Eye of the TIGRS

[soniCron]

The Independent Game Rating System (TIGRS) is now open for submissions!

That's right, folks! Your requests were heard! Your desires were considered! Your wants were established, and the new version 2.0 has been released! (Worlds fastest development turnover.)

New features include

Content based ratings, not age-based
More informative design
Fully implimented rating system, not just the graphics
Fully automatic code generation for easy adoption (no more PSDs!)
Easy-as-pie question based form for finding the right rating for your game!
Link-back so the user can get even more information about the ratings seen on the box.
Neat new site!


And a bunch of other stuff. Check it out. There are a couple pages "coming soon", but that's only because I've been working for the past 23 hours straight. (that's right, no breaks.) With the exception of the obvious stuff (stuff "coming soon", etc), I'd appreciate some serious feedback. I'd also like to see these on some of your sites by the time I get back on tomorrow! They'd BETTER be there! :) *snoooore....*

http://www.tigrs.org/

[Rainer Deyke]

I have couple objections:

1. Nudity is not sex. Depending on how it is presented, nudity can be completely nonsexual.

2. The system seems unnecessarily strict. For example, games as seemingly harmless as Pac-man and Asteroids technically qualify for Intense Violence (STRONG) - Depcition(s) of realistic or non-realistic characters commiting acts of violence that result in death and possibly bloodshed. However, there is a world of difference between those games and, say, Mortal Kombat.

3. Nitpick: depictions of extreme horror should in some cases get a strong rating.

[Adrian Lopez]

I notice you're now claiming trademark rights over the box design. I understand your motivation for doing that, but it's enough for me to steer clear of it. Out of curiosity, how similar would you say is too similar? Where is the balance to be struck between people's ability to provide similar information in a compact format without requiring your permission, and your own interests in promoting consistency and preventing confusion?

Aside from philosophical differences, I think the website looks good for the most part, but I absolutely hate the fonts you're using for both the website and the ratings boxes. I also think some of the images in the front page are a bit too colorful (and the fonts, once again, look horrible).

[Abscissa]

Might want to change "Racism" and "Genocide" to "Racism Reference " and "Genocide Reference". Just saying "Racism" makes it sound like the game itself promotes racist values.

Nitpicky: "Just like a dollar bill, these ratings have no inherent value": Maybe there's a better comparison than a dollar bill? I know what is meant by that (after thinking for a second), but I can imagine tons of people reading that and thinking "But of course it has value: it's value is $1, duh! What's this guy talking about? Is he making fun of the low exchange rate?"

[soniCron]

@Rainer Deyke: "Nudity is not sex. Depending on how it is presented, nudity can be completely nonsexual." I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, I'm quite uncertain as to where else it would fit. It is very clear that nudity is potentially offensive, at least in the US, so it's got to remain. I figured "Sex" was the most logical place for it.
"The system seems unnecessarily strict." It's modeled after all the major ratings agencies I could find on the 'net. While I agree that it's quite strict, I feel it needs to have rigid bounds or else there's no real purpose. As far as people claiming Pac-Man and Asteroids count as "Intense Violence", I'm gonna have to disagree. At best they may be described as "Animated Violence" (though I think you'd have to be a kook to even take it that far). I fail to see your reasoning behind such a connection between "Intense Violence" and old arcade games.

@Adrian Lopez: "I notice you're now claiming trademark rights over the box design. I understand your motivation for doing that, but it's enough for me to steer clear of it." I'm so sorry to hear that is a deterent for you. Why is it that you wish to steer clear? I'm merely protecting the likeness to hold the integrity of the design so there aren't 90 versions around. Seen Linux lately? ;) While I respect the ability to go off and create one's own distro, there's far too much work being duplicated.
"Out of curiosity, how similar would you say is too similar?" Only similar enough to confuse someone. I have no financial interest in the design, just its integrity.

@Abscissa: "Might want to change "Racism" and "Genocide" to "Racism Reference " and "Genocide Reference". Just saying "Racism" makes it sound like the game itself promotes racist values." :) Funny you should say that! It's been that way the whole time, and at the last minute I decided to change it. Perhaps you're right.
"Nitpicky: "Just like a dollar bill, these ratings have no inherent value": Maybe there's a better comparison than a dollar bill?" That was text from the "old" site that I just copied and pasted. After running 23 hours without a break I was ready to quit (now I'm going on 26 hours!). There's a huge rewrite in store for that portion of the site.

Thank you all, so much, for the incredible feedback! :) It's been very helpful, and I hope to hear a lot more! It's great to hear so many ideas with the ratings. Always good to keep me on my toes. ;) I'm also glad nobody has huge problems with a lot of the copy. I'm not the best writer in the world, so if anyone feels the need to pick that apart, I'd be incredibly greatful! Keep those comments, opinions, and ideas coming!

[Chris Evans]

I'll read through it all in a little bit and give some feedback, but yeah that Baby Kruffy font is driving me nuts also. :)

[Adrian Lopez]

I'm so sorry to hear that is a deterent for you. Why is it that you wish to steer clear? I'm merely protecting the likeness to hold the integrity of the design so there aren't 90 versions around.Strictly for philosophical reasons. I am amazed by what you've accomplished in such a short period of time, but ultimately I am bothered by organizations like the ESRB and PEGI who claim trademark rights over letters/numbers inside a black or white rectangle. Sometimes the most elegant shapes and forms are precisely the ones that require permission (and, in some cases, payment) because somebody used them first.

"Out of curiosity, how similar would you say is too similar?" Only similar enough to confuse someone.That's what I was assuming, but "confusion" is rather hard to define. On the other hand, I think it's great that you're providing this service to the indie community, at no charge to anybody. Web traffic isn't free, and that, at least, is something to be admired. :)

Anyway, I think it looks great, except for the fonts. I neglected to say why I don't like the fonts: The fonts are a bit too "childish" for my taste and, more significantly, they are so "thick" (bold) that adjacent letters become a bit confused. Other than that, good job.

[Rainer Deyke]

@Rainer Deyke: "Nudity is not sex. Depending on how it is presented, nudity can be completely nonsexual." I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, I'm quite uncertain as to where else it would fit. It is very clear that nudity is potentially offensive, at least in the US, so it's got to remain. I figured "Sex" was the most logical place for it.

Maybe rename the category name as "nudity/sex" instead of just "sex"?

