Home
Twitter
RSS
Newsletter
Daniel Golding
25 Jul, 2008

The ABC discusses R18 rating

PALGN News | Politicians, journalists and businesspeople discuss banned games.
Last night, the ABC's flagship current affairs discussion program, Q&A, featured a brief segment on videogame classification. The subject was broached by audience member Joab Gilroy (a staff member for Gamearena), who cited the number of recent videogames refused classification and effectively banned in Australia. Tony Jones then siphoned discussion towards the most recent example: Fallout 3. He described the game as allowing players to "inject intravenous drugs to make them kill more people," in order to give more background to the audience.

Several panel members gave opinions on the topic. First, Heather Ridout, Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, stated that "as a mother of three kids, two of whom spend an awful lot of time playing these types of games, I mean I just find the whole thing appalling, the sort of minds that come up with this sort of thing. Now Grand Theft Auto was one of the more famous games, that seemed to turn everyone into a car thief." Nick Xenaphon, an incoming independent senator, argued that "I think we have to listen to the psychologists who've looked at these sorts of things, and this is different in the sense that its interactive, people get immersed in these type of games, and I think that there is a real risk, I think as a society we can live without it." He also admitted that censorship, in this case, is necessary, as "we just need to be a bit cautious about it." Xenaphon did not cite any specific studies, though it is worth noting that an Australian government-commissioned report published in 1995 found little evidence to support a claim of correlation between real-life and videogame violence.

Mark Arbib, an incoming Labor Part Senator, disagreed with many of the panel, arguing that "an R-rating, over the age of 18 is fine," because "if you are want to play the game, you are going to get it somehow." Unfortunately, there seemed to be some confusion over the specifics of the debate, with many members of the panel under the impression that there remains no classification system for videogames, despite one being in force since 1995. Host Tony Jones stated that "these things are being banned because there isn't a ratings system for videogames." Arbib, therefore, agreed that there was a "strong argument" for a ratings system. Journalist for The Australian, Christine Jackman also agreed, suggesting we "urgently need a rating system." Perhaps the most surprising comment came from Barnaby Joyce, a Senator for the National Party: "We had the thing with, I think, it was avatars, is that the right term, where people can actually go and rape people. Now, this is not acceptable." As yet, we aren't entirely certain what Joyce was referring to, though the confines of the debate may have meant his meaning was lost.

This debate, though small in scale, remains an important illustration for Australian gamers, as many of those participating hold indirect sway over videogame legislation. Though the current legislation states that the classification system may be changed by consensus of the Standing Committee of Attorney Generals, if the legislation itself were to be changed, it would have to pass through the Senate, where many of the panel members hold power. Indeed, Xenaphon in particular holds the balance of power in the Senate, along with one other independent senator, the Greens, and Steven Fielding of Family First.

To view the a video of the debate, skip forward to 44:20 here. Thanks to forum member Qbert for the tip.

Related Content

Airbourne Interview
21 Nov, 2007 We talk to drummer, Ryan O’Keeffe about Airbourne's work with EA Sports and some of their future goals.
GameConnect 07
20 Nov, 2007 Connecting local experience with global talent.
The GDAA meets with the government
05 Nov, 2007 So what was achieved?
38 Comments
3 years ago
Now why the hell weren't you in the audience Mike?

Unfortunately, the media is always bias. Always. Never do they present a neutral perspective on what you are shown. So having this debate aired over such a medium is an exercise of mediocrity, as it does nothing to get the 'For' point across and simply bogs the situation in negativity even deeper..

At the end of the day, it's the companies that would ultimately be able to 'convince' the senate to get a higher restriction motion rolling - at the moment, a moot prospect if you look at how Australia is viewed by the 'big 3' console companies and publishers. I liken this as a sting at the end of a big kick to the ass. The answer is, it isnt worth pursuing by the majority of companies making money for their respective gaming industry enterprises. If one or two big name games that get banned then it means nothing to them because they will make a killing elsewhere in the world where the consumer population is 5 times as large as ours.

