I like this idea ( and tbh, TIGRS seems dodgy at best as it's all self-rated
), and would love to be a part of it (Even helping out with the web-design if need-be)
Here's some suggestions:
Once a game is rated, and has it's own little web-page, have a poll so others can vote on what the rating should be (if they disagree with its current status).
With 20 or more votes, you can submitt a 'review' of the rating to be re-rated.
I hate the idea of 'age' being a measure of maturity.
Since these games will all be 'indi' in nature ( ie, non-commercial, and non-widely distributed ), then who care's about the age groups? All we want to do is give it a Maturity rating ( look at people like Dakota Fanning, she's what? 10? and she's as mature as they come! ). None of this age stuff has ever been any good. Since it'll be the Parents determining if their kids download/buy a game with our rating system, then they can be the perfect judges of if they are 'mature' enough or not.
[EDIT for clarity]
I'm 18+, so I don't have to worry about any of the restrictions of purchasing any kind of media in Australia, but do still feel REALLY sh1tty about the whole, 14yo's can't see MA movies, yet they are allowed to work full-time. It seems to me that they just found an age where they *expect* people to be mature, and stuck that onto their rating regardless of if it actually meant anything for the average viewer/gamer.
[/EDIT]
A display system like TIGRS as a "further description" would be good (maybe only available on the website?), but for the primary rating display, a single icon/letter would suffice.
Maybe have icons that have numbers to represent severity at that level ( so, M1 would be Mature-Low, up to M3 which would be Mature-Adult, etc ). Colour-code the numbers, which also by-passes the colour-blind issue but provides a small amount of extra information for other viewers.
Someone mentioned that Australia doesn't allow M rated games, or something stupid to that effect... You're wrong. We have that XXX BMX game, Doom3, FEAR, GTA San Andreas, etc, etc, etc... All of which are easily rated M ( and if they're not, then the ESRB isn't worth the money ).
Don't charge ANY fees at all, not even for a re-rate.
Accept donations, and put in Google Ads if you really want to make a little bit of revenue, but don't charge.
First In, First Rated. Period. Any donations will not affect the speed of the Rating. If it did, it would simply be encouraging exactly what the ESRB does now.
If we're going to do this, we need to do it right. We need to get the system fully in working order, not a single thing on the website should be 'Coming Soon'. Then we need to fill out the database with every DB/P, PlayBasic, FPSC author we can muster, and make sure we *seem* established. Once we've done that, we need to contact the big places, like IndieGamer, IGN, GameDev, GamaSutra, etc, etc, etc with official emails ( no Forum Posts ), so that they can announce it all via their News Cast systems ( again, much more professional ).
Anyway, they're all just IMHO, so don't take it all to heart
Have fun, and don't hesitate to contact me for help with any aspect of it, as I'd like to be a part
[EDIT]
PS, Someone mentioned how there are standard ratings like PG, PG13, AO, etc... In Australia, we have P, PG, M, MA, R, which are obviously completely different, so don't rely on 'standard' ratings, as I honestly don't have the faintest idea what the difference between PG and PG13 is
[/EDIT]
Cheers,
Jess.