"The system seems unnecessarily strict." It's modeled after all the major ratings agencies I could find on the 'net. While I agree that it's quite strict, I feel it needs to have rigid bounds or else there's no real purpose. As far as people claiming Pac-Man and Asteroids count as "Intense Violence", I'm gonna have to disagree. At best they may be described as "Animated Violence" (though I think you'd have to be a kook to even take it that far). I fail to see your reasoning behind such a connection between "Intense Violence" and old arcade games.

Pacman and Asteroids both include violence that leads to death. Most games do. In your rating system, as it stands, all violence that results in death in considered "intense", and gets a strong rating.

I'm really more concerned about my own game Feyna's Quest (http://eldwood.com/feyna/index.php) than about old arcade games. The game includes violence with (unrealistic cartoony) blood and (unrealistic cartoony) death, but is still fairly tame. In the ESRB, it would probably get a Teen rating ("Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood and/or infrequent use of strong language."). Under your system, it would get a strongest possible rating in violence.

[mahlzeit]

Sounds like someone is procrastinating... Anyway, is it possible to internationalize this rating scheme? (Which is why I proposed icons instead of text earlier...)

[Bad Sector]

Nice, i'll use it :-)

However, use PHP's PNG generation abilities to create a single LARGE image (which can be used for printing) instead of a bunch of small images.

[Bmc]

The ratings seems kind of complicated. It's a bunch text, something simple like the ESRB ratings would be better....

[Bluecat]

You could do the nudity/sex thing as:

Nudity
Sexual Content

[GBGames]

I just went through the Easy Way to make the rating:


3) What kind of language does the product contain?
Nothing offensive
Infrequent profanity
Frequent profanity



5c) If you answered "Yes" to question 3, do the acts of violence cause bloodshed?
Yes
No

5d) If you answered "Yes" to question 3, do the acts of violence cause death?
Yes
No

5e) If you answered "Yes" to question 3, are there depictions of mutilated body parts or the act of mutilating body parts?
Yes
No

5f) If you answered "Yes" to question 3, are the acts of violence sexually based?
Yes
No


I assume you mean question 5?

[soniCron]

...but ultimately I am bothered by organizations like the ESRB and PEGI who claim trademark rights over letters/numbers inside a black or white rectangle. Hmmm... Maybe the legal information is unclear? The phrase "TIGRS Rating Box" is trademarked. If you'll notice, the actual box hasn't got a TM warning in it, because it is not trademarked. The box is copyrighted. I'm not going to have a problem with people distributing the box for any purpose they want, as long as it doesn't kill the box's integrity. If someone took it and made it blue instead of black, I don't care. But if someone takes the web content pack and uses those images for an entirely different rating system, that would be copyright infringement. They don't have the right to use something I created to fulfill their own contrary needs. But if they were to take the wording and create their own graphics, there's no harm, no foul.

That's what I was assuming, but "confusion" is rather hard to define. Well, something like "TIGERS Rating Box" is confusing, but "BOBS Rating Box" is not, and therefore totally legal. Like I said, I just don't want 90 copies around (IGRS, GRS, etc.) confusing the hell out of people, especially when one game gets a totally different rating than another system would give it. If they were to design a black/white box design that didn't look nearly identical to this one, then I don't care. It's their perogative.

I'm really more concerned about my own game Feyna's Quest than about old arcade games. The game includes violence with (unrealistic cartoony) blood and (unrealistic cartoony) death, but is still fairly tame. In the ESRB, it would probably get a Teen rating ("Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood and/or infrequent use of strong language."). Under your system, it would get a strongest possible rating in violence. Ok, I see your concern. I'll adjust the wording appropriately to include "extreme" or "intense". ;) However, remember that "losing a ship" or mario "dying" aren't typically considered "scenes of death".

Anyway, is it possible to internationalize this rating scheme? (Which is why I proposed icons instead of text earlier...) I tried for a long time to come up with a design for that, and got pretty close. But the thing that was interfering were the descriptors. While it's totally possible (and would be easy) to translate them into another language, graphical icons for the more specific features ("Animated Violence", "Animated Bloodshed", etc) would be near impossible. I am totally considering translated versions, though. At this stage, however, the vast majority of developers using this will be limited to english-only websites. When there is more of an international demand, I'll definately get on it, though!

However, use PHP's PNG generation abilities to create a single LARGE image (which can be used for printing) instead of a bunch of small images. Right now the site is on a rather inexpensive server, so I don't want to kill it. However, in the near future (today? tomorrow?) "The Hard Way" will be up with a PSD people can use to make whatever sized boxes they want. It's entirely vector based, so resizing isn't a problem. In the future, when I've got to upgrade the server, I'll consider that single large image generation, however. Thanks for the suggestion!

I assume you mean question 5? Thanks. :) After 23 hours of work and constant re-arranging questions, it got to a point where I just prayed I didn't forget things like that. I'll go fix it.

The ratings seems kind of complicated. It's a bunch text, something simple like the ESRB ratings would be better.... ... and would quickly land me in jail! ;) There was enough of a desire among developers that I remove that single rating and leave it entirely up to the audience to decide what is appropriate or not. The intention of the new system was to remove any arbitrary declaration of age-appropriateness from the ratings because that can vary drastically from location to location. As far as it being complicated: what part is complicated? The top 4 categories are pretty basic: sex, violence, language, and potentially offensive themes. Is there something different I should be doing?


@Nudity/Sex: After much thought and literally sleeping on it, I think I'll keep the "Sex" rating. Adding another rating just for Nudity seems a little beyond the purpose of the system. In addition, chances are the game will have either nudity or nudity and sex, so the "Sex" rating will remain unchanged. "Nudity" or "Brief Nudity" appearing in the descriptor box below will clarify any confusion. I sympathize with the desire to remove nudity from the "Sex" category, but I feel there's no better choice. (And seriously, how often do you see non-sexual nudity in games? :D)


@The font: While the font that you guys hate is only on the front page, which is really targeted at mom/dad stopping by to see what this rating system is, I very well may change it. If it's difficult to read, or causes any bit of integrity to be lost, it's not effective and should be changed.

Again, thanks for the suggestions, everyone! Keep 'em coming! And if any of you put the rating on your site, I would love to know about it!

[Rainer Deyke]

Ok, I see your concern. I'll adjust the wording appropriately to include "extreme" or "intense". ;) However, remember that "losing a ship" or mario "dying" aren't typically considered "scenes of death".

