This article points out the problems with the ratings board: subjective evaluation and broad coverage, and argues that it needs to be improved through privatization and realistic system building. It also emphasizes that abolition is not the solution.
Recently, there have been a number of controversies surrounding gaming. In particular, the shutdown of late-night gaming by teenagers caused a huge stir and is still being felt today. Amidst all of these issues, the ratings system that rates these games has become just as controversial as the shutdown system. In this article, we’ll take a look at the ratings system, which has been a hot topic of debate for over a year now. First, let’s take a look at the organization and outline its problems and solutions.
Most of us have heard of the Game Ratings Board, or “GEB” for short. (I’ll refer to it as “GEB.”) To be more precise, it’s a government agency under the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism that pre-screened and rated all games produced and distributed in South Korea. While there have been organizations that have played this role before, it wasn’t until 2002 when the Video Game Ratings Board took on this role that it really took off. However, the 2006 Sea Story fiasco recognized the importance of game ratings, and the need for a rating organization for games themselves rather than videos. This led to the creation of the Game Ratings Board, an organization that specializes in rating games.
Recently, the ratings have become controversial for a number of reasons. There are two main reasons. The first is that it lacks objective evaluation, and the second is that its scope is too broad. Both of these issues mean that the GEC, as a national organization, lacks an accurate understanding of gaming products and is not doing its job properly. To verify this, we will analyze each of these two issues in detail below. Afterward, we will draw conclusions and suggest solutions.
The first problem is the lack of objective evaluation. Currently, the ratings are divided into categories such as sensuality, violence, horror, language inappropriateness, drugs, crime, and meandering. At first glance, this may seem like a very objective and reasonable method. However, in reality, analyzing each of these areas is highly subjective, and currently, all of these deliberations are held behind closed doors. What’s more, the ratings are rarely challenged, which means that even though the areas are categorized, the ratings are still subjective and done behind closed doors. This is evident when we look at games that have been improperly rated.
One example is Ninokuni: Queen of the White Castle. It was created by Ghibli Studios (of Spirited Away fame) in collaboration with other companies, and it’s a game with a fairytale feel. However, the game’s mini-games include a slot machine, which the GABF deemed to be a potentially deviant game, and the game was labeled as not for children. It’s like the fairy tale Snow White being labeled as not for children because there’s a scene in which she tries to kill herself with a poisoned pill, and similar incidents are expected. Given that Ghibli Studios was known for making animation for children and teens, and this game was made for that purpose, it seemed pretty obvious that it wasn’t a mature game, and no other country had made such an extreme rating. In these circumstances, the decision of the GAB did not resonate with many people and was controversial, but the appeal was ultimately denied.
There are many other examples of ratings that go against common sense and differ from those around the world. There are many other reasons, such as treating performance-enhancing foods that are commonly used in games as drugs and labeling them as unacceptable for children. These ratings can be very damaging to a company if they receive an unexpected rating. In the case of Ninokuni, which was highly anticipated due to the reputation of Ghibli Studios before the ruling, it was not officially released in Korea because it was rated not for children. In this sense, the GEB’s evaluation criteria is very unorthodox and a big problem.
The second problem is that the scope is very broad. There is nothing wrong with a company’s game being evaluated and rated for commercial sale in Korea. However, the current policy of the KOGE is that any game that is simply published for non-commercial purposes must be rated, meaning that even amateur game-making cafes and clubs must be rated in order to publish their work on the internet. This is excessive, even compared to other genres such as writing and video. (A networked PC RPG game can cost close to 1 million won.) The evaluation period is also quite long, which is unreasonable in many ways. Recently, this has been relaxed for smartphone games, but it still applies to PC games.
In one case, the KEI sent a letter to a community where small developers post and rate each other’s work. The letter demanded that all of the games in the community be reviewed by the G.O.A., or all of the games would be removed from the internet. This was a very difficult situation for people who were just making and sharing games. To have all the games rated would require a huge amount of money that the average community could not afford, and if they were not rated, the community would no longer be able to function. This is quite absurd, given that Article 21, paragraph 5 of the Constitution states that “expression of opinion shall be free, both individually and collectively”.
These issues will ultimately lead to the KOGE hindering the development of the game industry and development talent. To be more specific, let’s look at the game industry from the perspective of large companies and small individuals. From a corporate perspective, companies can lose a lot of money from these arbitrary ratings. Large companies spend billions of dollars or more on a single game, and an unexpected Parental Advisory rating is a huge blow. Some companies have taken steps to resolve these cases, such as making changes and getting a second review, but it’s still a loss. For smaller individuals, many games are made on relatively small budgets, which makes the relatively high cost of ratings a problem. This situation makes it difficult for small games to be produced, and it almost always results in individual developers giving up.
There are several solutions to the above problems. There are two main options. The first is to outsource the rating organization to a private company, and the second is to create a realistic rating system. By system, I mean the scope of what actually needs to be evaluated. There may be other structural changes that need to be made, but these are the main two solutions. I don’t think abolition is a good idea, and I’ll save that for last. Below, I’ll provide details and validation of these two solutions.
The first solution is to have a private company evaluate games instead of the government. The idea behind this is that evaluating games should be done by people who know games. In the current government structure, it is difficult for experts who know games to play a pivotal role. Government employees are not experts in their own departments and have little sense of ownership. In this respect, privatization of game rating agencies would improve the overall quality and ensure a certain degree of objectivity in the aforementioned evaluations. We can also look at the examples of other countries. Currently, in the United States, Europe, and Japan, where the game industry is developed, game ratings are based on private self-review. In some cases, such as in China, the state evaluates games, but China is a socialist country. This is not the case in other countries, which means that in general, game ratings are based on private deliberation. This doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a good idea to do it in other countries, but in the current situation, it would be helpful to learn from other countries.
The second option is to propose a realistic system of rating organizations. This is essentially about reducing the second problem: too broad a scope. It is not good for both the organization’s efforts and the developer’s perspective to evaluate all simple games created by amateur developers in the general community. It is highly unrealistic. This problem is likely due to the fact that Korea hasn’t yet gotten its bearings when it comes to game evaluation. In this regard, it would be good to look at the examples of overseas rating organizations. We should take a page out of their book and create a realistic system. This way, we won’t end up with an unrealistic system like the one we have now. However, there are differences between Korea and other countries, such as the importance of meandering, so we need to consider these points. We can’t talk about a system that is the right answer yet. We don’t have the exact answer, and we can’t predict it now. However, building such a system is a necessary task for the future.
There is a lot of debate on the internet for and against the abolition of crab lanterns, but I don’t think it’s a good solution. The reason for abolishing it is that the current structure is unreasonable and has the same problems as the previous ones. However, it is highly unlikely that abolishing it will solve the problems. An organization that rates games is necessary to prevent situations like the Sea Story situation. Abolishing the ratings system in this situation would only lead to other government agencies taking over. This would be even more unprofessional and problematic than it already is. Instead, it’s better to use the solutions mentioned above, such as privatizing it and establishing a realistic system, to make it a proper institution.
To summarize the whole story, the first thing mentioned is the problem of the ranking system. Non-objective evaluation and unrealistic coverage are the biggest problems. To solve these problems, there are two key solutions proposed in this article. The first is to privatize the rating agencies and create a more realistic system. The second is to abolish them, which many have argued is not the right solution in the long run. At this point, we can’t say that this will happen. What is clear, however, is that if we don’t address the first two issues, the debate over crab rankings will continue, and we need to do so sooner rather than later. To that end, we hope that appropriate responses, such as the ones presented in this article, will resolve all of the issues surrounding game ratings.
