Exciting news about the Australian Government Attorney General’s department releasing a discussion paper about the possible future R18+ rating for video games. This is where you come in: they are seeking submissions from the public on the issue and I’m hoping that Reddit gets in on the action with me for a group submission.
I’ll post my raw arguments here as well as the quotes from well known R18+ opponent – SA Attorney General Michael Atkinson. Post your suggestions and thoughts in the Reddit submission, or below if you’re not a redditor.
It’s all after the jump:
Although some members are advocates of this classification, I believe other Attorneys-General, like me, reject it. Other Attorneys-General who are opposed to introducing an R18+ classification for computer games are content to let me be the lightening (sic) rod for the gamers.
Who are against it? Why haven’t we heard from them as well? It seems to me very odd that other Attorneys-General would oppose a topic silently and push someone else to fight the fight for them.
The other attorneys-general are also serving their own constituents and are elected officials – if it’s the case that they object to the classification, it’s their duty to make their opposition known. While it is fine for Mr Atkinson to be the ‘lightening rod’ or representative of those opposing it – there must be some transparency.
I am well aware that many game players are adults… However, it is important you do not confuse the classification rating of a game with the game’s sophistication, or the challenge or interest to the player… It does not follow that a game is more interesting to an adult simply because it contains extreme violence, explicit sexual material or highly offensive language.
Indeed, with all the effort and money that goes into game development, coupled with the effects and graphics now available, there is no need to introduce these extreme elements. I am bafffled and worried about why proponents of R18+ games are putting up their hands and saying ‘Give us more cruel sex and extreme violence!’
This is Mr Atkinson’s very personal opinion. Whilst he may not find a game with violent elements entertaining – very many people do. If they didn’t; television programs like Dexter, The CSI series, The Wire and Films like Kill Bill, Rambo, Saving Private Ryan, Natural Born Killer; would not be so successful. Violence is a part of life. It’s a very important part of our history, our society and our daily lives.
No gamer is claiming they are condoning violence, though gaming gives people a chance to experience and understand things like violence in an immersed setting that harms no one. As can be seen by films and television programs, it is also an extremely important element in a narrative.
As for sex, while many conservatives may view sex as something that should be kept in the bedroom – it is an important part of many adults’ daily lives. To provide sexual themes in a video game – whether they be an occasional scene, or the entire premise of the game – is no more reprehensible than what you can witness in a television program or film. The ‘cruel sex’ Mr Atkinson refers to, assumingly the major element of Japanese ‘rape games’, would be covered under the existing classification guidelines already existing in Australia. In other words, they wouldn’t make it onto the shelves.
With an R18+ rating sexually explicit and violent video games would be kept from children the same way R18+ films are. A child cannot buy R18+ content and responsible parents do not buy it for them – as the R18+ rating is recognisable and easy to comprehend for parents. As it stands, children are exposed to much more violence and implied sex because the rating does not exist.
The demand for sex and/or violence in video games may be baffling to Michael Atkinson, however this by no means proves that it is inexplicable. Sex and violence are a very major part of the global historical narrative and to omit these themes for no other reason than Mr Atkinson’s bafflement would be to take away the stark reality many games strive to present and many gamers strive to experience.
‘Interactive Australia 2007′, a report prepared by Bond University for the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia, surveyed 1,606 Australian households randomly. The report found “79% of Australian households have a device for computer and video games”. Further, 62% of Australians in these gaming households “say the classification of a game has no influence on their buying decision”.
Given this data, I cannot fathom what State-enforced safeguards could exist to prevent R18+ games being bought by households with children and how children can be stopped from using these games once the games are in the home. If adult gamers are so keen to have R18+ games, I expect children would be just as keen.
Classification of electronic games is very different from the classification of film. In cinemas, the age of movie-goers can be regulated… Rising game and console sales make it clear that this is a growing area that needs careful regulation, even more so than cinemas and private D.V.D. hire and purchase. Access to electronic games, once in the home, cannot be policed and therefore the games are easily accesible to children.
Firstly it is very odd that Mr Atkinson references the statistics from the Interactive Australia/Bond University study, for two reasons:
- In a recent interview with Radio National he immediately dismissed the statistics quoted from the study – claiming they were biased in their compiling of the survey. It also states that 91% of the respondents are in support of the R18+ rating
- The fact that 62% of gamers say that “the classification of a game has no influence on their buying decision” shows further that without an R18+ rating, most consumers are not informed as to the appropriateness of a game for children or adolescents.
Currently, a parent or guardian will see the maximum ‘MA15+’ rating and consider it appropriate for their teenager to play. Drawing from their experience with film and television – they trust that the classification board consider the game to be appropriate.
However, this is often not the case. Many games are developed especially for adults. Whether this can be recognised in the content being overly sophisticated or displaying adult themes explicitly – there is no way for parents to discern from the cover of a video game whether or not it will be suitable for their adolescent child.
Also, Atkinson has claimed that an R18+ rating for games would be impossible to enforce, but has not at all addressed why he believes this is so. An R18+ rating would be enforced in the same way it is enforced for other restricted content, alcohol and cigarettes. Shops would be required to request proof of age and without such supply – would be required by law to deny service. Shops that fail to do so will be prosecuted.