I'm still not sure where Feyna's Quest (http://eldwood.com/feyna/index.php) fits in. It's definitely more violent than Super Mario Brothers or Pac-man. On the other hand, it's clearly less violent than Grand Theft Auto or Mortal Kombat or even Battlefield 1942 (http://www.eagames.com/official/battlefield/1942/us/home.jsp) (which received a Teen ESRB rating). I wouldn't have any problem giving it a "moderate" rating for violence, but if the only options are "mild" and "strong", then either one could be misleading.

@Nudity/Sex: After much thought and literally sleeping on it, I think I'll keep the "Sex" rating. Adding another rating just for Nudity seems a little beyond the purpose of the system. In addition, chances are the game will have either nudity or nudity and sex, so the "Sex" rating will remain unchanged. "Nudity" or "Brief Nudity" appearing in the descriptor box below will clarify any confusion. I sympathize with the desire to remove nudity from the "Sex" category, but I feel there's no better choice.

How about renaming the "sex" category to "nudity" if the game only contains non-sexual nudity? It's messy, but I really don't want to support the inclusion of nudity under sex. It would feel like wearing the symbol of a religion that I don't believe in.

(And seriously, how often do you see non-sexual nudity in games? :D)

I can't say that I can think of even one example, but I can think of plenty of examples from movies. It's entirely possible that I will include non-sexual nudity in a future game. (Actually, I think nudity itself needs to be qualified. I assume you mean nudity of human or near-human characters, i.e. nude non-anthropomorphic animals, nude non-anthropomorphic robots, and non-anthropomorphic aliens don't count. What about nude babies? What about nude androgynous anthropomorphic characters?)

[Raptisoft]

Wow, this is a can of worms straight of hell now. :)

I liked it when it was EVERYONE, TEEN and ADULT. Those are so very easy to understand. And since it's voluntary, why not make it easy to use, since if someone's going to cheat, they're gonna cheat.

[soniCron]

I'm still not sure where Feyna's Quest (http://eldwood.com/feyna/index.php) fits in. It's definitely more violent than Super Mario Brothers or Pac-man. ... I wouldn't have any problem giving it a "moderate" rating for violence, but if the only options are "mild" and "strong", then either one could be misleading. Well, I just played Feyna's Quest to see what you were talking about, and the best I can come up with is that it fits under "Animated Bloodhsed". "Animated Bloodshed" is a "Mild" rating. Is there a portion of the game that I missed? (I didn't play it very long.)


How about renaming the "sex" category to "nudity" if the game only contains non-sexual nudity? How about I add "Brief Artistic Nudity" and "Artistic Nudity" to the "Themes" category?


(Actually, I think nudity itself needs to be qualified. I assume you mean nudity of human or near-human characters, i.e. nude non-anthropomorphic animals, nude non-anthropomorphic robots, and non-anthropomorphic aliens don't count. What about nude babies? What about nude androgynous anthropomorphic characters?) I guess I'll have to word it a little more specifically, but I think it's pretty clear. A tree with breasts would constitute nudity, whereas a baby clearly wouldn't.

Example:
"Prolonged graphical depiction(s) of humanoid nudity, humanoid genetalia, or female humanoid breasts"

[soniCron]

I liked it when it was EVERYONE, TEEN and ADULT. Those are so very easy to understand. And since it's voluntary, why not make it easy to use, since if someone's going to cheat, they're gonna cheat. I needed to remove "Everyone", "Teen", and "Adult" to avoid any potential copyright or trademark issues. In addition, there was quite an outcry (and justifiably so) to remove age-based ratings completely, since those are relative to each culture. Of course, a lot of the material is subjective, but not nearly as much as ages. In addition, I couldn't come up with anything better than Everyone, Teen, and Adult. All the good ones were taken by ESRB and I dare not tread on their ground. I'm already nervous "competing" with them as it stands.

What do you mean by "easy to use"? As it exists right now, it doesn't get much easier to get a rating (http://www.tigrs.org/pubeasy.php). Is there something I'm not doing right?

EDIT: removed edit

[soniCron]

@John: One of the features you requested was one in which the visitor could click the rating to learn more about what the ratings mean. Without an organized system, how would I go about doing this? Also, there are no checks or balances to make sure the person is telling the truth (and I never intend there to be). I'd really hate to lose you because you think it's too draconian.

[Raptisoft]

Well, my issue right now is... okay, Hamsterball is a kid game. Does it have violence in it? Yes... and no. It's definitely cartoon violence, and yet I don't wanna slap even "Cartoon Violence" on the game because when you say "Cartoon Violence" people simply hear "violence without the blood."

It's easy for me to say "Kids" for Hamsterball, and for Chuzzle (violent explosions of cute hairy critters) and even Hap Hazard (what I'm working on)... yet when you give me all these options you send me into a paralyzing loop of accuracy.

I mean, Hamsterball and Chuzzle could even fall under "Crude Humor" for some of the player rankings you get, or some of the Chuzzle reactions to getting tickled... even though that's a stretch, this is the kind of thing you force me to think about, even though I never have before!

Also, I don't really want the word "sex" to appear on my website at all, even as a "SEX: NONE" rating on my game.

These ratings seem geared more toward Indies who have Grand Theft Auto: Independent in the works... I mean, is there even anyone on the board who falls into ANY of the categories except "animated violence" and "crude language?"

All I really want is a "KID SAFE" category. That's all I'll use in the foreseeable future, at least until I work the bugs out of Debbie Gibson Simulator.

[soniCron]

All I really want is a "KID SAFE" category. That's all I'll use in the foreseeable future, at least until I work the bugs out of Debbie Gibson Simulator. Ok, so if the design generated as "Kid Safe" without any quantifiers when there were no objectionable qualities, that would be what you'd want? On top of that, you may be exactly right about words like "Sex" appearing when there may be a little violence. Anyone else feel this way?

[Raptisoft]

@John: One of the features you requested was one in which the visitor could click the rating to learn more about what the ratings mean. Without an organized system, how would I go about doing this? Also, there are no checks or balances to make sure the person is telling the truth (and I never intend there to be). I'd really hate to lose you because you think it's too draconian.

I'll stick to help work it out, because I think it's a good idea. Because if we don't do this, eventually the U.S. Congress will force us to anyway. It's coming, you know it.

Well... I really liked the simple letter system-- but I understand that you're afraid of ticking off the big boys. How about just add a Kid Safe category? We can just put

Voluntarily Rated KID SAFE
tigrs.org

I mean, that basically covers me all the way. And that's all parents care about. Then when they click through to www.tigrs.org/kidsafe, it tells them, like "This rating describes a game that is totally without sexual themes, strong langage (even hell and damn), or realistic violence that will give your kids nightmares, and is probably selling 1-2 copies a month on the web because you parents think it's better to put your kids in front of Sesame Street where your kids learn how to be communists instead of playing Hamsterball and learning about nature. If you find that this game violates the TIGRS rating, then please call Sonicron personally at 555-3472 and wash your head at him, and write a hot letter to Joseph Leiberman."

