Understanding the Digital Game Classification System: A Review of the Current Classification System and Its Implications for Use within Games for Health

  • Hannah Ramsden Marston
  • Stuart T. Smith
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7946)


This paper discusses and identifies the current video game classification systems employed throughout North and South America, Europe, Eurasia, Far East and Australasia. Ten main systems are employed, and although there are similarities, there are differences across the systems concerning: content descriptors, rating process and age categories. This paper proposes a series of recommendations for the classification of off-the-shelf games used by clinicians within the healthcare sector, for ease of use and clarity while implementing games for rehabilitation use. It is suggested; a worldwide classification system would facilitate a greater understanding and eradicate issues which occur by clinicians, support networks and patients utilizing this innovative approach to aid rehabilitation. For such a system to be established, a number of regional organizations, industry professionals, academics and end-users would be required to outline a format, and establish an appropriate system to be utilized.


Classification System Health Rehabilitation Digital Gaming 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Marston, H.R., Smith, S.T.: Interactive Videogame Technologies to Support Independence in the Elderly: A Narrative Review. Games for Health Journal 1(2), 139–152 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith, S.T., Schoene, D.: The use of exercise-based videogames for training and rehabilitation of physical function in older adults: current practice and guideline for future research. Aging Health 8(3), 243–252 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Linden Labs, Second Life, PTSD education, (accessed January 2012)
  4. 4.
    Games: Improving Health, ESA, (accessed January 2012)
  5. 5.
    Rosenberg, D., Depp, C.A., Vahia, I.V., Reichstadt, J., Palmer, B.W., Kerr, J., Norman, G., Jeste, D.V.: Exergames for Subsyndromal Depression in Older Adults: A Pilot Study of a Novel Intervention. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry. 18(3), 221–226 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Entertainment Software Rating Board (ERSB), (accessed January 2012)
  7. 7.
    Pan European Game Information (PEGI), (accessed January 2012)
  8. 8.
    Australian Classification Board (ACB), (accessed January 2012)
  9. 9.
    Australian Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (2008). Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games. Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra (2011),
  10. 10.
    Office of Film & Literature Classification, New Zealand (OFLC), (accessed January 2012)
  11. 11.
    Computer Entertainment Rating Organization (CERO),
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Unterhaltungssoftware Selskontrolle (USK), Germany,
  14. 14.
    Game Rating Board (GRB), South Korea,
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Departamento de Justiça, Classificação, Títulos e Qualificação(Department of Justice, Rating, Titles and Qualification) (DEJUS), Brazil,
  17. 17.
    Chalk, A.: Inappropriate Content: A Brief History of Videogame Ratings and the ERSB, The Escapist Magazine (July 20, 2007),
  18. 18.
    Gentile, D.A.: The rating systems for media products. In: Calvert, S., Wilson, B. (eds.) Handbook of Children, Media, and Development, pp. 527–551. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gentile, D.A., Maier, J.A., Hasson, M.R., Lopez de Bonetti, B.: Parents’ Evaulation of Media Ratings a Decade After the Television Rating Were Introduced. Pediatrics (2011), doi:10.1542/peds.2010-3026Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thompson, K.M., Tepichin, K., Haninger, K.: Content and Ratings of Mature-Rated Video Games. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 160(4), 402–410 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thompson, K.M., Haninger, K.: Violence in E-Rated Video Games. JAMA 286(5), 591–598 (2001), doi:10.1001/jama.286.5.591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bijvank, M.N., Konijn, E.A., Bushman, B.J., Roelofsma, P.H.M.P.: Age and Violent-Content Labels Make Video Games Forbidden Fruits for Youth. Pediatrics 123, 870 (2009), doi:10.1542/peds.2008-0601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cantor, J.: Ratings for Program Content: The Role of Research Findings. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 557(1), 54–69 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Food and drug administration (FDA), (accessed April 2012)
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Mackenzie, J.H.: Regulation in the Medical Devices Industry in the US and Europe. Business Briefing: Medical device Manufacturing and Technology (2004), (accessed April 2013)
  27. 27.
    Hills, B.J.: The EU Medical Devices Approval Process: Device Classification and the Technical File (2011), (accessed April 2013)
  28. 28.
    European Medicines Agency (EMA), (accessed April 2012)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannah Ramsden Marston
    • 1
  • Stuart T. Smith
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Movement & Sport GerontologyGerman Sport University CologneGermany
  2. 2.Neuroscience ResearchRandwickAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Research and Education in Active LivingUniversity of TasmaniaAustralia

Personalised recommendations