In the wake of last year's RC controversy (Refused Classification) in Australia for various titles, Gamespot AU have a heady response from outspoken classification minister Michael Atkinson that is well worth a read (even though his responses barely broach the actual questions Gamespot AU asked him).

We have an excerpt from Atkinson's response to Gamespot AU's questions, but you can check out the full feature right here.

"I don't support the introduction of an R18+ rating for electronic games, chiefly because it will greatly increase the risk of children and vulnerable adults being exposed to damaging images and messages.

"The interactive nature of electronic games means that they have a much greater influence than viewing a movie does. People are participating and 'acting-out' violence and criminal behaviour when they are playing a video game. They are essentially rehearsing harmful behaviour. Children and vulnerable adults (such as those with a mental illness) can be harmed by playing video games with violence, sex, and criminal activity.

"The South Australian government takes a strong position on protecting children (and the public) from criminal behaviour, sexual abuse, and drug use. My stance on R18+ classification is in line with the policies of the Rann Government [current South Australian government] to protect children."

It's a fair stance, but Atkinson still seems bent on the idea children will get their hands on 18+ material regardless, leaving us to think there's a bigger issue with enforcing the sale of such material. Your thoughts...

Its Michael Atkinson, fyi.

I think that the problem is not with Atkinson's stance - especially if it is in line with the wishes of the Government of SA.

South Australia should be entiled to RC games of their own accord. However Atkinson's State policy being a veto over the rest of the country doesn't seem right.

f***, I always do that... maybe I dealt with a bully teacher at school called Mr Atkins or something...

thanks nF - fixed

It's the parents sole responsibiity of the child.
They have the choice of wether or not the child should play the game.

I mean how many games woud actually fall into the R18+ category if there was one..? -not many!

It's a fair stance, but Atkins still seems bent on the idea children will get their hands on 18+ material regardless, leaving us to think there's a bigger issue with enforcing the sale of such material

Exactly what would happen. We have a ratings system for a good god damn reason and yet despite that parents still buy MA15+ games for their young kids. So in that aspect he is... I can't believe i'm saying this... correct. Having a higher rating than MA will only expose these kids to even worse images.

Yet again coming down to the old "why the f*** are you a parent?" deal. These adults don't care what their kids play and will give them anything. I mean take GTA for example. its only got "high level violence, high level course language, drug use/themes and sexual refrences" which obviously means ITS A PERFECT GAME FOR A 10 YEAR OLD. Blame the dumb f*** parents who would allow their kids to get this stuff.

When I was 13 I hired out an MA rated movie and soon as I got into the car and mum found out she made me take it back inside and yelled at the guy for giving to me.

when the f*** are people going to take responsibility for themselves and their children? When is the government going to realize that promoting good parenting is the key to improving so many things in this country?

Honestly is it really that hard to educate people about their responsibilities or does the governmant just assume we are all dumbasses.

It comes down to the parenting and that's pretty much it. The parent should know if their child is impressionable or not. My parents had no issues with me playing violent games as a 10 year old, and they let me try my first rum at 13. They knew I wasn't going to go out and start stabbing strangers in the street or drinking myself stupid.

In the article Aktinson describes older children as being from the ages 18-30... wtf... how old is Aktinson, like 85?

Actually Dm I diagree to a point. While much of what you say is correct I believe that a good parent is able to expose certain things to their children when they believe the child is ready for it. That mixed with a good level of communication about such things as violence, sex and drugs will help educate the kids.

The problem is all these a******s out their that pretty doing their parenting by f***ing remote control. They aren't hands on at all about educating their children and just expect everything to work out fine. It is nothing more than laziness on the behalf of the parents and be honest I wish we could find a way of penalizing it.

But as per usual the responsible people of this country get a giant f*** in the ass because of all the c*******s.

His stance is fair. It's a sad truth that he can't just blame bad parenting (no matter how true it is) because they're just going to swing back and blame him. In that circumstance the parents no matter how useless they are are always going to win the argument.

I guess we just wait till he retires. It must be soon with how old he makes himself out to be.

The problem with Atkinson's argument is that he seems to believe theres some massive reservoir of R rated games out there that will suddenly flood into the country if we get an R rating for games. While the truth of the matter is, the games that would probably get an R rating, are already on store shelves and even more accessible to children because they've been shoehorned into an MA15+ rating.

pretty fair point there khel seen as those games usually don't have to change much at all to be made to fit the MA rating.

My opinion is his stance is not at all fair. My opinion is the Minister Michael Atkinson is a disgrace to Australia and the Labor party.

Governments should not be dictating what should and should not be censored, that's the parents job. How anyone can gain a position as Minister with such weak policy is a joke.

i don't reckon any sort of classification short of a total ban on import will stop parents from buying violent computer games for thier kids. they don't read the labels... they just buy what thier kids ask them to buy! "pls mum i wants teh fallouts! all my mates have it!" :P

the comparison (in the article) with requiring id to get violent videos is a bit whack though i rekn. these days if thier olds won't let them rent a violent video, kids will just download it & watch it anyways.

my sister bought a copy of fallout3 for my nephew for xmas & i saw it & asked her if she was concerned about buying a game that was originally refused classifcation in au for violence & drug use. she answered that she thought all video games were violent & that's why her son liked playing them :P

No, his stance is not fair. Not only is he, as the attorney general of only south Australia, preventing the rest of the country from making their own decisions but he's basing that decision on a personal hunch. Something that hasn't ever been proven. There's no evidence that the interactive nature of video games is more likely than movies to influence violent behavior in children.

This also avoids my main issue with our lack of an R18 rating: the fact that games that really should be rated 18+ are slipping in as MA15+ because there's no alternative.

