This blog post points out the irrational evaluation method and excessive regulation of the Game Rating Board and presents realistic solutions to solve these problems.
Recently, various controversies about games have emerged. In particular, the shutdown system, which was introduced to prevent teenagers from playing games late at night, caused a great deal of controversy and is still having an impact. Amidst these various problems with games, the Game Rating Board, which evaluates such games, is also becoming as controversial as the shutdown system. In this article, we will take a look at the Game Rating Board, which has been a hot potato for more than a year as the debate over its abolition continues. First, we will take a look at the organization and describe its problems and solutions.
Most people have probably heard of the Game Rating Board, or “GeDongWi” for short. (Hereafter referred to as “GeDongWi.”) To be more precise, this organization is a public institution under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism that conducts pre-censorship on all games produced and distributed in Korea to determine their rating. There have been organizations that have played this role in the past, but it was not until the Video Rating Board took on this role in 2002 that it began to play a proper role. However, the importance of game evaluation was recognized after the 2006 “Sea Story” controversy, and as a result, the need for an evaluation agency for games themselves, not videos, arose. This is how the Game Rating Board, an organization specializing in game evaluation, came into being.
There are many reasons why the Game Evaluation Committee has recently been in the spotlight. Two of the main reasons are that there is no objective evaluation and that the scope of application is too broad. These two issues mean that the Game Evaluation Committee, as a national institution, lacks a proper understanding of game content and is not fulfilling its role. To verify this, we will conduct an in-depth analysis of the two problems mentioned above. Afterwards, we will present a comprehensive conclusion and a solution.
The first problem is that there is no objective evaluation. Currently, the G-EPD is divided into areas such as sex appeal, violence, fear, inappropriate language, drugs, crime, and gambling, and each is analyzed to determine the rating. At first glance, it may seem to be a very objective and rational method. However, in reality, analyzing each area is very subjective, and the current GGE is conducting all of these deliberations in private. Moreover, it rarely accepts any objections to its assessments. In other words, although it has divided the areas, it is ultimately conducting subjective assessments in private. This can be seen more clearly in the cases of games that have been improperly assessed.
For example, let’s take a look at the work “Ninokuni: Queen of the White Congress.” This is a fairy tale-like game created by Studio Ghibli, famous for “Spirited Away” and other films, in collaboration with another company. However, the KEC decided that the game contained a slot machine, which could lead to the game being considered a gambling game, and thus decided to ban the game from being played by minors. This is like the rating of a book as unsuitable for minors because it contains a scene in which the protagonist tries to kill someone with poison. Studio Ghibli was famous for making animations for children and teenagers, and since this game was also made for such purposes, it seemed very self-evident that it was not a game that should be restricted to teenagers. In addition, no other country has given the game an extreme rating of being restricted to teenagers. In this situation, the KEC’s decision did not resonate with many people and caused controversy, but in the end, the appeal was not accepted.
In addition to this, there are many other cases where the ratings were contrary to common sense and differed from the ratings around the world. There are various reasons for this, such as treating food that enhances abilities commonly used in games as a drug and banning it from being used by minors. If a company receives an unexpected rating as a result of such an evaluation, it could be a huge loss for the company. In the case of Nino Kuni mentioned earlier, the film was highly anticipated due to its reputation as a Ghibli Studio film before the rating was announced. However, it was not officially released in Korea because it was rated as unsuitable for children. In this regard, the KEC’s evaluation criteria are very irrational and can be considered a major problem.
The second problem is that the scope of application is very broad. There is no problem with the games of companies that want to sell them commercially in Korea being evaluated and rated. However, the current policy of the KGRB is that all games that are simply posted non-commercially must also be evaluated. In other words, even in gatherings such as amateur game making cafes or clubs, their works must be evaluated before they can be posted on the Internet. This is an excessive policy even when compared to other genres such as writing and video. Moreover, the KEGLE’s evaluation fee is very expensive for small groups or individuals to afford. (In the case of a networked PC RPG game, the evaluation fee is close to 1 million won.) The evaluation period is also quite long, which can be considered unreasonable in many ways. Recently, the regulations have been somewhat relaxed for smartphone games, but they are still in effect for PC games and the like.
