STATION: Tell us a little about yourself and your position in the BBFC?

GZ: My name's Gianni Zamo and I have been a film and video examiner at the Board since 1995. Whilst most of the Board's work is concerned with film and video classification, I have a particular responsibility for all digital media submitted to the Board for classification as required by the Video Recordings Act 1984. My background is something of a mixed bag having previously worked with Cambridgeshire Probation Service Intensive Probation Centre where I ran therapeutic group work courses with groups of young offenders using drama and video as a medium for examining offending behaviour. Prior to that I worked in marketing with a Peterborough Video company and prior to that I spent some ten years in the Royal Air Force. I am not 103. I have all my own teeth and I am normal.

STATION: Do you own an home consoles or gaming machines?

GZ: I am currently the proud possessor of a desktop PC and Sony PSX which, given my current job, has proven to be something of a necessity. I do play games and have done since the days of the 8086 PC's where I developed a deep fondness for "Leisuresuit Larry", "Chuck Yeager's Air Combat" and "Missile Command" - sad, isn't it? Sadly, my children having taken virtual control of the Playstation but they occasionally allow me on it and I enjoy the odd shot at "Tomb Raider", "Resident Evil" and "TOCA".

STATION: In what ways does the approach to the classification of videogames differ to that of movies?

GZ: In classifying a PC or console game we bear in mind that game playing is an active rather passive experience. Film and video audiences are, in effect, merely observers of the unfolding drama before them and somewhat 'distanced' from what is happening. However, a good film or video will draw the viewer's mind if not body into the events occurring on the screen which is where the viewer's suspension of disbelief comes into play and willingly allows his emotions and feelings to be manipulated by the director. This can apply, rarely, to some game except the player actually becomes part of the 'cast' of the game without whom it is actually rather useless. In this respect, games engage the user's interest at a very overt level in which physical and mental dexterity is more important than the engagement of emotion or feeling - the ultimate pleasure being that of having overcome a particular challenge or task; i.e. beating the machine whatever context that is placed in. With the individual focus being diverted in this way we tend not to take contentious elements such as violence more seriously than that portrayed in films for we do not feel that, on the whole, games violence is offered for sadistic enjoyment. Having said that, we must bear in mind how the relevant legislation (which we are duty bound to observe) applies to the game in question. If the game transgresses that requirement significantly then it may well have to be cut to remove the offending element or, rarely, rejected. Additionally, a game's classification also depends on how 'balanced' it is. Do the positive elements of the game outweigh the negatives or vice-versa. A game which, for example, rewards anti-social behaviour without consequence is likely to be placed in a more restrictive category than one which gives free rein to aggressive impulses - Carmageddon being a prime example. The concern here is mostly to do with possible effects on impressionable children and younger people coupled to a psychological model which suggests that rewarding anti-social behaviour at an early stage of development is likely to have a lasting impact upon them in later life and, consequently, on the greater society at large. My previous experiences in the Probation Service would confirm this in some cases. Secondly, there is also a 'manners' issue at work in the classification games. In essence, we try to assess what the reasonable parent would consider appropriate for their child at a particular age - a rule-of-thumb being the older the child the more tolerant the parent is likely to be. It follows, therefore, that the
more aggressive, visceral games are unlikely to achieve lower ratings. Of course, opinions differ widely on what may or may not have a detrimental impact on the individual and it certainly can't be entirely blamed on films, videos or games. However, we are likely to err on the side of caution and, ultimately, we have to make a judgement based on what we see and how we experience the work before us. Inevitably, this isn't going to please everyone and this will result in accusations of being either too liberal or too restrictive. However, it should be borne in mind that each work is treated individually and its merits or faults balanced against one another in making a final decision. There is no prescribed list of what is or isn't allowed as each game is different from the last irrespective of
the fact that it may be the same genre.

STATION: With constant increases in technology, how do you envision the classification of videogames developing in the next ten years?