If a game had an R18 + rated sticker on it, and retailers could be fined for selling it to a minor, I'm confident that your average idiot parent would be far less likely to buy it for their kids.

Games like GTA4 and Saints Row 2 should not be slipping in under an 18+ rating, but they shoulnd't be getting outright banned either.

so let me get this straight, he's saying that having a rating system intended to protect kids from this kinda material will actually enable easier access to it?

I want what hes smokin'

In the article Aktinson describes older children as being from the ages 18-30... wtf... how old is Aktinson, like 85?

hes referring to children of the household. as in the children of the parents.

so let me get this straight, he's saying that having a rating system intended to protect kids from this kinda material will actually enable easier access to it?

its not complicated.

if the game can't be sold in australia its harder to get.

It's a weak statement from a weak Attorney-General.

Since when was public policy based on the 1% of "vulnerable people" as he calls them?

And since when did it become acceptable to debate policy without any documentary evidence?

Of course, what's most laughable is that he is living in South Australia. I went to Adelaide at the end of last year and I haven't witnessed such generally violent people in pubs anywhere (I'm from Tassie, but live in Victoria now). In some places there were more security than patrons.

Also, this bit made me laugh

In cinemas, the age of moviegoers can be regulated, and at the video store people must provide ID to hire R18+ videos. Once electronic games are in the home, access to them cannot be policed and the games are easily accessible to children.

Good game Atkinson, what a rock solid argument you have there!

last edited by Dan at 14:21:25 28/Jan/09

cause it takes a brainy kid to work out how to use the VCR once his old man has finished beating his wife & watching the R18+ movies he just rented

"These days, older children (18-30) are often living in the family home with younger children (under 18)."

I'm pretty sure he just said people between 18-30 are older children.

so let me get this straight, he's saying that having a rating system intended to protect kids from this kinda material will actually enable easier access to it?

its not complicated.

if the game can't be sold in australia its harder to get.

It's harder for a kid to walk into a shop and buy it; obviously it doesn't affect its actual availability though, other than maybe there's some percentage of people that only find out about games by walking into stores and looking at boxes. I guess there's still a bunch of people like that though. Banned games though are notorious and thus are not only more widely known about but much more desired, so I'd argue that a banned game is possibly actually EASIER to get because its more likely to be in the public eye.

I'm pretty sure he just said people between 18-30 are older children.

Just semantics (and not really relevant to the argument). Just because you're over 18, doesn't mean you're no longer your parents' child.

last edited by Dan at 15:19:43 28/Jan/09

They should start cracking down on games being sold to minors, then consider R18+ rating.

I believe reasonable opponents of an R rating can be convinced an r rating would work, if the gaming industry were to take a stand and show it is responsible

Enforce point of sale age checks for games. Regularly test that ma15 titles are not being sold to minors, publish results of under cover tests. Refuse stock to vendors that do sell to children

Publish easy to understand literature that is handed to the purchaser that outline why the title was rated MA15+ and why they need to ensure children are not exposed to the material, and which stresses on the purchaser their obligation to ensure children do not have access

If the retail sector is brought up to scratch by the publishers and distributors then we may see some opponents budge.. Merely complaining about being treated differently to movies isn't going to convince anyone.

I think that most parents that don't really keep up with games see the MA15 and think that their child is close enough. In the end, it's just a game, right? How bad could it be? Putting the R18 label on games will make most parents think twice seeing how the only two things they can really associate that rating to is ultra violent films and pornography. The R rating, imo, will help parents become aware that the days of Pac-Man are gone and that many games today are being developed for a strictly mature audience and contain images that they probably wouldn't want their child exposed to, even at the MA level.

Well either way, if he meant that 18-30 year olds are older children, he makes it look as if people of those ages are not responsible in how they manage younger children's gaming.

It's also true that you are still the child of your parents, and you always will be, but after the age of 18 you're legally accountable for your actions, and also have the freedom to purchase adult targeted content.

This however can be debated forever, which is probably why this whole R18+ thing has not been resolved.

It's just a shame that artistic freedom is being wasted on our country in regards to this growing medium.

And yet somehow Atkinson still has managed to ignore the average age of people that ACTUALLY PLAY computer games.

From a sales POV I don't see how games should be any different from cigarettes. The only problem I see there is education and training (=cost) and no doubt a govt dept to look after it (like liquor and smokes).

nothing fires up you people more than being able to kill hookers in the comfort of your own home office/living room.

fyi voters over 40 (most of australia) don't give a s*** about murdering hookers and headshots with exploding brain matter.

"From a sales POV I don't see how games should be any different from cigarettes. The only problem I see there is education and training (=cost) and no doubt a govt dept to look after it (like liquor and smokes)."

I'm pretty sure being forced to put grotesque images of what could happen to you if you play the game isn't going to be an overly successful deterrent; linking cigarette sales to video game sales in a debate will inevitably bring up the addiction/health arguments as well so it's possibly not the best point of reference.

It is entirely possible that I'm reading too far into his comments, but the 18-30 year old child labelling may indicate why he holds his stance: he may not think of anyone under 30 as a mature adult and by extension feel some need to protect them from themselves. It would be interesting to see whether that was just a transcription error by an editor or whether he really does think that way, which would probably cause a little outrage from more than just those wanting an R18+ rating.

It would be interesting to see whether the accessibility of an R18+ rating increases violence in a community though, surely someone must have studied this before now. It'd be a difficult thing to conclusively prove, given all the variables, but I'd imagine it could reduce game-linked violence by, as others have stated, moving games out of the MA15+ category and into the R18+ category.

Just throwing it out there. Why 18+? why not 20+ or 22+? Seems like a pretty black and white approach saying that when you're 18 you're mature enough to do anything.

No, just responsible for your own actions at that point by law.

There's no evidence that the interactive nature of video games is more likely than movies to influence violent behavior in children.

