British ratings board: violent video games less harmful than movies

**Shrygue** · April 24th, 2007, 21:45

via Joystiq

The British Board of Film Classification, which assigns content ratings to both films and video games, says that video game violence is less influential and harmful to young players than violence in films or television. The board came to this conclusion as a result of their 107-page study, "Playing Video Games," featuring interviews with players ranging from very young children to the middle-aged.

Says BBFC spokeswoman Sue Clark, "We have traditionally taken the view that because a game is interactive, by definition we need to be more careful. But ... one of the key conclusions of this report is that interactivity actually helps players distance reality from adult experiences in games." The study was conducted to prepare for a revision of the BBFC's video-game ratings system -- which means that their new ratings may actually become less restrictive.

A study, huh? Using research, data, and possibly even science to draw conclusions? Silly Brits! We independent-minded Americans can make judgements without any facts whatsoever!

**Basil Zero** · April 24th, 2007, 23:41

What do these people who research video games know? Have they ever played a video game?

**fpcreator2000** · April 25th, 2007, 02:57

Originally Posted by YKB

via Joystiq

The British Board of Film Classification, which assigns content ratings to both films and video games, says that video game violence is less influential and harmful to young players than violence in films or television. The board came to this conclusion as a result of their 107-page study, "Playing Video Games," featuring interviews with players ranging from very young children to the middle-aged.

Says BBFC spokeswoman Sue Clark, "We have traditionally taken the view that because a game is interactive, by definition we need to be more careful. But ... one of the key conclusions of this report is that interactivity actually helps players distance reality from adult experiences in games." The study was conducted to prepare for a revision of the BBFC's video-game ratings system -- which means that their new ratings may actually become less restrictive.

A study, huh? Using research, data, and possibly even science to draw conclusions? Silly Brits! We independent-minded Americans can make judgements without any facts whatsoever!

Damn skippy! You little whipper-snappers! We americans do not need science, logic, or reason to tell us what is right. It's right 'cause we say so. Hellz yeah.
:rofl:

**rbervoets** · April 25th, 2007, 07:31

Originally Posted by fpcreator2000

Damn skippy! You little whipper-snappers! We americans do not need science, logic, or reason to tell us what is right. It's right 'cause we say so. Hellz yeah.
:rofl:

lol !
RIGHT ON !

:thumbup: :thumbup:

**ficksucker** · April 25th, 2007, 08:22

Well if video games are less harmful than television then they really arn't very harmful at all. Most studies of TV and violent behavior have found correlations of around than 0.25 -meaning it was only able to account for about 6% of aggression. If video games account for even less... why even bother?

But this "study" seems to be composed completely of interviews... still, it's good to hear that games are less harmful than TV for a change. Hopefully somone will follow up with more thurough studies.