As for ‘State-enforced safeguards’ to prevent children from playing restricted content – one would imagine a task like this would fall to parents. Parents are encouraged to supervise their childrens’ activities, to not do so is negligent. It is not at all necessary for governments to legislate parenting any more than they currently do. Restricted content like pornographic films/magazines or violent films already exist in Australian households with children – to suggest a restricted game would be treated any differently is ignorant.
What the present law does is keep the most extreme material off the shelves. It is true that this restricts adult liberty to a small degree, however, I am prepared to accept this infringement in the circumstances.
Whether or not Mr Atkinson is personally interested in the protection of adult liberty for Australians is irrelevant to the argument of whether adult liberty should be protected. There is no clear reason – other than an attempt to protect Mr Atkinson’s sensibilities – to restrict the liberty of adults (or as he has referred to as ‘vulnerable’ adults).
The present law does keep the most extreme material off the shelves – it also works to keep extreme material on the shelves; while making it available to children. An R18+ rating would protect children from material they should not have access to. Currently, this content still exists. It may be edited to remove blood spatter and corpses (and in the process, reality) – though this leaves a game which is not only still too violent, but completely thematically inappropriate and without demonstrated consequences for behaviour within the game.
I am concerned about the level of violence in society and the widespread acceptance of simulated violence as a form of entertainment. I am particularly concerned about the impact of this extreme content on children and vulnerable adults.
I believe the repeated act of killing a computer-generated person or creature desensitises them to violence. To my mind, a child being able to watch depraved sex and extreme violence in a movie is damaging to the child, but the child’s participating (sic) in depraved sex and extreme violence in a computer game is worse.
Mr Atkinson may be concerned by the level of violence in society – it is concerning to most reasonable people in the Australian community. However, according to psychological and scientific studies – the belief that playing violent video games is linked to violent or aggressive behaviour is unfounded. Several major studies published by groups such as The Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health, The Journal of Adolescent Health, and The British Medical Journal have shown no conclusive link between video game usage and violent activity. Also, meta-analysis bypsychologist Jonathan Freedman, who reviewed over 200 published studies and found that the “vast and overwhelming majority” did not find a causal link between video game violence and violent/aggressive behaviour.
Further to this, the desensitisation of children to sex and violence is deeply concerning and an R18+ rating would further contribute to protecting them from such. As previously stated – while children and adolescents are exposed to game content that is vastly inappropriate for their maturity levels, they will continue to be desensitised to adult themes. If an R18+ rating is introduced, this would no longer be an issue.
Game-houses are always free to adapt games that would otherwise be R.C. [Refused Classification] and modify the game content to be in line with the M.A.15+ classification… I do not accept that this destroys the artistic integrity of the game – excusing gore and depraved sex as art is an immature argument.
This is once again a statement of Atkinson’s personal opinion. If you would ask the developers or fans of the game – I’m sure they would see it very differently. Video games are as much an art form and contain as much of a creative narrative as any other film, painting or novel. To force the artistic developers to chop and change the work to scrape in under the MA15+ rating not only damages the artistic integrity of the game, but also the creative integrity of the narrative.
Regardless, forcing this process also often produces a game which is structurally uncomfortable and still inappropriate for a young audience. Gore and sex are very often an essential part of art in all mediums – to suggest that they aren’t and shouldn’t be is an ignorant and unsubstantiated argument.
Contrarily, it has been suggested that games that would otherwise be classified R18+ are instead slipping through as M.A.15+ and becoming accessible to children. This argument does not support an R18+ classification for games. There may be games that some people consider too violent for the M.A.15+ classification but the solution is not to create a classification that would permit even more violent games in Australia.
M.A.15+ games are restricted to children over 15 and if younger children access these games it further justifies complete protection from R18+ games. It is up to parents and responsible adults to ensure a game is appropriate for a minor whatever age he or she is. It is up to members of the Classification Board to apply the Guidelines correctly and not to try to defeat the Guidelines because they disagree with the outcome of the actions of elected officials in a democratic rule-of-law society.
Mr Atkinson is further proving the need for an R18+ rating in this statement: The rating would not suddenly allow a flow of ‘even more violent games in Australia’ – it would allow the classification board to label games correctly as they currently cannot.
It would enable the classification board to remove games that are too mature for an MA15+ rating from an arena accessible to minors. There are very few games that are Refused Classification in Australia that do not perform minor edits to the games in order to make them tick the boxes for an M15+ rating.
R18+ rated games would be further protected from children than MA15+ games because there is a nationally standardised method of proving your age to purchase restricted content. Currently, 15 year olds do not have the same system as adults – there is no official age identification system for under 18 year olds. Therefore it is possible for children under the age of 15 to purchase a product that they should not be able to buy.
This is all the more a reason to implement an R18+ rating – it would ensure that games which are thematically too mature for minors would be unavailable to them. Some parents do not play games. They probably don’t know the background of the games, the content or the game-play style. This is why the classification board exists – to provide an easy to comprehend warning for unknowing parents. The lack of an R18+ rating only works to limit the ability of the classification board to give an accurate portrayal of the themes found in games.
In his interview with Radio National, Mr Atkinson explicitly stated that he does not trust the classification board. He has not explained why they are not to be trusted or what they have done to lose his collegiate respect. His last sentence does not make sense to communicate anything but a random jab at the classification board. If Mr Atkinson feels they cannot perform their duties effectively, he should perhaps have that argument in a different arena.
Well there you have it Reddit. Hopefully this starts a great discussion about our submission. I look forward to your comments!