Here's what I don't understand about this old failure of a politician.


My sister is in her fourth year of psychology at the moment and through her I've got my hands on psychological reports explaining how video games don't:

1) "Condition" you towards real world violence.
2) Desensitize you to the real world. (not to be confused with immersion)
3) "Immerse" more than movies and other media. In fact it was found that people in a room were more "in touch" with movies than video games, because the video games required attention to the controller AND the screen.
4) Train your responses. When you experience stimuli (see a car coming towards you), you don't react the way you would in the game (move your thumb like a joystick)


And I know these things because my sis hands me any studies to do with gaming she comes across, but Atkinson?

He hasn't quoted any surveys or even hinted towards knowing anything scientific behind his claims.

last edited by Phooks at 17:32:52 28/Jan/09

"In cinemas, the age of moviegoers can be regulated and at the video store people must provide ID to hire R18+ videos. Once electronic games are in the home, access to them cannot be policed and the games are easily accessible to children."

Hah I love this for 2 reasons.

First, he's implying that it's not possible to regulate video game purchases. He also doesn't even mention how the games are obtained, like they just appear in the home, or are some how smuggled in.

Second, he refers to them as electronic games...

I like what Phooks said.
The guy sounds like he needs a clue.

This Atkinson think every game is Grand Theft Auto by the sounds.

Well either way, if he meant that 18-30 year olds are older children, he makes it look as if people of those ages are not responsible in how they manage younger children's gaming.

It's also true that you are still the child of your parents, and you always will be, but after the age of 18 you're legally accountable for your actions, and also have the freedom to purchase adult targeted content.

This however can be debated forever, which is probably why this whole R18+ thing has not been resolved.

It's just a shame that artistic freedom is being wasted on our country in regards to this growing medium.

you've missed his point. he said that having older children (which access to 18+ games) would mean that < 18+s in the household would have access. which is true.

also why are you morons arguing semantics over the definition of children, just mentally replace the word with siblings and i think it'll become clear to you what he was saying.

My sister is in her fourth year of psychology at the moment and through her I've got my hands on psychological reports explaining how video games don't:
<snip>

there are journal articles that say the opposite, and isn't it generally better to err on the side of caution when it comes to children? if video games are less influential than movies, then is that effect not amplified by the length of exposure? you might watch a movie 5 times (say, 10 hours of exposure), but you might play a game 40 hours or more. do these studies mention this at all? imo, exposure time would be a variable they'd exclude from most studies.

also what you are saying is irrelevant to what he is arguing. the rating system already exists and what is acceptable in each rating is well defined.

It's harder for a kid to walk into a shop and buy it; obviously it doesn't affect its actual availability though, other than maybe there's some percentage of people that only find out about games by walking into stores and looking at boxes. I guess there's still a bunch of people like that though. Banned games though are notorious and thus are not only more widely known about but much more desired, so I'd argue that a banned game is possibly actually EASIER to get because its more likely to be in the public eye.

its not about finding out about the game though, its actually getting it. considering the vast majority of games are on consoles these days, which have at least partially effective anti-piracy measures, it'll be a lot harder for a kid to get a banned game than an R18 game. he won't be able to purchase it online because he/she won't have a credit card.

First, he's implying that it's not possible to regulate video game purchases. He also doesn't even mention how the games are obtained, like they just appear in the home, or are some how smuggled in.

No, he implies its impossible to regulate who plays games once they are bought. unlike movies (at the cinemas).

there probably are a lot of R18+ games, but we probably havn't even heard of them.. Wheneva I walk into EB, 95% of the games on the shelf are games I've never heard of.

I have to agree with this Atkinson fella, too many f*** up bogan parents letting their kids do anything.

last edited by Martz at 19:03:37 28/Jan/09

its not about finding out about the game though, its actually getting it. considering the vast majority of games are on consoles these days, which have at least partially effective anti-piracy measures, it'll be a lot harder for a kid to get a banned game than an R18 game. he won't be able to purchase it online because he/she won't have a credit card.

Oh yeh, I guess I was only thinking PC games. For some reason I always forget about consoles, probably due to their inherent inferiority when compared to PC.

An example of PC gaming being better than consoles is GTA4.

or any other fps for that matter

Well yeah I was being sarcastic GTA4 is a f***ing dog on the PC.

or fallout3

No, he implies its impossible to regulate who plays games once they are bought. unlike movies (at the cinemas)

Yeah but he also mentioned renting movies because the video store can do age verification. That too means once the movie is in the house, children have access to it.

The s*** he comes out with just seems like utter crap most of the time, there is never any consistency with his claims and theories and he almost always contradicts himself. He's clearly a just an old guy who is anti gaming because it's new technology. I wouldn't be half surprised if part of his issue stems from his innability to control his own children's gaming habits.

The s*** he comes out with just seems like utter crap most of the time, there is never any consistency with his claims and theories and he almost always contradicts himself.

show me one instance where he contradicts himself.

"In cinemas, the age of moviegoers can be regulated, and at the video store people must provide ID to hire R18+ videos. Once electronic games are in the home, access to them cannot be policed and the games are easily accessible to children... ...This means games belonging to older children or parents can easily make their way into the hands of those under 18.

This isn't quite a contradiction, but the logic isn't sound. It must be the magic child rearing pixies that prevent children from getting access to rented or purchased R18+ videos.

If this is the best argument that can be put forward then I doubt Mr Michael Atkinson will ever be convinced to extract the broomstick from his arse and change his view and I'm left doubting we'll ever see a proper R18+ classification before he leaves the AG office.

there are journal articles that say the opposite

Are these academic/scientific journals or are they based on widespread opinion?

, and isn't it generally better to err on the side of caution when it comes to children?

