This blog post highlights the unreasonable evaluation methods and excessive regulations of the Game Rating Board and proposes practical solutions to address these issues.
Recently, there have been various controversies surrounding games. In particular, the shutdown system, which was introduced to prevent teenagers from playing games late at night, caused a huge uproar, and its aftermath continues to this day. Amidst these issues, the Game Rating Board, which evaluates games, has become just as controversial as the shutdown system. This article will examine the Game Rating Board, which has become a hotly debated topic with ongoing debates over its abolition for over a year. First, we will look at the institution itself, then describe its problems and potential solutions.
Most people have probably heard of the Game Rating Board, commonly referred to as “GRB” (hereinafter referred to as “GRB”). To be precise, this institution is a public agency under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism that conducts pre-release censorship and assigns ratings to all games produced and distributed in Korea. While such an institution has existed for some time, it began fulfilling its role effectively in 2002 when the Video Game Rating Board took on this responsibility. However, following the “Bada Story” controversy in 2006, the importance of game evaluation was recognized, leading to the need for a specialized institution to evaluate games themselves rather than videos. This resulted in the establishment of the Game Rating Board, a specialized institution for game evaluation.
There are several reasons why the GRB has recently become controversial. Among them, two main reasons can be cited. First, evaluations are not conducted objectively. Second, the scope of application is too broad. These two issues indicate that the GRB lacks a proper understanding of games as a national agency and is failing to fulfill its role. To verify this, we will conduct an in-depth analysis of the two issues mentioned above.
Following this, we will present a conclusion that combines these two issues and propose solutions. The first issue is the lack of objective evaluation. Currently, the GRB divides games into categories such as sexual content, violence, horror, inappropriate language, drugs, crime, and gambling, analyzes each category, and determines the rating.
At first glance, this may seem like a very objective and reasonable method. However, in reality, analyzing each category is highly subjective, and the GRB conducts all such reviews in a non-transparent manner. Furthermore, it rarely accepts appeals or objections regarding its evaluations. In other words, while categories are established, the evaluations are ultimately conducted in a non-transparent and subjective manner. This becomes even clearer when examining games that have been evaluated inappropriately.
Take, for example, the game “Ni no Kuni: The Queen of the White Castle.” This game was created by Studio Ghibli, known for works like “Spirited Away,” in collaboration with another company, and features a fairy-tale-like atmosphere. However, the Game Rating Board determined that the inclusion of a slot machine in one of the mini-games within the game posed a potential risk of transforming it into a gambling game, and thus classified it as inappropriate for minors. This is akin to labeling the fairy tale “Snow White” as inappropriate for minors because it contains a scene where Snow White attempts to poison someone, thereby implying that similar incidents could occur in real life. Given that Studio Ghibli is renowned for creating animations for children and teenagers, and that this game was also created with that purpose in mind, it seemed clear that it should not be classified as inappropriate for minors. Additionally, no other country had issued such an extreme rating of “inappropriate for minors.” Despite this, the GRB’s decision failed to gain widespread approval and sparked controversy, but ultimately, the appeal was rejected.
There are numerous other cases where evaluations deviate from common sense and differ from global standards. For example, certain games have been rated inappropriate for minors because they classify foods that enhance abilities commonly used in the game as drugs. Such evaluations can result in unexpected ratings, which can cause significant financial losses for companies. In the case of Ni no Kuni mentioned earlier, the game had garnered high expectations due to its association with Studio Ghibli before the rating was announced. However, it was not officially released in Korea due to the “not suitable for minors” rating. From this perspective, the GEC’s evaluation criteria can be seen as highly irrational and problematic.
The second issue is the extremely broad scope of application. It is not a major problem for games developed by companies aiming for commercial release in Korea to undergo evaluation and receive a rating. However, the current policy of the GRB requires evaluation for all games posted online, even those created for non-commercial purposes. This means that even amateur game-making communities or clubs must obtain an evaluation before posting their works online. This policy is excessive when compared to other genres such as text or video content. Additionally, the evaluation fees charged by the GRB are extremely high for small groups or individuals to afford. (For example, network-based PC RPG games may have to pay nearly 1 million won in evaluation fees.) The evaluation period is also quite lengthy, making the process unreasonable in many ways. While there have been some recent relaxations for smartphone games, the same strict regulations still apply to PC games and other platforms.