GZ: It may well be, given the small amount of digital works we actually classify, that the future might involve self-regulation which, essentially, is what the BBFC was set-up to do on behalf of the film industry. How this works practically is another matter since I can see a time where games are simply downloaded from the Net rather than purchased as physical objects from retail stores. In this instance, of course, it is unlikely that any regulatory body could do much to control the material and the onus, therefore, would be on developers and distributors to develop their own 'conscience' and decide for themselves where the boundaries of excess lie. Having said that, I suspect the BBFC will still be classifying games for some time to come as governments are notoriously slow at amending legislation or changing the 'status quo' for something which doesn't rate highly on their list of priorities.

STATION: Has any single title, been of particular concern to you?

GZ: There was a spate of games last year; Carmageddon, Postal, Grand Theft Auto, which moved away from the usual fantasy/sci-fi scenarios to contemporary real-life scenarios. As mentioned earlier, the issue of reward for anti-social behaviour occupied our thoughts for some time, particularly Carmageddon which positively urged the player to revel in the carnage and mayhem they could create. However, GTA and Postal were passed '18' uncut, though at first sight they appear innocuous enough, because there were consequences built into the game for engaging in anti-social behaviour.

STATION: During the rating process of SCI's Carmageddon II: Carpocalypse Now, you have employed a panel of psychologists to evaluate the possible impact of the game upon its audience, what were your reasons behind this?

GZ: Actually, our 'panel' consisted of one psychologist who was asked to assess the likely effects of such a game upon the individual. At this stage, we still await the outcome of this assessment. This is a common practice and not one reserved specifically for games. The Criminal Justice Act Public Order Amendment, in addition to the Video Recordings Act, requires us to: "....have special regard to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violent behaviour or incidents, horrific behaviour or incidents, or human sexual activity." It is worth noting that "potential viewers" means any person (including a child or young person) who is likely to view the video or game in question regardless of the fact that the category may be highly restrictive.

STATION: What are your thoughts on Electronic Art's dropping of their beat-'em-up Thrill Kill. Did you find the game particularly offensive?

GZ: I was as much surprised as anyone else that the game has seemingly been 'ditched'. Having said that, I think the game would have been fortunate to have gotten through the Board unscathed - it's that darned sexualised violence thing again. Neither am I entirely convinced that a game featuring a bunch of karate-kicking asylum inhabitants would have been welcomed by certain quarters. Personally, I wasn't greatly offended by its content and, to be honest, was quite disappointed by its limited scope. This is a problem is general with beat-em-ups, I feel. After the initial excitement of smooth graphics, speciality moves and wacky characters the kick-punch-chop routine soon loses its appeal.

STATION: How closely do you work with ELSPA, concerning the classification of software?

GZ: I am in fairly frequent touch with ELSPA though mostly at the point where they recommend a game should receive 'formal' classification. Clearly the two systems are very different - theirs being voluntary ours being mandatory - but I think it works okay on the whole.

STATION: Do you have any thoughts on the current software market, and the continuing use of overly contraversal content as a selling point?

GZ: It's been a constant source of fascination to watch how games have developed both technically and in terms of content since the mid-eighties where, compared to today's stunning graphics and complex game construction, the games were rudimentary to say the least. However, beyond technological advances, it seems that games are very near to the ceiling in terms of genre and what the user can do with them - like films, there's a limited number of themes beyond which they all seem much of a muchness. Imagination and invention seems to have been subsumed in favour of the 'quick thrill' approach which is fine but limiting and often little more than a triumph of style over content; okay if you're paying two-pounds fifty to rent a video, but rather aggravating if you're having to part with nearly forty-pounds to buy a game. In terms of the 'controversial' banner headline used as a selling point, I am still amazed how easily the public are repeatedly taken in by often wildly exaggerated claims about such-and-such a game, but then I am reminded of a line in the film where a newspaper editor tells his tyro journalist: "When the facts become legend, print the legend." - obviously a watchword for marketing departments in the industry. This is not helped, I have to say, by some games magazines who eschew a factual, reasoned approach (probably because it looks boring to read) for the FMV/GQ/Loaded school of journalism where hype and hysteria seems all important. The ultimate 'fall guy' unfortunately, is the poor punter who's shelled out his hard earned money for a game on the basis of its 'controversial' nature only to discover that it's about as worrying (and little more fun) than a wet weekend in Cleethorpes.