As much as I hate to say it, it's a money game folks, and that's the end of that. As much as Nintendo say they are in it to provide people with an unique gaming experience or Microsoft saying their aim is to provide the most cutting edge gaming machine or Sony saying their device is an epic multi meda entertainment platform; the bottomline is that they are in it to take YOUR money. Their mission statments just encourage us to part with our hard earned dollar. "Make them want something and they will pay you for it".
3 years ago
We really need to write a few polite emails to the people on that panel and correct the farcical facts & fantasy they currently base their decisions on.

The guy in the fallout shirt was a complete Muppet agreeing that Fallout was all about shooting up drugs so you could kill more people. When he agreed with that comment I almost died, he sounded like he knew about as much about the game as someone that had never even played the previous games.
3 years ago
What makes you think he even played Fallout before? Just because he wore a shirt? Sounds likely that said muppet was 'placed' as a really weak ploy to force an opinion on the minds of the uninitiated.

From a couple who know nothing about gaming besides playing Space Invaders in their youth, watching the segment on TV...

"Well gee Tom.. look at his shirt? He's obviously played the game before.."
3 years ago
Lol, that 'muppet' was Joaby from the AG forums, he was just being bullied by the ignorant panelists.
3 years ago
Poor Joaby, I should comfort him or something because I think he was really used as a scapegoat for these morons to attack.

Can someone put me on the next Four Corners show for ABC? I'm willing and ready to show these guys how they fail at basic life. The amount of flaws in their argument, the amount of outdated **** they use to justify this policy makes we want to murder something. I know since I'm now 18 and obviously just recently gained the knowledge of importation I can import Manhunt and act out a snuff film in the hope that one day I can too become a mass murder. Maybe I can import GTA4 and become a car jacker like everyone else on these forums.

Can anyone else spot the lapse in logic?
3 years ago
S.Jaworski wrote
What makes you think he even played Fallout before?
I never said he'd played it before. If he didn't have any idea about the game he shouldn't have been on there talking about something he knew nothing about, just like that panel.

If he had played the previous games, or read FO3 previews he sure as hell didn't show it. All he had to say was "No Tony, the game isn't about shooting up drugs to shoot more people".
3 years ago
littlemo wrote
S.Jaworski wrote
What makes you think he even played Fallout before?
I never said he'd played it before. If he didn't have any idea about the game he shouldn't have been on there talking about something he knew nothing about, just like that panel.

If he had played the previous games, or read FO3 previews he sure as hell didn't show it. All he had to say was "No Tony, the game isn't about shooting up drugs to shoot more people".
Fallout was not the subject, that being and even qanda admit "video game censorship" that as soon as the question of an R rating was asked (and Ag were asked to provide someone to ask the question so the panelist and hosts had pep time to gather factual information) that the argument immediately shifted to "so Fallout is about drugs and killing" we can hardly blame the guy for agreeing with the context since the subject was derailed before it was even debated.

Was he to know that it'd immediately shift to Fallout & GTA? Is a gamer one who has played one of these 2 games?

Yes his handling of the confirmation was relatively weak, but all things considering I know I'd be a bit "what the hell?" if I were in his shoes having my argument immediately derailed to generalisations and tangents where people haven't bothered to even research the OFLC's role in classification. On the other hand we'd probably be ridiculing the guy if he berated the panel for "missing the pretty coloured blocks on gaming which denotes that the OFLC already classify games, and their derailment is the reason why this is still an issue because they refuse to research the bloody topic to begin with" Sure we'd probably be calling him a hero, but at the same time he'd be a bastard for not being cool and either way he couldn't win.

In short they were asked to provide someone who could debate the merits of a unified classification system, not the merits of Fallout 3 being about drugs and guns, gta about turning everyone but those associated with politicians into car thieves or avatar raping etc. This is the fault of the program itself desiring a negative argument as opposed to a debate about merits, partially because we know or those with understanding on the subjects show the merits against as being outdated, false and ignorant.