As has been discussed already i believe, an 18+ ratings should make the more horrid content in games less accessible to children, but that all depends on whether you think the public can follow the ratings system.

Which I don't. However i still think 18+ should be instated because the average age of gamers is over 18.

if video games are less influential than movies, then is that effect not amplified by the length of exposure

No. no matter how much you want a video game to condition someone against real life violence and death, it's not going to happen. (as far as I read in the psyc studies)

For instance, take a person who's been playing CS 24/7 for most of his life. If he's holding a dead, mutilated baby in his arms in Palestine, he's going to be as much affected by it as a non-gamer would be.

last edited by Phooks at 20:24:25 28/Jan/09

No. no matter how much you want a video game to condition someone against real life violence and death, it's not going to happen. (as far as I read in the psyc studies)

For instance, if a person's been playing CS 24/7 for most of his life, if he's holding a dead and mutilated child in a warzone, he's going to be as much affected by it as a non-gamer.

thats an extreme example don't you think?

also, quick google (scholar) brings up heaps of s*** linking video game violence to desensitisation.

#1

The present experiment demonstrates that violent video
game exposure can cause desensitization to real-life vio-
lence. In this experiment, violent game players were less
physiologically aroused by real-life violence than were non-
violent game players. It appears that individuals who play
violent video games habituate or “get used to” all the vio-
lence and eventually become physiologically numb to it.

The effect of video game violence on physiological
desensitization to real-life violence
Nicholas L. Carnagey a,¤, Craig A. Anderson b, Brad J. Bushman c
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (2007) 489–496

#2

The purpose of the present study was to examine relationships among violence exposure in the
media and in real-life and desensitization as reflected in empathy and attitudes toward violence.
As anticipated, exposure to video game violence was associated with lower empathy and stronger
proviolence attitudes. This finding provides further support for concern about children’s exposure
to video game violence, particularly if granted that lower empathy and stronger proviolence
attitudes indicate desensitization to violence. In violent video games empathy is not adaptive,
moral evaluation is often non-existent, but proviolence attitudes and behaviors are repeatedly
rewarded. Even if children with pre-existing lower empathy and stronger proviolence attitudes are
simply drawn to violent video games, this exposure is unlikely to improve empathy or decrease
proviolence attitudes.

Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies,
and the internet: is there desensitization?
Jeanne B. Funk*, Heidi Bechtoldt Baldacci, Tracie Pasold, Jennifer Baumgardner
Department of Psychology, The University of Toledo, 2801 West Bancroft, Toledo, OH, USA
Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 23–39

#3

Two studies examined violent video game effects on aggression-related variables. Study 1 found that real-life
violent video game play was positively related to aggressive behavior and delinquency. The relation was
stronger for individuals who are characteristically aggressive and for men. Academic achievement was
negatively related to overall amount of time spent playing video games. In Study 2, laboratory exposure to a
graphically violent video game increased aggressive thoughts and behavior. In both studies, men had a more
hostile view of the world than did women. The results from both studies are consistent with the General
Affective Aggression Model, which predicts that exposure to violent video games will increase aggressive
behavior in both the short term (e.g., laboratory aggression) and the long term (e.g., delinquency).

... Violent video games provide a forum for learning and practicing
aggressive solutions to conflict situations. The effect of violent
video games appears to be cognitive in nature. In the short term,
playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by
priming aggressive thoughts. Longer-term effects are likely to be
longer lasting as well, as the player learns and practices new
aggression-related scripts that become more and more accessible
for use when real-life conflict situations arise... the active
nature of the learning environment of the video game
suggests that this medium is potentially more dangerous than the
more heavily investigated TV and movie media. With the recent
trend toward greater realism and more graphic violence in video
games and the rising popularity of these games, consumers of
violent video games (and parents of consumers) should be aware
of these potential risks.

Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in
the Laboratory and in Life
Craig A. Anderson Karen E. Dill
Lenoir-Rhyne College
University of Missouri----Columbia

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
2000, Vol. 78, No. 4, 772-790

ps. i made all this up

Phooks aren't you still in school?

good quotes. did a google scholar search as well and there seems to be a consensus against the reports i've read. will read into it some more when i have energy.

ps. i know u did ur such a faget like srsly

Phooks aren't you still in school?

you bet :)

last edited by Phooks at 21:31:29 28/Jan/09

I think you should shut the f*** up.

That's a pretty poor reason to disregard his opinion.

I'm used to it.

Brilliant beyond his years... poor little guy.

My sister is in her fourth year of psychology at the moment and through her I've got my hands on psychological reports explaining how video games don't...

Phooks you should email the references to Electronic Frontiers Australia to help with their counter-debate: http://www.efa.org.au/

Study 1 found that real-life violent video game play was positively related to aggressive behavior and delinquency.

Gonna go out on a limb here an state that if parents actually did some more parenting instead of employing third party assets as babysitters, delinquency would not be the issue it is today.

I had a line drawn in the sand for me by my parents when I was a kid (I turn 40 this year for those of you who don't know me) and if I crossed it, I felt and understood that my actions had consequences. Of all the kids I know these days, my friends who continue to raise their kids in this fashion have the most respectful and well adjusted kids I know and have met.

I was sorting a computer out for a customer just recently and all she cared about was that her nagging twelve your old kid could get their computer back so they could play GTA4 over the school holidays. Got quite snippy at me when I mentioned it's actually rated as an MA+ game that shouldn't be viewed by a kid that age let alone played.

Poor parenting is what's the problem here.

last edited by HERMITech at 00:36:42 29/Jan/09

Poor parenting is what's the problem here

I've always loved this, rather shortened, george carlin quote about parenting and f***ed up kids.