In fact, I think it should be that exact wording.

[Rainer Deyke]

Well, I just played Feyna's Quest to see what you were talking about, and the best I can come up with is that it fits under "Animated Bloodhsed". "Animated Bloodshed" is a "Mild" rating. Is there a portion of the game that I missed? (I didn't play it very long.)

You probably didn't get to the part of the game where you fight against human characters, and the demo on the website is doesn't include the latest changes that I've been working on the last couple of years (which arguably increase the level of violence), but the primary issue remains that Feyna's Quest contains violence which results in death. As do Pac-man, Asteroids, and Super Mario Brothers.

If you feel that Feyna's Quest should get away with a mild rating in violence for animated bloodshed, then I have no objections.

How about I add "Brief Artistic Nudity" and "Artistic Nudity" to the "Themes" category?

I have no objections, although I'm not sure if the word "artistic" really adds anything.

[soniCron]

How about just add a Kid Safe category? Like so? (KID SAFE) (http://www.tigrs.org/autorate.php?game=Hamsterball&publisher=Raptisoft&s=0&v=0&l=0&t=0)

[soniCron]

... but the primary issue remains that Feyna's Quest contains violence which results in death. As do Pac-man, Asteroids, and Super Mario Brothers. I disagree that Pac-Man, Asteroids, and Super Mario Bros would be deemed "violence resulting in death". But I'll change the wording to make that more clear.


If you feel that Feyna's Quest should get away with a mild rating in violence for animated bloodshed, then I have no objections. Well, it's definately not realistic. But the bit I played was more violent and graphic than Mario or even Earthworm Jim. Of course, it's up to you to decide your own rating, so do what you think is best for your audience. ;)


I have no objections, although I'm not sure if the word "artistic" really adds anything. It will in the minds of American mothers. (Especially the jaded ones. "Oh, well, it's artistic. I'm avant garde." ;))

[papillon]

I mean, is there even anyone on the board who falls into ANY of the categories except "animated violence" and "crude language?"


Depends. Let's take my schoolgirls game, which is clearly in MY mind somewhere in the vicinity of a VERY tame PG-13.

Filling out the 'easy' form with a rough guess (not knowing what counts) I get STRONG sexual content, STRONG themes, in big scary red letters.

What constitutes "references to" sexual activity? The word sex is never used. No word relating to ANY sexual act is ever used. But (minor spoiler warning) one character mentions being worried that she could have gotten pregnant after a party. So she clearly HAD sex (Or is just really, really confused, which is also an option with teenagers.) Is that a reference to sexual activity? Does this deserve a STRONG RED WARNING of the same level as having actual high-res 3d realtime porn onscreen?

The other big red warning I get is for tobacco and alcohol. Yes! I am writing a game about teenagers! They mention booze and cigarettes! - Of course, the game bars you from playing a smoker and mentions how very rude it is to get your nasty smoke in the faces of unwilling victims (Can you tell I hate smoke? :) ) And while there is the possibility of drinking in the game, there are serious negative consequences for doing it.

So yes, there's alcohol use, but it's not really comparable to the sort of game you would expect to see a big red substance abuse warning label on.

[soniCron]

What constitutes "references to" sexual activity? The word sex is never used. No word relating to ANY sexual act is ever used. But (minor spoiler warning) one character mentions being worried that she could have gotten pregnant after a party. So she clearly HAD sex (Or is just really, really confused, which is also an option with teenagers.) Is that a reference to sexual activity? No. Even if it was, nobody would be knocking on your door making you change it. Its for the developers to decide what best fits their game.


The other big red warning I get is for tobacco and alcohol. Yes! I am writing a game about teenagers! They mention booze and cigarettes! ... And while there is the possibility of drinking in the game, there are serious negative consequences for doing it. I've adjusted the system (not publicly) to not increase severity of the "Themes" category if only "Mild" descriptors are used. Only a "Strong" descriptor will be able to elevate the "Themes" category to "Strong". And that would include consumption of alcohol. Now, with the exception of allowing the player to drink alcohol, your ratings have just been reduced to "Mild".


On to the alcohol consumption. Good or bad, it's in there. The reason there are descriptors is to quantify why a particular category rated strongly. It's up to the downloaded to decide if it's offensive to them. That said, if enough people think that alcoholic consumption should be kicked down a notch, let me know.

Nobody has to use this system. It was designed so developers can let their audience know about potentially offensive materials before they download the game. While the system does need tweaking and massaging, I think the thruth of the matter is that none(?) of you have been in front of a ratings board before. And the funny thing is, that ratings board is you! Let me ask a question. What would the bible be rated? ;)

[Raptisoft]

Like so? (KID SAFE) (http://www.tigrs.org/autorate.php?game=Hamsterball&publisher=Raptisoft&s=0&v=0&l=0&t=0)

Yeah, that looks pretty good!

[Raptisoft]

Don't forget to add a "topless sorority girl pillow fight" category for Papillion, too.

[papillon]

Nobody has to use this system. It was designed so developers can let their audience know about potentially offensive materials before they download the game.


This is understood, it's just that it doesn't currently seem to be all that useful to anyone, so we're trying to find better ways to express. :)

I *have* put a vague disclaimer on that particular game, just to try and give people a headsup that it's not quite a little-kids-best-friends game to hand to your eight year old. But because the context is so important, I wouldn't want to put a generic "sex, drugs, and rock'and'roll!" label on it that might give someone the wrong impression.

While I understand that you can't use their age rankings for various reasons, I would be happier having something like a big "Teen" or "Not Quite Everyone" rating on it that could be clicked for more information and then gave a breakdown of why, exactly, the game was aimed at teenagers.



EDIT: Drat, and I don't have the right technology for a good pillow fight! Who's got the 3d and the physics models? C'mon. Extra bonus points if you make someone step on the pizza!

