A short look into the gaming industry opinions of the day gave us a chance to look deeper into Dr. Tanya Byron's review of the ratings system for video games. And as the Interactive Software Federation of Europe's (ISFE) secretary general opines, not all is agreeable with the recommendations for industry-wide rating improvements.

Though the ISFE previously found many things appreciative in Byron's in-depth review, Patrice Chazerand doesn't think well of a couple of Byron's suggestions - especially one that affects their own rating system: the Pan European Games Information system or PEGI.

In Byron's report, the researcher suggested that the British Board of Film Classification take a much larger role in the ratings system of video games in Europe. And part of the recommendation said that it might be better if the BBFC ratings badge was placed in front of the game packages, while the PEGI ratings badge was placed at the back of the box.

This wasn't taken so well by ISFE or PEGI - and for obvious reasons, too. Chazerand said:

Our first reactions, you won't be surprised - you don't like to go from front to back, so the fact that the BBFC would be on the front of the box, and PEGI on the back, we didn't take it really as an improvement.

He later added that while it's not demeaning to be placed at the back of a game box, they did wonder what it would take to be worthy of being posted on the front.

Chazerand then noted how the BBFC rating would take prominence over the PEGI rating system in an video game package. In essence, a passive media ratings system would be used to classify a box containing interactive entertainment media.

He surrendered to the idea that the BBFC badge had more chance of being recognized than the newer PEGI, but it leaves you wondering how Byron's recommendation would improve the recognition of the PEGI badge. Chazerand then concluded:

I'm sure Dr. Byron understands that, but at the end of the day, the recognition of the PEGI as a good ratings system beyond the lower two classes…we got sort of short-changed, and I don't think this is good for the education of the public.

Of course, the recommendations jotted down in the report have still to enter a review period, and before changes are instituted by fall of 2008, there's ample time to ponder over the kinks. What's your take?