"It's never the parents. Did you ever notice this? Parents apparently play no role in the development and outcomes of these kids. Parents, you know can raise a kid 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 years and if he turns out f***ed up, boy they had nothing to do with that. Must be those kids at the parking lot he hangs around with. Look at it this way if the kid turns out to be a loser, they had nothing to do with that. But if he has a scholarship or something like that they're the first ones out there raising their hands trying to get a little credit"

Now i'm not going to say that it's ONLY the parents fault because that isn't very true. Part of the problem is indeed technology. When I was a kid, the Sega Master System and Nintendo were cutting edge. How gory and bad could those games be? These days you got high defenition gore, violence, murder, language and all sorts of s*** that kids idealy shouldn't be exposed to. So both together are to blame equally really.

I just don't understand what Mr Atkinson thinks hes stopping by opposing the R rating. Off the top of my head, I can think of five games that got refused classification in the last year: Soldier of Fortune, Dark Sector, Silent Hill: Homecoming, Fallout 3, and Fear 2. Of those games, Dark Sector, Fallout, Silent Hill and Fear 2 all ended up being reclassified and being released anyway (well, Fear 2 and SIlent Hill aren't out yet, but will be soon). So by not having an R rating, we effectively stopped one crappy game, that very few people probably would have bought anyway, from entering the country. While many, many other games which SHOULD be rated R are freely available in stores with an MA15+ tag.

Surely its just plain, simple common sense that bringing in an R rating is going to help his agenda of "protect the children" more than leaving things how they are.

did you read the article?

All that was changed in Silent Hill was the camera angle in a couple of cutscenes. And now its ok to release as an MA15+ game. Its not going to have any less impact or f*** up children any less now than it would have before, but now its suddenly ok to release it and put it in the hands of the children Atkinson is trying so hard to protect? How is that not a broken system?

So you think more games should be banned?

Your sort of twisting words there nF.

Haha, and i'm the first do that in this thread.

The whole thing comes down to this:

Atkinson believes that an R18+ rating for games would put R18+ content in the reach of children. He believes that by not having that rating its much harder for children to get high impact content than if it was available to everyone (over the age of 18) in stores. Which is true.

The argument really comes down to this, should adults be prevented from having R18+ game content to protect children. Any other argument is missing the point.

Arguing about what constitutes R18+ is missing the point. Arguing that kids can watch R18+ movies that their parents have bought or rented is missing the point. Arguing about if violent or sexual video games are harmful to children is missing the point. Arguing that they can simply download it anyway is missing the point.

It really is incredibly simple, and the Atkinson covered it in that interview. Its not illogical, stupid or contradictory. It makes sense, but its just that a draconian measure. Its a trade off between the personal liberty of adults and preventing children having access to objectionable content.

Another problem that hasn't been discussed is the fact that a lot of the people selling video games are under 18 themselves.

I'm assuming that they wouldn't be permitted to sell or have access to R-rated gear which would be a bit of a pain in the arse for retailers. Would the R-games end up in the smokes cabinet at BigW? Would we be OK with an R-rating if it meant paying more for games to cover the associated costs of securing & stocking the restricted titles?

The current system caps out at the age kids can start work which avoids this issue.

last edited by Hogfather at 13:05:13 29/Jan/09

How would it be any different from stores that retail or hire R18 movies now?

Another problem that hasn't been discussed is the fact that a lot of the people selling video games are under 18 themselves.

I'm assuming that they wouldn't be permitted to sell or have access to R-rated gear which would be a bit of a pain in the arse for retailers. Would the R-games end up in the smokes cabinet at BigW? Would we be OK with an R-rating if it meant paying more for games to cover the associated costs of securing & stocking the restricted titles?

The current system caps out at the age kids can start work which avoids this issue.

None of these things are arguments against having a rating. They are just details about supply & distribution.

The argument really comes down to this, should adults be prevented from having R18+ game content to protect children. Any other argument is missing the point.

+1, exactly - nail on the head

It makes sense, but its just that a draconian measure. Its a trade off between the personal liberty of adults and preventing children having access to objectionable content.

Obviously most of us don't agree that it's an acceptable trade off, nor that one bloke from South Australia should be able to dictate the terms for the entire nation.

Regardless of how right he may or may not be about the dangers, he f***ed up when he tried to use movie ratings to defend his point of view.

Regardless of how right he may or may not be about the dangers, he f***ed up when he tried to use movie ratings to defend his point of view.

So his entire argument is ruined? The flaw in his movie rating point actually proves his point on games. Correct me if I'm wrong. You are saying that because children can see R18+ movies makes his action to prevent children from having the same (second hand) access to R18+ games inherently wrong?

Also, do DVD + Bluray players have parental controls for content? The V-chip or whatever?

All the current generation game consoles have parental controls for content as well.

The whole thing comes down to this:

Atkinson believes that an R18+ rating for games would put R18+ content in the reach of children. He believes that by not having that rating its much harder for children to get high impact content than if it was available to everyone (over the age of 18) in stores.

Which is why I was pointing out the biggest flaw in his argument, the R18+ content he wants to keep out of reach of children, is already well within their reach and is sitting on store shelves brandishing an MA15+ sticker. By not having that rating, its in fact much easier for children to get access to the content he is trying to protect them from.

Forgetting video and games for a second.

Prohibition doesn't work. eg. US and alcohol actually made gangs like mafia much more powerful then would otherwise have been.

All it does is create an illegal market for them. Making government control impossible, and possibly making it more interesting eg. "hey have you seen the banned game that is really s*** and if you could buy you wouldn't waste your time" .. "no, been waiting for this its cool"

That said I still think sometimes you should go prohibition but only on real and serious issues eg. child pornography. Either its an issue of substance and you are going to commit to it. Or its not and you are are going to half ass it and possibly make the problem worse.

So his entire argument is ruined?