[soniCron]

But because the context is so important, I wouldn't want to put a generic "sex, drugs, and rock'and'roll!" label on it that might give someone the wrong impression. ...I would be happier having something like a big "Teen" or "Not Quite Everyone" rating on it that could be clicked for more information and then gave a breakdown of why, exactly, the game was aimed at teenagers. Unfortunately, that's beyond the scope of this project. The method you suggested offers no level of standardization and thus is not the intention of TIGRS. It sounds to me that what you already have is best suited for it. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

[Adrian Lopez]

This is understood, it's just that it doesn't currently seem to be all that useful to anyone, so we're trying to find better ways to express. :)

Ultimately, I think it's best to describe the content in simple english. It would help developers avoid inadequate content levels/descriptors and thus provide the most flexibility. Such a thing would be closer to the system I had in mind before soniCron ran away with the idea, where the important thing would be the degree of caution advised to customers for the game as a whole and where discretion is excercised by the developer according to a set of voluntary (and hence, flexible) guidelines. Content details would then be disclosed by the developer in the manner which is most appropriate for his game, again according to a set of voluntary guidelines.

I think I'll proceed with my own system. I just need an artist who is willing to work for peanuts and give up all rights to his work :D.

[soniCron]

EDIT: Removed

[soniCron]

This is understood, it's just that it doesn't currently seem to be all that useful to anyone, so we're trying to find better ways to express. :) How about this:

What if there was no limitation on the rating you could get. Say, a rating from 0-5, 5 being the most severe. You pick the ratings for each of the 4 categories, and then pick the relevant descriptors appearing below (from a large list of common descriptions). That way, you can control how much of a "warning" to send out, and you can pick what information to show the audience to further quantify that rating? That way, something like papillon's game, would get a 1 for the alcohol, since it's a "don't do this" situation.

Thoughts?

[Adrian Lopez]

Like I said, sometimes it's better to say things in english. For example, what if you have an educational title that discusses sex -- images and everything -- in a frank but responsible manner? In that case, it's hard to assign a degree of severity because we're working with conflicting values (images of sex v.s. education). In the current form of the ratings, should we give it a "strong" or a "mild"? Using numbers, should we assign it a 1, a 3 or a 5?

[soniCron]

Like I said, sometimes it's better to say things in english. For example, what if you have an educational title that discusses sex -- images and everything -- in a frank but responsible manner?

There's no purpose for a rating system if there's nothing being rated
That's something the text on the website should handle and is beyond the scope of any rating system

[Adrian Lopez]

There's no purpose for a rating system if there's nothing being ratedI'm not suggesting that nothing should be rated, but that a particular grading system isn't always appropriate. Words such as "mild" and "strong" can be misleading, while numbers can be too vague.

That's something the text on the website should handle and is beyond the scope of any rating systemI'm saying that in certain cases substance is more important than form. Anything you can say using standardised grades and content descriptors you can say in English, except that in English you can say it a lot more accurately. I do agree that plain English isn't part of any rating system, but the point I was trying to make is that certain things are better left out of a rating system.

For instance, the ESRB needs content descriptors at the back of the box because box space is at a premium, but in the online word the use of English is probably the better choice.

[GameStudioD]

Although I have doubts about the legitimacy of such a rating system, I do like the idea.

A system where a game publisher gives themselves their own content rating is simply untrustworthy. Consumers can somewhat put faith into a 'G' rated movie or 'E' rated game because an independent organization reviews the content and issues the rating. I am not saying to lie, but be conscious and do not emphasize the fact that the rating system has no credibility.

Everyone has thrown in their two cents in about how the ratings should look like, and I suppose I should too. First, the icons look terrible. If I had a nice looking game, I would not want to throw in an ugly looking icon, which was thrown together in AI in an afternoon. Flip over a DVD and the rating is easily identifiable. Movie ratings use a standard font, using two colors (usually black & white). Your icons have a funky, unrecognizable font that is hard to read. Choose a sharper font. The colors do not make much sense to me either.

I would suggest using a system that people can identify with. Games are supposed to be fun, so make the rating system fun. Use smiley faces.

The 'Everybody' rating: :)
The 'Teen' rating: :eek:
The 'Mature' or 'Devilish' rating: :D (Imagine devil horns on the smiley face.)

Maybe have some text next to it to further describe the reason for the particular rating, just like movies.

[soniCron]

For instance, the ESRB needs content descriptors at the back of the box because box space is at a premium, but in the online word the use of English is probably the better choice. I'm confused as to how you propose to create a rating system that utilizes English to quantify an appropriate rating. And to that end, how is it different from saying "This game educates children about sexual activities in a mature and thoughtful manner." on the website text that already exists. The purpose of a rating system is to inform the reader about potentially offensive material in an organized manner, but you refuse to "limit" yourself to using ratings. I'm just not seeing how that's a rating system at all. In addition, there's no level of organization if any old English is used, which makes it identical to putting any old English on the website without a rating "system". I'm really confused and feel like I'm totally missing something. Help! :)

[Adrian Lopez]

I'm confused as to how you propose to create a rating system that utilizes English to quantify an appropriate rating.I didn't say it would be part of a rating system. Instead, I'm suggesting that certain things are better left out of a rating system, and that whatever remains should be structured to avoid either vague or inadequate "grades".

And to that end, how is it different from saying "This game educates children about sexual activities in a mature and thoughtful manner" on the website text that already exists.Aside from providing a summary of offensive content in a single place, no difference at all.

In addition, there's no level of organization if any old English is used, which makes it identical to putting any old English on the website without a rating "system".Again, the idea is to leave certain things out of the rating system and instead provide a set of flexible, unifying guidelines for developers to follow.

:)

PS - Anybody remember RSAC (http://www.3drealms.com/tech/rsac.html)?

[soniCron]

A system where a game publisher gives themselves their own content rating is simply untrustworthy. Consumers can somewhat put faith into a 'G' rated movie or 'E' rated game because an independent organization reviews the content and issues the rating. Granted, but is it really in the publisher's interest to lie? A parent downloads a game thinking it has decent content only to find out that is quite questionable? In the downloadable games industry we're in, nobody's paying before playing.

Everything else: noted and considering....

[soniCron]

First, the icons look terrible. If I had a nice looking game, I would not want to throw in an ugly looking icon, which was thrown together in AI in an afternoon. I took this very personally (good thing) and you're absolutely right. I've got a lot of experience in design and why I let something so hideous pass as even acceptable is beyond me. (Barring the current TIGRS website, which, frankly, I don't care about, design-wise.) I was so bent on the function that I really ignored the form. So, I hopped back in the water and started fiddling. Two things were on my mind when I was working with the design this time:

Your suggestion of fun iconography, especially the idea with the smileys
John Raptis' want/need for the kid-friendly icon rating

When John asked for that, I thought, "Why hadn't I thought of that?" So I sat down for three seconds and whipped up a "welcoming" "Kid Safe" icon. But while I worked I kept thinking how it was not as playful and fun as it should be, being a kids' icon after all. Unfortunately, this didn't seem to trigger anything in my brain that the whole thing was in dire need of help!