One example is the case where the Game Rating Board sent an official letter to a community where small developers post and rate each other’s works. The letter asked that all the works in that community be evaluated by the Game Rating Board, or else all the games would be deleted from the Internet. It was very difficult for those who were just making and sharing games. In order for all games to be evaluated, a huge amount of money was required that the general community could not afford, and if they were not evaluated, community activities would no longer be possible. This is very ridiculous, considering the words of Article 21, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states that “expression of will should be freely expressed, whether individually or collectively.”
These problems will ultimately hinder the development of the game industry and development talent. Let’s take a closer look at the game industry from the perspective of large companies and small individuals. From the perspective of companies, the above-mentioned unreasonable ratings can cause great damage. Large companies spend billions of dollars on a single game, and if such a game receives an unexpected rating that is not suitable for teenagers, it will be a huge blow. Some companies are taking measures to resolve this, such as revising the identified issues and undergoing a re-evaluation, but they have to accept some degree of damage. In the case of small-scale individuals, they often create games with a relatively small budget, and in this case, the relatively very expensive evaluation fee becomes an issue. This situation makes it difficult to create small-scale games, and it results in individual developers giving up their activities.
To solve the above problems, I would like to suggest a few solutions. There are two main solutions. First, to leave the assessment to private companies, and second, to create a realistic assessment system. The system I am referring to here is the scope of what actually needs to be assessed. There may be other structural changes that need to be made, but these two are the main solutions. Extreme measures such as banning are not good, and I will discuss this last. Below, I will provide details and verification of these two solutions.
The first solution is to have private companies evaluate games, not the government. The rationale behind this is that people who know a lot about games should evaluate them. It is difficult for experts who are familiar with games to play a pivotal role in a government-affiliated organization like the current one. Not only are public officials not experts in their departments due to their internal structure, but they also have little sense of belonging. In this regard, the privatization of game evaluation agencies will improve the overall quality and ensure the objectivity of the aforementioned evaluation to a certain extent. This privatization can also be seen in the cases of other countries. In the United States, Europe, and Japan, where the game industry is currently well developed, game evaluation is based on private self-governing deliberation. In some cases, such as China, games are evaluated by the state, but this is because China is a socialist state. Other countries are not like this. In other words, in general, game evaluation is centered on private deliberation. It is not necessarily good to do this in other countries, but in the current situation, it would be very helpful to refer to other countries’ examples.
The second option is to propose a realistic rating agency system. Here, the second problem, which is the too wide range of applications, must be addressed. It is not good for anyone, from the perspective of the agency’s efforts or the developers, to evaluate all simple games made by amateur developers in the general community. This is very unrealistic. This problem seems to be due to the fact that Korea has not yet properly established a direction regarding game evaluation. In this regard, it would be good to look at the examples of overseas rating agencies. We should create a realistic system by referring to the established overseas systems. If we do this, we will not build an unrealistic system like the one we have now. However, there are differences between Korea and other countries, such as the fact that Korea places a high value on gambling, so these differences should be taken into account. We cannot say that we have a system that can be called the right answer yet. This is because there is no exact answer and it is impossible to predict at this time. However, building such a system is a necessary task for the future.
On the Internet, there are heated debates about the pros and cons of abolishing the KFTC. However, I do not think that abolishing it is a good solution. The reason for advocating the abolition is that the current structure is unreasonable and has the same problems as the ones mentioned above. However, there is very little chance that abolishing it will solve the problems. An organization that evaluates games is essential to prevent situations like the Sea Story incident. In this situation, abolishing the KEGS will result in other government agencies taking over its responsibilities. If that happens, the process will be more unprofessional and there will be more problems. Instead, it is better to make the KEGS a proper organization through the solutions mentioned earlier, such as privatization and establishing a realistic system.
To summarize the overall content, the first thing mentioned is the problem of the KFTC. The most significant problem is the non-objective evaluation and unrealistic scope of application. To solve these problems, this article proposes two key solutions. The solution is to privatize the evaluation agency and create a realistic system. It also mentions that the abolition, which many people are advocating, is not the right solution in the long term. At this point, it is not possible to say that these issues will be applied. However, what is certain is that if the two previous problems are not solved, the controversy over the G-rated rating will continue, and these issues must be fixed as soon as possible. To that end, I hope that all issues related to game ratings will be resolved through appropriate measures such as the solutions presented in this article.