Essentially yes. The fact that he acknowledges movie ratings as being ok, then proceeds to point out a condition that is exactly the same for games is clearly a contradiction and an error in judgment that calls into question the validity of the rest of his opinion.

Which is why I was pointing out the biggest flaw in his argument, the R18+ content he wants to keep out of reach of children, is already well within their reach and is sitting on store shelves brandishing an MA15+ sticker. By not having that rating, its in fact much easier for children to get access to the content he is trying to protect them from.

If the games have to be modified its not the same...

Prohibition doesn't work. eg. US and alcohol actually made gangs like mafia much more powerful then would otherwise have been.

Yeah it did actually, it made it harder to get a drink. Also, thats the biggest (and stupidest) jump of logic you've made in ages. Comparing RC games to alcohol and drugs. Wow.

Yeah it did actually, it made it harder to get a drink

You contradicted yourself.
It made it harder, but not impossible. Hence still available.

Comparing RC games to alcohol and drugs. Wow.

Actually I compared prohibition to prohibition.

What's banned is unimportant, in understanding that it doesn't not stop it being available.


But in this case the fact that the thing still getting through is easily duplicated (unlike a consumable) even a small ammount getting through can rapidly spread.

Think rabbits...

The fact that he acknowledges movie ratings as being ok, then proceeds to point out a condition that is exactly the same for games is clearly a contradiction and an error in judgment that calls into question the validity of the rest of his opinion.

That depends on how the majority of people watch movies. I'd imagine that more people see movies in cinemas than buy DVDs of said movies. I'd also imagine more people rent DVDs than buy. Cinemas are pretty good at limiting access, and I'd imagine that renters are at least checked for ID. A rented DVD doesn't exist in the home for more than a week, so the chance of a child watching it unintended would be less (if that was his point).

Either way I don't think you can say that games and movies are equivalent in accessibility because they aren't in this case.

You contradicted yourself.
It made it harder, but not impossible. Hence still available.

It still worked. If its harder to do and its punishable by law if you do, then far less people are going to do it. It still being available on the black market isn't the same as it being openly and legally available. Do you understand the difference?

It still worked. If its harder to do and its punishable by law if you do, then far less people are going to do it. It still being available on the black market isn't the same as it being openly and legally available. Do you understand the difference?

So, if its harder, and illegal to supply an under 18 with it. Then its all good ?

In other words if there was an R 18+ rating and there were hefty fines for selling or supplying it to under 18s then its all good ?

I understand the difference perfectly.

I also understand the computer usage habbits of under 18s far better then you would. I fix their laptops, I see their browsing, I see them gaming daily. Very very very few of their PC games are legit.

Consoles I can't comment on.

Banning games will not affect them, it will however possibly force people who would have bought the game into other means. ie. turning legitimate adult consumers into criminals, while the kids who were criminals anyways as criminals.

I don't buy piracy is as big a problem on consoles as it is on PC though. And thats problem reflected in the number of games that are not released on PC (besides the Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo exclusives).

I also don't buy that the lack of an R18+ rating promotes piracy, because there simply aren't enough games being knocked back. And any modifications required to get the MA15+ are generally not significant to the game.

Which brings me back to:

The argument really comes down to this, should adults be prevented from having R18+ game content to protect children. Any other argument is missing the point.

The argument really comes down to this, should adults be prevented from having R18+ game content to protect children. Any other argument is missing the point.

Those other arguments may miss the point, in your opinion, but that doesn't make them any less interesting or important. Arguments like the availability of parental controls (i.e. kids can't pick up an R18+ game lying around the house and play it because the console won't let them without their parent's permission) and the insignificant modifications R18+ games undertake to pass the high-end MA15+ rating (rename a drug and you're in?) do have an impact on the final determination of how effective banning adults from possessing those games is at protecting children.

The studies regarding whether video games alter behavioural patterns are also vital to the decision, and it would perhaps be interesting to see a comparison between the varying types of media to see which ones affect people the most (I assume those exist, nF merely quoted ones focusing on games only though which, while relevant, doesn't continue the movie-game comparison very well).

I disagree that adults should be restricted in the video game content they can acquire (specifically regarding R18+ only) in order to protect the children because it's quite possible (and very simple) to protect the children from that content via parental controls built into all modern game consoles. Responsible parents can very easily prevent children from loading games that exceed a rating threshold, correct? Responsible parents would also not leave those games in child-accessible areas.

So I guess, in the end, the overall argument comes down to whether one South Australian Attorney General should be doing parents' jobs for them or not. He obviously has little faith in Australian parents, which I imagine is quite insulting to them.

The introduction of an R18+ rating along with an educational campaign on parental controls in both movie and video game devices would both protect the children (particularly those that are currently undermining their parents' authority with MA15+ games they shouldn't be playing due to their parents' ignorance of said controls) and satisfy the adult gamers that wish to experience more 'adult' content.

Nobody missed the point, they're just voicing their opinions on the various facets of this argument.

FYI: Vista also has a rating capable content prevention / monitoring system buit into it as well.

If you say it enough times nf someone might believe it.

In my mind you have failed to prove this measure will protect children.
You haven't proved the content is dangerous to children, or that this measure will prevent children from getting it.

They are the 2 fundemental assumptions that your statement relies on.

You just don't get it Obes. Why do I need to prove anything?

All I've done is defend what Atkinson has said from morons who failed at comprehension or who missed the point of what he was trying to say. I don't need to prove that R18+ content is harmful to children, because the rating system already exists. This debate isn't about the rating system and whats appropriate to what age group. The only reason I even brought up that was because Phooks the moron made some bulls*** claim that theres no scientific evidence of it being harmful. He retracted it anyway.