Needless to say, I loved the idea with the smileys, but thought I'd take it a step further. These are ratings for online games, right? So what better than online smileys! (emoticons) I sat down with the sole purpose of making a new design that was

first fun
then functional

That's not to say they're not functional. But by doing what I know best (the design), the function came naturally, and in a big way. So, I submit for your approval (that's everyone!)...

the new TIGRS design! (http://www.tigrs.org/proto1.gif) (work-in-progress)

[botman]

Hey SoniCron. I just wanna say those new logos really are great.

I didn't want to push the issue, but I didn't like the previous ones at all, the font you had used, and the rounded corners on the text boxes, looked too much like Grand Theft Auto to me. Dunno if anyone else agrees, but I couldn't look at them without thinking GTA.

But those new icons, they are funny, the yare smart (I think black-n-white is good for them), and they deliver a clear message. If they need to be elaborated on, I don't know. I think the Zero and Very are fine, but the Some tag might need to be expanded on (eg/ is it some violence, or some swearing, etc).

I'll leave that one up to you!

P.S. I almost want to make an adults only game just as an excuse to slap that Very logo on my website!

Edit:

Ah, there is one issue. I shrunk them down to 25% to try them out on my site, and the text ends up reading:

Zero
Content

Some
Content

Very
Content

:p

[soniCron]

If they need to be elaborated on, I don't know. I think the Zero and Very are fine, but the Some tag might need to be expanded on (eg/ is it some violence, or some swearing, etc). I'll leave that one up to you! Yes, I've been thinking of somehow showing more detail about the rating without mucking up the design. The best I've come up with so far is having more detail become visible with a mouseover, but I'm not thrilled about that idea. Nothing I've come up with yet has really struck me. It'll come to me eventually.

As far as the old design looking ugly: I KNOW!! :D I don't know what I was thinking! I tell ya, doing everything in its entirety yesterday over 23 no-break hours was a bad, bad, BAD idea! Ah well. You live and you learn. ;) I know better now!

[soniCron]

Ah, there is one issue. I shrunk them down to 25% to try them out on my site, and the text ends up reading:

Zero
Content

Some
Content

Very
Content

:p :) Yes, I am aware of this issue. I'm toying around with some ideas, but it seems they are still quite readable, without being misleading, at around 64x101 pixels. (I'll be recommending 81x128.) If there is much need to go smaller than that, I'd appreciate the feedback. I'm fooling with the text sizes, but the funny thing is, this is, by far, the most attractive. If people are that worried about it, I can change it. But I can't imagine people needing it much smaller than 64x101. Except you, apparently. ;)

[soniCron]

I didn't want to push the issue, but I didn't like the previous ones at all... And one last thing: SHAME ON YOU FOR NOT SPEAKING UP! ;) I expect honest feedback from as many people as have opinions and feel like sharing them. That includes you! :D

[botman]

Hehe. Umm, I don't like rollover either. I'd like something that works in print as well.

Now just to ramble for a bit. In the manual of Playstation 2 games here (and I'm sure other games), there is always an explanation of some European game rating system, that uses icons. For example, a needle for drug references, etc.

The weird thing though, is, every time I've seen the explanation, I've never actually been able to find the games rating, anywhere. I mean the spend a page explaining the thing, and then they don't even seem to use it. You would expect it to be on the back of the box or something, but I've never found it.

If anyone knows what I'm talking about, enlighten me!

[botman]

And one last thing: SHAME ON YOU FOR NOT SPEAKING UP! ;) I expect honest feedback from as many people as have opinions and feel like sharing them. That includes you! :D

Sorry for the double post, but, ahem! Last post (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=3607) :p

[soniCron]

Sorry for the double post, but, ahem! Last post (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=3607) :p Touché! I found that right after I hit send. I was like, "Someone said that, I wonder if it was him..." and it was! :)

[botman]

Like I said, I really wanted to see the Very in action (http://www.systemworks.co.nz/chris/mockup.gif)! :D

[Anthony Flack]

Clearly the text needs some work... Apart from not working too well when scaled, I also don't think that the "Zero Objectionable Content" one should say it like that. It should phrase it positively, like "Family Safe" or something. "Some Objectionable Content" sounds a bit vague. And "Very Objectionable Content" sounds... wrong, somehow.

But I like the idea of using smileys. Although I don't really like the way they get all warped as the content becomes more objectionable. What if the smileys stayed a little more pure... more like the standard :-) :-/ >:-) or at least didn't go quite so over the top...

And I also think that reinstating the colour coding would help.

[DanDanger]

What an interesting thread,

Ill chuck my tuppence worth in if its okay:

Love the three icons, I like the idea of three faces showing a reaction to the content of the game. Maybe the middle icon might benefit from being more "wide eyed" than frowning?

The text is pretty bad though "Very Objectional Content", I would never put that on anything I was trying to sell. How about using the word "Adult" instead of objectionable? So you might have something like "zero adult content", "some adult content" and ""adult content".

[Raptisoft]

Dudes and Dudettes, there's just no way to get away from the succinctness that is Kids, Teens, Adult. The real problem with that though is that "Teens" is insanely non-specific. "Kid Safe" and "Adult" work great, you just need a good word for the inbetween.

And I like the icons too... though they could be a little less expressive, more iconic, methinks.

Edit: "zero adult content", "some adult content" and ""adult content"... I don't like these because they're "negative" toward the people who need the rating system the most. Games shouldn't be rated with ADULT CONTENT being "standard" and kid safe stuff holding the modifier. The base level of a game should be "kid safe" with modifiers piled on top of it. Am I alone in thinking this? Adults don't care about ratings for themselves, but putting "Zero Adult Content" on a kid game already raises red flags just because the word "ADULT CONTENT XXX" appears there.

Edit again: Just musing here, but what about:

FAMILY - safe for everyone
TEEN - references adult themes without depicting them (this is like the Papillion clause)
ADULT - depicts adult themes

[botman]

Clearly how expressive the icons should be is a matter of opinion, reading what other people have written. :p

But I think Raptisoft's idea is good. Just Family, Teen, and Adult.

