|
Title: Contradicting ELSPA review policies by differnt reviewers Post by: sharp on January 02, 2015, 09:36:48 AM My clean up for ELSPA rating for Arkanoid for the SNES was rejected, on the other hand mumboking correction on Virtua Fighter was accepted. I would like to sugegst that for ELSPA rated games we only added the lowest allowed age to be showed as there are nogames which are 3+ but not allowed for 18+
http://www.rfgeneration.com/cgi-bin/getinfo.pl?ID=E-060-S-02170-A Title: Re: Contradicting ELSPA review policies by differnt reviewers Post by: ApolloBoy on January 09, 2015, 05:07:39 PM If the back of the box shows all four ratings, then those four ratings are what should be added.
Title: Re: Contradicting ELSPA review policies by differnt reviewers Post by: Bildtstar on January 09, 2015, 05:37:26 PM It has been discussed before:
I thought we determined before to just go with 3+ when they have all the ages listed, since "ages three and up" would include all the other ages. Title: Re: Contradicting ELSPA review policies by differnt reviewers Post by: Izret101 on January 09, 2015, 07:01:31 PM ^Makes sense
It isn't like we tick off EC, E, E10+, T, M, and AO for an Early Childhood ESRB rating. Title: Re: Contradicting ELSPA review policies by differnt reviewers Post by: Shadow Kisuragi on January 09, 2015, 09:57:14 PM The original confusion was around trying to match the listed rating on the box, since the old ELSPA ratings had checkboxes for 3-10, 11-14, 15-17, and 18+, and newer releases had 3+, 11+, 15+, and 18+. sharp brought it up a long time ago, and we determined that it didn't make sense to have two separate systems for ELSPA ratings. However, I don't know if I ever broadcasted out that we reverted that policy...
So, it should be the lowest applicable rating for ELSPA to prevent having two separate sets of ratings. After all, if I were searching for all 11+ ELSPA rated games, I'd pick up the old 3+ rated games, which makes absolutely no sense. |