I don't need to prove that the lack of an R18+ rating limits access to content that would be rated as such, because its common sense. If you honestly believe that having to buy games from overseas or pirating the game (which in the case of consoles requires a mod chip), is equally as accessible as just having an older brother buy it for them from EB then you aren't on the same planet as anyone else.

My point all along is that people are getting into hysterics about all the wrong things. Nothing of what Michael Atkinson said was wrong, with the possible exception of saying personal liberty should come above protection of children. Thats a personal judgement, and Atkinson probably has the pulse on the electorate on this one or else he wouldn't be pushing so hard to keep things the way they are. This is what the argument should be about, but nobody seems to go near it in this thread. I'm just trying to put a bit of rationality into the debate.

BUT I'm not even against an R18+ rating, its just that the vast majority of the gaming population (and apparently the gaming press) haven't grasped the above point yet. And personally I don't think that games are equivalent to movies, in either narrative or artistic expression (yet).

I don't think any games I've played NEEDED an R18+ rating to function as a game. I don't think any game so far has really required an R18+ rating to tell its story either, but I'm not against the rating persay. There just hasn't been a game equivalent of like, A Clockwork Orange (even though I thought that movie was boring as s***), in a way. In reality an R-rating is a big hit to the target market, regardless of what those stupid IEAA or whatever surveys happen to claim the average gamer age is.

The one thing that I think is flawed with ratings is the lack of acknowledgement of interaction or role playing or whatever. A movie might feature say a torture scene, and I am completely willing to accept that a NPC torturing a character is equivalent in a game. I don't think that the player performing the action would be though. Maybe this is covered in the HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW IMPACT bits or something I don't know. I'd be interested to know how games are rated.

last edited by nF at 01:56:31 30/Jan/09

parents just need to know when to expose their kids to certain things. I got bits of dads beer / watched MA / R movies etc all before the required age. Hell most of them 5-6 years before the required age.

Still the moment kids go into school really kills any control parents have over the knowledge their kids gain and i kinda agree.. what game has really required and R18+ rating...

unless you can pull someone over to the side, drop them to the floor and bash their skull in (while getting all the real time effects that actually happen), it really isn't going to get that rating

I don't think any games I've played NEEDED an R18+ rating to function as a game.

See this is the part where I have to disagree with you.

Grand Theft Auto 3, 4, Vice City, San Andreas.
Saints Row, Saints Row 2.
Fallout 3.
Silent Hill 4

Hell, even Carmageddon should have been an 18+ title. Modern games though, the list goes on and on.

The fact is that there are games that are sneaking under the 15+ banner after completely insignificant changes. It should be obvious to anyone that has played these games that they are not suitable for most people under 18.

Remember GTA3's changes for Australia? All they did was tone down the blood splatters a little and make it so that you could no longer pick up hookers in your car (because the Classification Board at the time didn't like the idea of being able to pay for sex and then be rewarded by killing her afterwards to get your money back). Yet GTA 4 rolls around and you can pick up a hooker and kill her afterwards, they completely ignored that and targeted other insignificant things instead. What changed?

Now I don't know if theses games are being let slide as MA15+ because they represent a lot of retail for the economy, or whether they don't want to stand firm on the bans because it would mean more aussie gamers joining the rally against the current system, but the fact is that they are.

This is incredibly relevant to the argument for an R18+ rating, because plenty of the games I think have slipped under MA15+ are top shelf games and should not be withheld from Australian adults, but we should be doing something to restrict under 18 access - hence an official R18+ rating.

So yes nf, there are good games that NEED an R18+ rating to function, the Australian Classifiers just aren't correctly labeling them because they don't have access to the right label.

last edited by Dan at 10:11:23 30/Jan/09

What part of Fallout3 needed the R18+ rating? The violence in it was pretty tame, there was no sex and there were references to imaginary drugs. The violence was probably more inline with an M rating. There are plenty of MA15 movies that were more violent. The same for every other one of those games (except for Silent Hill which I haven't played).

For shear violence, Fallout 3, GTA4 and even the CoD and MoH games are knocked out of the park by the MA15+ rated Saving Private Ryan. So no, I don't think the games above need an R-rating. And I don't think the Classification is being soft on games. The fact that games are regularly knocked back, modified and resubmitted is proof of this.

Even if these games are borderline MA15+/R18+ then arguing that an R18 rating would protect children is illogical. An R rating would allow the sale of clear-cut R18 content right up to the limit of the R-rating. You aren't going to convince Michael Atkinson, or the general public, by arguing that point. You can't say that games are being incorrectly rated and then claim that an R-rating is the solution. Its illogical, its baseless and its not exactly going to endear you to the government department who's decision it is.

If games are being under-rated, then the best solution to protect children would be tighten rating policy. The result being more games refused classification.

You can't then counter that by saying that banning games only makes them more appealing. A banned game is just as appealing as an R18+ game, but the later is far more accessable.

Arguing for R18+ ratings will never go anywhere on the basis of protecting children, the only way it will succeed is on the basis of personal liberty. Almost everything I've seen on this comes down to protecting children, and Atkinson is clearly has the advantage on this ground.

Nah, you're wrong.

http://www.ausgamers.com/gameres/5421/images/230/Headshot.jpg

You can't argue on one hand that games have more effect on children than movies in terms of interaction, but then say that the ma15+ rating given to saving private ryan justifies the same rating for gory video-game shooters.

And yes, I think the modifications being made to these games in order to pass classification fly in the face of our rating system. I personally don't give a f*** about "endearing myself" to a government department, I'm just posting on an internet forum pointing out the inadequacies of the current system.

If they want to claim that videogames are more dangerous than equally violent films, then they should be lowering the bar as to what games get accepted as MA15+.

But they probably won't because they'd know that as soon as they start banning the games people actually want to play, wider public action might start to happen. As opposed to just a handful of people whining on gaming sites.

