this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
85 points (97.8% liked)

Games

17727 readers
464 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
85
When video game age ratings go wrong (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 day ago by KarlHeinzSchwuke@feddit.org to c/games@sh.itjust.works
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 63 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

PEGI was right to change its rating for Balatro, unfortunately they still don't seem to understand why. This kind of absurdity is bound to happen again if they keep sorting games with what looks like a basic word filter instead of looking for how the game would present a problem depending on the audience.

Their new rating has been lowered because Balatro has "fantasy elements". Does it now? Flashy effects on cards, sure, but everything in Balatro is a simple set of mathematical rules. You could make a completely physical version of Balatro (if you don't mind spending a lot of time tracking scores and joker rules).

The real reason Balatro does not need 18+ is the same reason you don't worry about kids playing classic Solitaire. In fact, you should worry more about Solitaire nowadays, what's with making Solitaire Collection an adware with subscription.

Balatro is not predatory at all, it's a buy-once game with completely abstract scores and nothing to win or lose in real life. It only borrows poker card combinations. You don't even place bets in this game!

If "fantasy elements" is now enough to make your game kid-friendly according to PEGI, watch EA rebranding its disgusting lootbox nonsense as magic sportsball cards crafted by elven wizards or something.

[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah...

  • A game with actual gambling disguised as a loot system - perfectly fine, PEGI 3+

  • A game that depicts gambling but has no actual gambling in it - absolutely fucking NOT, PEGI 18+

I can understand why PEGI would be hesitant to give a game depicting gambling a rating of 3+...

But putting it as 18+, on the same level as actual, real money gambling games is ridiculous.

It shows a complete lack of awareness regarding the difference in danger between depiction of gambling vs actual gambling. And perhaps more dangerously means malicious publishers (cough EA cough) are able to get away with slipping disguised real money gambling into their games (and in front of children eyes) unnoticed.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It's not even depicting gambling. You can't wager anything, and the only overlap with gambling is some terminology and that your scores are based on poker hands, which is based on rarity.

The gameplay is basically Slay the Spire with scores instead of HP, and no choice of paths to take. In fact, I argue there's more gambling in StS because you can gamble your HP a bit to get a better chance at finding the right card depending on the path you choose.

Balatro has nothing to do with gambling. Full stop.

[–] Gurei@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Don't forget betting on the two knights fighting event!

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

And it's way better to take the riskier option.

  • 70% chance of 100% return = 70% expected return
  • 30% chance of 500% return = 150% return

They're rewarding gambling. In real casinos, the larger the jackpot, the lower the expected return, generally speaking, so they're conditioning you to take bigger risks.

It's not a real wager though since you can't opt out.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 30 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I have to wonder if some people don't understand how card games work. Do they think if the game contains an ace of spades it must be gambling? Most card games don't involve gambling at all and even those that do don't have to use actual currency. Do kids not play card games and bet with matchsticks anymore?

[–] Albbi@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I once had a professor who very seriously apologized to the class for bringing up a certain topic. It was playing cards. We were learning about probability. I was shocked that he thought he had to apologize about something I've played with my whole life.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 5 points 16 hours ago

Would he also apologize about money, since money is also used in gambling?

"But money has other uses!" ... So do playing cards.

Except money is what makes gambling problematic! Lol

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Is it some puritanical thing where some people utterly hate anything even vaguely related to gambling? I have heard comments about it a few times before but never really bothered asking more about it. Mostly when I was younger and I didn't really have any respect for religious beliefs when I was 10. Just saw them as weird.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

I grew up not being allowed to play with playing cards because of "the appearance of evil." My parents now use them, so I guess they got over it, but they still prefer other types of cards (e.g. Rook was our go-to).

It's basically puritanical nonsense, yeah. My religion (still very much involved) is against "games of chance" and people get dogmatic about it. My take is that as long as I'm not expecting something for nothing or hoping to get positive return when the math says I should expect a negative return, I'm good. So no gambling, but playing poker for fun is fine (no stakes).

[–] Albbi@lemmy.ca 4 points 21 hours ago

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there was a religious reason behind it. I'm not religious myself anymore but grew up in a very religious area, specifically Mennonite, but not the old order kind. Gambling was a sin and therefore anything associated with gambling like cards and dice were sinful by extension.

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's not even unique to card games.

I had a board game that was about a race between merchant caravans through the desert. The way it worked was every player started with the same limited amount of small tokens representing water canteens, and every turn they all chose any amount of them, they revealed it at the same time, and the one who used the most could advance 5 squares, the second 4, etc.

The whole game was about trying to guess how many canteens other players were going to use on a specific turn, and use the right amount to land where you want and keep enough for the rest of the game. And of course, you've got all the reasons to bluff.

That's basically a pure gambling game. It doesn't feature any random element, and its only currency is a bunch of colourful plastic toys shared evenly between the players.

If I was PEGI, I'd do a CTRL-F in the rulebook, see words like bluff, gamble and bet, and slap an 18+ rating on it.