As an example, the Game Rating Board sent an official notice to a community where small-scale developers post and evaluate each other’s works. The notice demanded that all works in the community be submitted for evaluation by the Game Rating Board, and threatened to remove all games from the internet if this was not done. For those who simply created and shared games, this was a highly distressing situation. Evaluating all games would require an enormous amount of money that a typical community could not afford, and failing to do so would render the community’s activities impossible. Considering the constitutional provision that “freedom of expression shall be guaranteed to all people, including the freedom to express opinions and to publish and distribute information and ideas by any means,” this action is highly unreasonable.
Such issues will ultimately hinder the development of the game industry and the growth of talent in the field. Let us examine this from the perspective of the game industry, specifically from the angles of large corporations and small-scale individuals. From the perspective of corporations, such irrational ratings can result in significant losses. Large corporations invest billions of dollars in a single game, and if such a game receives an unexpected “not suitable for minors” rating, it can be a major blow. Some companies attempt to address this by revising the criticized aspects and undergoing re-review, but they must still incur some losses.
For small-scale individuals, who often develop games with relatively limited budgets, the relatively high evaluation fees become a major issue. This situation makes it difficult to develop small-scale games and can lead to individual developers abandoning their activities altogether. To address the aforementioned issues, I will propose two main solutions. First, entrusting the evaluation process to private companies. Second, establishing a realistic evaluation system. The term “system” here refers to the scope of what actually needs to be evaluated. While there may be other structural changes that need to be made, these two are the main solutions. We do not consider extreme measures such as abolition to be a good option, and we will address this at the end. Below, we will discuss the details of these two solutions and verify their feasibility. The first solution is to have game evaluations conducted by private companies rather than the government.
The rationale behind this solution is that game evaluation should be conducted by individuals with expertise in games. Under the current system, where evaluations are conducted by government agencies, it is difficult for experts with specialized knowledge of games to play a central role. Government officials are not specialists in the field and lack a sense of belonging to the agency responsible for game evaluation. In this regard, privatizing game evaluation agencies would improve overall quality and ensure a certain degree of objectivity in evaluations. Additionally, this privatization can be observed in other countries. In the United States, Europe, and Japan, where the game industry is highly developed, game evaluation is based on private self-regulation. While China evaluates games at the national level, this is due to its socialist system. Other countries are not in such a special situation. In general, game evaluation is centered on private review. While it is not necessarily better to follow the example of other countries, referencing their cases can be highly beneficial in the current situation.
As the second proposal, we suggest a realistic evaluation institution system. Here, the key issue is to reduce the overly broad scope of application. Evaluating all simple games created by amateur developers in the general community is not beneficial for either the institution’s efforts or the developers. This is highly unrealistic. These issues seem to stem from the fact that South Korea has not yet established a clear direction regarding game evaluation. In this regard, it would be beneficial to examine overseas evaluation agency cases. By referencing established overseas systems, we can create a realistic system. This approach would prevent the establishment of an unrealistic system like the current one. However, Korea differs from other countries in that it places a greater emphasis on gambling elements, so these differences must be considered. There is no definitive answer regarding the ideal system at this time. There is no clear solution, and it is also impossible to predict the future. However, establishing such a system is an essential task for the future.
In fact, there is a heated debate online regarding the abolition of the Game Rating Board. However, I do not believe that abolition is a viable solution. The reason for abolition is that the current structure is unreasonable and has the issues mentioned earlier. However, abolishing the system is unlikely to resolve these issues. An institution that evaluates games is necessary to prevent situations like the “Bada Story” incident. Abolishing the GEC would result in other government agencies taking over its role, leading to less professional evaluations and more problems. Instead, it would be better to improve the GEC into a proper institution through solutions such as privatization and the establishment of a realistic system, as mentioned earlier.
In summary, the first issue mentioned is the problems with the GEC. The most significant issues are its subjective evaluations and unrealistic scope of application. To address these issues, this article proposes two core solutions: privatizing the evaluation body and establishing a realistic system. Additionally, it is noted that abolishing the GEC, as many argue, is not a viable long-term solution. At present, it is impossible to say whether these measures will be implemented. However, it is certain that if the two aforementioned issues are not resolved, controversies surrounding the GEC will persist, and it is essential to address these issues promptly. To achieve this, we hope that appropriate measures, such as the solutions proposed in this article, will be implemented to resolve all issues related to game evaluation.