You just don't get it Obes. Why do I need to prove anything?

I do get it. And why do you need to prove it ? because you keep repeating something as if it were a golden truth, yet it is based upon a bunch underlying assumptions.

Even if these games are borderline MA15+/R18+ then arguing that an R18 rating would protect children is illogical.

That's an intriguing view which only stands up if you believe the current rating system is entirely ineffective and we should be reduced to "Everyone" and "Banned" otherwise there will always be rated content that's inappropriate for children that they can obtain through a lack of parental responsibility/supervision.

Is the argument here is that allowing R18+ games into Australia allows children access to them? Should that also be expanded to the argument that allowing MA15+ games into Australia allows children access to them? What about the PG rating? It's an absurd extreme, to be sure, but where exactly does this slippery slope of protecting the children from a ratings system that relies on effective parenting end? This is all very similar to the forced internet filtering debate currently taking place...

It all comes back to parents, for me. If you do not believe that Australian parents are capable of responsible parenting or you believe that the ratings system is entirely ineffective at restricting content to certain age groups then Michael Atkinson's opinion holds weight, otherwise it crumbles under precedents set by other 18+ content that kids don't have access to. That sounds a bit like I'm setting up a strawman argument but what other conclusion could you possibly draw from him wanting to ban R18+ content because kids can get their hands on it? Shouldn't it be the parents' responsibility to keep children away from that? Does not the R18+ label indicate to parents that they should not allow their children to play the game? If they believe their child could handle it, is it the government's responsibility to prevent them from letting their child play it?

I disagree that games that deserve an R18+ rating should be banned from Australia on the grounds that children may gain access to it. It's a point of view which isn't applied to other potential child threats (alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, household chemicals, etc.) because parents restrict their child's access to them even if they're present in the home. Why should R18+ games be any different?

You can't argue on one hand that games have more effect on children than movies in terms of interaction, but then say that the ma15+ rating given to saving private ryan justifies the same rating for gory video-game shooters.

I think you misunderstood. From what I gather the classification board rates things on the content of scenes, and doesn't factor in interaction in rating its impact. And so the Ohama beach scenes where soldiers are having limbs blown off, or holding in their intestines while screaming in agony, or holding a pressure bandage on a profusely bleeding gunshot wound, would be of a higher impact than a super mutant exploding from a head shot. Both SCENES are gory, but one is of higher impact.

The first time I saw that Omaha scene I found it pretty disturbing. When Fawkes exploded in front of me because Liberty Prime shot him accidently, I was upset, but only because I hadn't saved recently.

What I said about the interactive element, I suspect some people would probably agree with me on. It was a bit off-topic though, because I wasn't talking about Fallout 3, GTA or whatever. I was more refering to acts of cruelty in games, which is pretty rare. The Postal games are probably the only ones I can think of as being an obvious example. I think theres a real danger in games that could foster that kind of maligned personality that would enjoy it, even if it doesn't create it.

Also, Bahamut I think thats the post of the thread. Thats the sort of thing that should be going in a letter to Michael Atkinson or into this R18+ discussion paper. I'm guessing the majority of his mail is from the more rabid gamers.

funny how no one is taking on hollywood and it's violence. Even the most violent games out there are cartoons in comparison to some of the twisted movies that get released.

I know I'll get flamed for posting my own videos here, but I'm very passionate about the lack of R18+ video games in Australia.

I made this video in response to Michael Atkinson's rant on his stance on the whole issue last week, you know about how his kids are addicted to these games, which means all kids must be of course!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00BaAvliZhY

This is the third video in the series that I am calling Fighting The Good Fight. Here are links to the first 2

Episode 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNEVezvY244
Episode 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE1yc6CInkw

Anyways hope some of you enjoy them, and I've come to really like these forums and I'll start hanging around here more often

I like the idea and the effort, Hellerphant - but I hate the production. It's too confrontational it detracts a lot of focus from some of the good points you make. I definitely think your choice of medium is good though, I'm sure you'll get a large audience, but I think you will do a lot lot better if you can remove the emotion from your production and present your logical arguments without it.

Anyway, just constructive feedback to ignore or take on-board as you wish.

Haha awesome Hellerphant. We finally have the support of America, albeit one person who's probably gay but we can win this!

HAHA thanks for the feedback guys, show all your friends

I chose to make Justin Potter an American to further outline that those on the committee are out of touch with what the AUSTRALIAN public wants, it's kind of a subliminal message if you will just to show how out of touch they really are

Keep the feedback coming!

Do you live in Australia or are you just one of those Internet Freedom Fighters?

Working at EB just makes me want an R18 rating all the more.

It really comes down to something that will make the parents stop and think about what they are giving to their child. Nearly every week I have to explain to mum or dad that, 'yeah the game you are about to give to your little precious has blood, guts, gore, sex or all of the above.' Some obivously don't give a damn, and the way the law stands currently, if mum wants to buy GTA 4 for her 9 year old son, I can't stop her.

If there was an R18 rating, it would be the case (like with pornorgraphy, movies ect.) that it would be illegal for me to sell that game to mum or dad if they expressed the wishes to then give the game to a minor. All sales of restricted material would have to be carded with valid australian id. (none of this school id crap that goes on now)

If anything it would restrict the sale of questionable games to minors, as games that are being 'toned down' to fit into a M15 rating could be completely restricted from sale to minors with the higher rating.


Edit: I realise while this wouldn't stop kids under 18 from playing restricted games when the game is already in the home, that is what proper parenting is for. If you can't regulate what goes on in your own home, you shouldn't be bringing questionable content into said home.


last edited by Ayuen at 20:30:30 05/Feb/09

Yeah thats a convincing argument.

I live in Australia mate :)