Would you still be hanging the guy if he was there to pose a question on washing machines and the subject immediately shifted to the Omo brand?
3 years ago
Im certainly not hanging the guy. It sounds to me that members of this forum would have done a better job in fulfilling the ultimate objective behind Joaby's appearance. Whether the argument was derailed or not, he had a chance to debate their lack of knowledge on the subject and failed. Plain and simple. Why wear a Fallout shirt though? That's my question. Is it simply to akin to wearing a badge on him that says "GAMER" in capital letters for the viewer's sake?
3 years ago
To be perfectly honest, the guy who questioned the consistancy between why these games are ban (and when you consider that, yes many studies show that there is no link between games and behavior) and pokies, which he explained quite clearly have an effect on people; seemed more inteligent than they guy asking the original question. And the later question was spot on about consistancy because in the current ratings scheme there isn't. Because when you look at the summary of Fallout 3 that the Head panelist gave, the summary bears and uncanny resemblance to game we know as Bioshock, which is rated and allowed for play in the Australian market.

Futher they guy had a chance to educate the panelists about the gaming industry and a chance to say that the video game industry is now the biggest media industry in the world.

Anyways, this was a wasted opportunity that needed a more intelligent mind at the helm... sorry mate.
3 years ago
Like I said, an entire show dedicated to this subject combined with a knowledgeable panel with actual connections to the game industry would have been our best chance for a meaningful discussion on the topic. But with the meager time allocation and the relative ignorance of the panel members, it was almost inevitable that the discussion would be buggered up as badly as it was.
3 years ago
LMFAO! This is hilarious, on one side you got people complaining about something they know nothing about and on the other you’ve got people complaining about something they never saw…

In the end it doesn’t matter, those games that are banned are really owned and heard about those who are really into games, every one else is persuaded by propaganda, or at leat I think so, I mean when EA can pump hours of advertising into 1 game then I guess it might sell that bit better, at least better than a game that is better but receives no coverage or no better reviews….(EA must be the most hatest of game companies ever?)

They will get a R18 for games eventually, just wait for some crook to work out how all the taxes get divided amongst those in control, remember, games are new to the money making industry, they have to learn how to control the flow before they can control the profit…
3 years ago
I think that we can simply dismiss this as another show along the lines of ACA or TT. What a waste of TV scheduling time. All to try and gain viewers by appealing to parental fears.

The main disappointment was that the channel was ABC. I expected better.
3 years ago
Man, that guy needs to learn to compose questions in such a way as to push people into the desired answer. For instance asking:

"What is your opinion on introducing an R18 rating for games?"

Would lead answers saying it's a bad thing since it sounds like you are suggesting that porn games should be made. But if the question is worded like so:

"As the only developed nation without an R18 equivilant classification many games rated R18 overseas are being released in Australia with only an MA15+ rating that is largely ignored by the general public, what would your opinions be on introducing an R18 rating for games to prevent minors buying such games that are largely inappropriate for them?"

Any answers suggesting that it's a bad idea to introduce an R18 rating would be implying that minors should be allowed to buy inappropriate games which is basically the main argument most people seem to have as to why there shouldn't be an R18 rating. It also gives them some confidence to give an answer in favor of an R18 rating since it's been established that it's the norm as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

You can get pretty much any answer you want from almost anyone provided you ask the right way icon_wink.gif
3 years ago
Basically the "fight fire with fire" approach.

Also, there's a guy who's a candidate in the ACT election who just posted an article about the Q&A show.
Add Comment
Like this news?
Share it with this tiny url: http://palg.nu/5F

N4G : News for Gamers         Twitter This!

Digg!     Stumble This!

| More
Currently Popular on PALGN
Australian Gaming Bargains - 08/12/11
'Tis the season to be bargaining.
R18+ Legislation
R18+ Legislation
Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm Generations Preview
Hands on time with the game. Chat time with the CEO of CyberConnect 2.
PALGN's Most Anticipated Games of 2007
24 titles to keep an eye on during 2007.
PALGN's Most Anticipated Games of 2008
And you thought 2007 was populated.