[Abscissa]

Edit again: Just musing here, but what about:

FAMILY - safe for everyone
TEEN - references adult themes without depicting them (this is like the Papillion clause)
ADULT - depicts adult themesI don't like that. It leads us right back to the problem of age, which is this: Exactly what constitutes an "adult theme" is region-specific. In much of Europe, it may include violence and strong depictions of sex, but in the US it will be taken as almost anything sexual, or even just nude or topless, and irrelevant to the concept violence.

[Rainer Deyke]

Personally I don't like the new icon system. Just saying that some content may be objectionable without elaborating in what is objectionable about it is useless in my mind, because different people find different things objectionable. For example, I wouldn't try to shield my kids (if I had any) from nudity or language, which are totally non-offensive in my mind. I also don't like the way the middle icon looks at all. I liked the 0-5 number system, although personally I would have used numbers instead of words (maybe "none", "mild", "moderate", "strong", and "extreme", although that's just five levels).

[soniCron]

Just saying that some content may be objectionable without elaborating in what is objectionable about it is useless in my mind, because different people find different things objectionable. Maybe I didn't mention that this is only the iconographic portion of the rating. I'm still figuring out how to add on the rating system and descriptors. But they'll all be there.

[Drake]

Games shouldn't be rated with ADULT CONTENT being "standard" and kid safe stuff holding the modifier. The base level of a game should be "kid safe" with modifiers piled on top of it. Am I alone in thinking this?
No, you are not alone. I too would be very reluctant to put the words "sex" and "violence" anywhere on a page promoting an all-ages game. It creates an unnecessary mental association, I think.

SoniCron, if a game's content in a given category equates to none, why not just omit that line? If all categories = none, then maybe you could write something like "suitable for all ages" instead.

Edit: I may be looking at a system that's already defunct. You seem to have something like this going on....

[soniCron]

SoniCron, if a game's content in a given category equates to none, why not just omit that line? If all categories = none, then maybe you could write something like "suitable for all ages" instead. The old design already does that: Example (http://www.tigrs.org/autorate.php?game=Hamsterball&publisher=Raptisoft&s=0&v=0&l=0&t=0)

Of course, now I'm coming up with a more attractive method of showing that. ;)

[Drake]

The old design already does that: Example (http://www.tigrs.org/autorate.php?game=Hamsterball&publisher=Raptisoft&s=0&v=0&l=0&t=0)
Sorry, I was looking at this page (http://tigrs.org/ratings.php). Things are changing so fast!

[Drake]

OK, so I went through the automated process and created a rating for a game that contains only animated violence. I still see ratings of none for sex, language, and themes. What do you think about omitting those?

[soniCron]

I still see ratings of none for sex, language, and themes. What do you think about omitting those? I'm thinking of possibly only having the descriptors with the three new icons (http://www.tigrs.org/proto1.gif). I'd leave out the categorical ratings altogether and just build an extensive library of descriptors. In my opinion, these should be more effective than impersonal and arbitrary rating levels which nobody can seem to agree on. In addition, leaving out the per-category ratings will automatically keep out any references of sex, drugs, violence, language, etc if it doesn't apply to the game at hand. A system of positive reinforcement, rather than negative. "It has this, this, and this" I'm learning, is much better than, "It doesn't have this, this, and this"

[GameStudioD]

The new icons look much better and they have some personality. Most of the time the icons will be in-game or on a webpage, so the user could click on the icon to get more information. Thus, you do not have to cram too much text into the icon.

I am not a very good graphic designer, but I have done quite a bit of desktop publishing work. I do not know how many times I have had to recreate a logo in AI because the image I had low resolution. Easy recreation was an additional reason why I thought the original icons, with a difficult to identify font, were not up to snuff. The new icons use solid shapes and an Arial type font, which makes recreating the icons very easy. Try not to target a specific icon size and provide an optional vector graphics version of the icons in the final release.

[Anthony Flack]

Yep, that way we can put the "Adult content" one on a T shirt.

[Drake]

Not to steal soniCron's thunder, but I've begun work on a rating system of my own. Please feel free to check out this thread (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=3653) and give me feedback. Thanks.

[Adrian Lopez]

Such a thing would be closer to the system I had in mind [...] where the important thing would be the degree of caution advised to customers for the game as a whole [..]
I'm just full of great ideas, aren't I? :D

I like the new icons, and I especially like how they're simple yet meaningful.

[Rainer Deyke]

I'm thinking of possibly only having the descriptors with the three new icons (http://www.tigrs.org/proto1.gif). I'd leave out the categorical ratings altogether and just build an extensive library of descriptors. In my opinion, these should be more effective than impersonal and arbitrary rating levels which nobody can seem to agree on. In addition, leaving out the per-category ratings will automatically keep out any references of sex, drugs, violence, language, etc if it doesn't apply to the game at hand. A system of positive reinforcement, rather than negative. "It has this, this, and this" I'm learning, is much better than, "It doesn't have this, this, and this"

I'm not sure if that's a good idea. Isn't the purpose of the rating system as much to provide assurances as to what the game doesn't contain as it is to warn about what the game does contain?

[Anthony Flack]

Really? I don't remember seeing G rated movies advertised as having "NO graphic violence, NO explicit sex, NO offensive language, NO drug use"

[soniCron]

I'm not sure if that's a good idea. Isn't the purpose of the rating system as much to provide assurances as to what the game doesn't contain as it is to warn about what the game does contain? If I was your doctor, and you thought you had strep throat, would you rather I told you you didn't have AIDS first? ;)

[Bmc]

You know, for something like this... you should be doing market research to see what is most effective. Asking developers and CUSTOMERS (especially customers) what they think would work the best, has the clearest meanings etc...

You're current rating system model just doesn't cut it.

[soniCron]

You're current rating system model just doesn't cut it. And that is precisely why it's being changed. :rolleyes:

[Fost]

I hate to throw my own comments into the bag here, when they are adverse to what everyone else is saying as it might not be much help.

BUT - I just couldn't help myself (sorry) :)

Anyway - I was actually thinking of doing something like this myself a while back because we already put a voluntarily rated icon on our box and we have a game in production that will need an adult rating. When I saw the work that had been put into the Tigrs stuff (fantastic work btw) I immediately wanted to use and support tigrs, however when I looked at it now it has become of no use to us.

I appreciate that everybody has different opinions on sex and violence, but the reason we (at Moonpod) bother to rate a game is to give parents an indication whether they need to put a bit of extra research in before buying it. Yes - the additional information needs to be there, on the back of the box, in the more detailed about page, from a link to a helpful web site that explains it in great detail (tigrs.org :) ), but there still needs to be a simple iconic representation or number that can be placed on a box front, or at the top of a website about page. All the rating systems currently in use have this initial iconic/numeric indicator to age, and, all other arguments against age ratings aside, those rating systems all use some indication of age to do this.

