.  Both,
> through a series of mess-ups, have not happened.
>
> I want to make it _absolutely_ clear that I fully intent do see the
> development of AAGRS through, but as Justin has pointed out there has
> not been much traffic here of late and it is probably a good idea to
> wait until things calm down for everyone before we pick it up again.
>
> I will keep coming in to the lab and checking progress.  if I have any
> good news about my 'net access I will let you know.  Until then, please
> post if you can.  I am sure that things will be sorted out and by the
> time everyone else is less busy, I am bound to be back on-line.  I
> really do look forward to being able to pick this up again when we're
> all able to communicate
>
> I am really sorry for the problems of the last few weeks and I dont'
> want any of you to think that I am losing interest or not valuing your
> opinions -- I am grateful to all of you for the support you've given
> this project and I know that we can make it something useful for
> everyone in the end.
>
> Once again, I will keep monitoring the list and when people come back
> on-line due to having more free time/'net connections :-) we can carry
> on.
>
> 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