I fully understand the arguments against age ratings, but try and put yourself in the parent's shoes - they will immediately understand an age rating, will they understand different faces?

Yes, the extra information needs to be there, so parents can make their own minds up if they have different views on violence or sex, but I don't think anything other than an age indicator will be of any use to them - they already use and understand rating systems based on age - why would they want anything different?

Sorry to throw another viewpoint into the mix, and bring the discussion full circle. I definitely want to support tigrs if I can and appreciate the great efforts that have gone into it so far.

[Reactor]

I don't like those icons. Our game would have a picture of a guy with a concerned look on his face. That makes our game look quite bad, when it's actually not. It's not a happy-bunny kind of game, but those icons don't even come close to representing the game's content.

I agree with Fost. A (suggested) age rating really does need to come into it somewhere. We added one to our faq, because a number of younger kids I know wanted to play the game. It says, "We recommend Cellblock Squadrons for ages 12 and over." and that's it. And, a rating system (I feel) would work well as that... an icon that mentions both what the game's content is, and the age group it was designed for.

Game designed for: Ages 12+
Content: Low level graphic violence

All my opinion, into the cooking pot :) Thanks for your efforts, soniCron.

[soniCron]

Thing have been pretty slow over the past several days because I've been helping my wife recover from her surgery. (She's doing great!) However, I've gotten some stuff worked out in my head, and here's what I feel is the most appropriate way to please everyone:

The current content icons (http://www.tigrs.org/proto1.gif) will remain, with only minor change.
The middle icon will be adjusted to be as playful as the other two, while still displaying a level of caution.
There will be age ratings below the graphic, and the icons will serve to imply the age appropriateness through standardization and common usage.
There will be two distinct designs:

Online - The icon can be clicked on for more information about the rating, including a list of publisher-selected descriptors to quantify the rating the publisher picked.
Offline - Similar to the ESRB back-of-the-box rating with the descriptors extended from the right side of the icon.

Of course, the offline design can be used online if desired, or vice versa (depending on the desires of the publisher).
There will be a rich list of descriptive content descriptors available to accent any rating the publisher chooses.

Age ratings will be available in replacement of the current text. The age ratings will be:

Family Friendly
Recommended for Teens
Recommended for Adults

This desicsion will not be changed unless there is some really reasonable discussion convincing me otherwise. I feel the necessity for age ratings exists because parents may already be used to ESRB ratings, which are international. A lot of you will not like that.

However, since the rating system is entirely self-regulated, there are no restrictions to what descriptors you use to quantify the rating you chose. If you want to use a "Family Friendly" rating with "Strong Sexual Content", that is your perogative (and your problem). TIGRS has not the capacity to enforce consistent ratings, so it will be a community effort to keep the integrity of the icons and ratings.

I hope that by allowing the community to use a set of standardized icons and descriptors, a general level of integrity will be established within, such that no level of enforcement will be required and freedom is given entirely to the publisher. However, because of the nature of the rating system, there will be one above-all restriction:

The product rated must be of an interactive entertainment medium and must be primarily available for trying before buying. Any non try-before-you-buy distrobution (i.e. retail) must indicate on the box (or other pre-sales materials) the location where the trial version can be found online.

This means no retail-only games. Because the rating system is self-regulated, any method of forcing the user to buy the product before evaluating the content to see if the rating is appropriate is prohibited. I think this is a fair restriction, given the circumstances.

Thoughts?

(@Fost and Reactor: thanks for the support, guys!)

[Chris Evans]

I just want to add (since I didn't mention it before) that I really like the web system you have in place. I really like the automated self-regulating system you implemented.

Anyway, don't worry about pleasing everybody. There's always going to be dissenting voices in community projects. Both sides may have valid arguments so you just have to go with your gut and personal vision of the project. If the system works even some of the dissenters will get onboard. Plus you can always make improvements/modifications as you go if any pertinent issues arise.

Just concentrate on actually getting a few developers to use the TIGRS with their products and you'll be golden. Obviously the TIGRS may not fit for everybody after all we're independent developers and our goals and needs vary wildly, and that's cool. I see the TIGRS as an available tool, which developer can choose to use or not. Not necessarily as a system which will work for all Indies.

[soniCron]

Anyway, don't worry about pleasing everybody. There's always going to be dissenting voices in community projects. Both sides may have valid arguments so you just have to go with your gut and personal vision of the project. If the system works even some of the dissenters will get onboard. Plus you can always make improvements/modifications as you go if any pertinent issues arise. In my last post, I forgot to mention (though it was implied) that there won't be any more flip-flopping. I am going to be using the "American" style system (age ratings, et al). The more successful developers that have shown support for TIGRS have been those interested in such a system, and since I'm from the US, it's something I'm very familiar with.

I wanted to please as many developers as possible, because they're the ones who will ultimately decide if they'll use it or not. But it has become clear that not nearly everyone can be pleased, and I only hope that with the continued support of some of the established developers, this system can really take off as the primary source of regulation in the online gaming world.


I just want to add (since I didn't mention it before) that I really like the web system you have in place. I really like the automated self-regulating system you implemented. Thank you for the support! Since the system is moving to an entirely self-rated method, it's possible the automated web form will be reduced to nothing more than "Check all that apply," but the automation will remain as the primary source of ratings creation. At the very least, the automated system was a good excersize in PHP programming, of which that was my first attempt.

[C_Coder]

When you say characters or death are specifically saying that there must be human or creature similar beings or does this also include tanks and vehicles?

[soniCron]

When you say characters or death are specifically saying that there must be human or creature similar beings or does this also include tanks and vehicles? This will be addressed in more detail once the current system is overhauled, but it means non-vehicular combat and/or violence. It also doesn't include robots, unless the robot is particularly human-like.

[Greg Squire]

I like how it's coming along. I like the icons (maybe with a little work as previously suggested). I hope the age descriptive text will shrink down okay. "Recommended for Teens" seems a bit long to shrink real small; although it might shrink just fine (just have to see, I guess). If it doesn't, I'm sure you can come up with something that will (even "for Teens" or "for 12+" might work just fine too). Also, I like the phrase "Family Friendly"; in fact, that's the same phrase I was planning on using (and still will) when promoting my game (and future games).

Thanks again for your work in creating this for the community.