Mr Atkinson, the South Australian Attorney-General who is currently blocking the introduction of an R18+ rating for Australian video games, is not the devil. He’s not crushing your democratic rights just because he hates gamers, and he’s not doing it because his mother didn’t nurse him as a child.
Here at PALGN, we believe that he is genuinely concerned with protecting children from adult material available in some video games. And we agree with him. We just think he’s going about it the wrong way.
There is no doubt that the games industry is maturing and a high proportion of today’s gamers are now adults, leading to the development of more titles suited to an older audience. Improvements in graphics and technology are also allowing the violence level in games to become more realistic every day. We need an R18+ rating to keep up with this growing demand, otherwise many of these games will continue to get into the hands of children through the less restrictive MA15+ rating.
South Australian Attorney General, Michael Atkinson: Not the devil
Let’s look first at the current classification system for games in Australia. There are four classifications – G, PG, M15+ and MA15+. It more or less works the same as the film classification system ratings. The MA15+ rating is the only games rating that is legally binding, meaning retailers can be fined for selling or hiring these games to people under 15 unless they are with their parents or guardian.
No R18+ rating causing inconsistencies in classification
The story goes that the MA15+ symbol was introduced in Australia in 1994 largely as a result of then Prime Minister Paul Keating’s confusion as to why a relatively mild movie like Crocodile Dundee was receiving the same classification as a movie with high impact violence and sexual themes like Cape Fear.
The same thing is happening today with computer games because of a lack of an R18+ rating: games that have high impact violence and themes are being lumped in with games that don't. According to the Classification Board’s Guidelines of the Classification of Films and Computer Games, the criteria for violence states that it must be "justified by context”.
Let’s look at a handful popular video games – Grand Theft Auto 4, Call of Duty: World at War, Fallout 3, and MadWorld – and see whether the violence is actually justified by context.
First of all, let’s consider Grand Theft Auto 4. The game has a gritty set of missions and each one has a pretty well established context for some of the violent tasks you are asked to do. However, what about the violence you can perform outside of the mission structure? In this section of the game, you are allowed to hop into a car and run down pedestrians, shoot at old ladies, and kill police officers. So this raises the question: what context is GTA4 giving the player to perform such full-on acts of violence allow it to fit under an MA15+ rating?
Not pictured - dead grannies.
And what about MadWorld, the new Sega title that its website excitedly proclaims has “Blood soaked action for the Wii”? You play a former marine with a chainsaw on his arm who competes in a violent television show. So under the MA15+ guidelines there is a context for the killing, that is, surviving the competition. However, the violence is over-the-top and – in our opinion – of a much higher level than most other MA15+ titles. There is really no context given for having the ability to impale enemies on street signs or to rip out their hearts. In fact, the entire gameplay is based around killing people, and the more violent the death, the more points the player gets.
Then there’s Fallout 3 where for the most part its violence is justified through the missions you undertake, and are carried out in the context of a harsh, post-apocalyptic world. In many situations, you can also choose to talk your way out of a fight and there are often consequences for choosing violence as a course of action. So far so good.
However, the game also allows you to walk into a civilised town and wipe out everyone, including defenceless women and old people, targeting body parts and blowing off heads in graphic detail. Thankfully, you can’t kill the children. Again we ask, what is the context that justifies you slaughtering innocent people that makes it fit for an MA15+ rating?
Gamers lose their minds for Fallout 3.
Don’t get us wrong – we’re not saying adults shouldn’t be allowed to play these games. In fact, the R18+ rating as it applies to films would comfortably accommodate the violence in these three games. Under the R18+ rating for movies, there is no caveat which says that violence has to in any sort of context. There is no mention of any requirements at all, and it merely states: “Violence is permitted.” In our opinion, this makes the R18+ rating a perfect place for the high-impact violence in these games.
Let’s then consider Call of Duty 4: World at War. Sure, this game contain oodles of violence and strong war themes, but the context for why you need to kill people is given to you clearly at the start of every mission. The violence is not overly gratuitous; you can’t use anything other than standard weapons and you can’t kill innocent people. This game clearly justifies its violence and is the sort of game that the MA15+ rating can comfortably accommodate. Other games that fit here comfortably include the Halo and Resistance series.
The introduction of an R18+ rating would lower the number of high impact games being allowed through the classification process with an MA15+ rating.
The R18+ rating offers additional protection
Currently, the MA15+ classification is the only legally enforceable one for games in Australia. Each state and territory has its own legislation in regards to penalties for selling MA15+ and R18+ rated material to minors. However, penalties are generally greater for the sale of R18+ rated material to minors than for MA15+ material.
For example, in NSW the maximum penalty for selling an MA15+ rated game to a minor is up to $5,500 for a person and $11,000 for a corporation. For an R18+ rated film the maximum penalty is double that. In Tasmania, the sale of a MA15+ game to a minor can attract up to a $2,200 fine, but for an R18+ rated film, it is up to $5,500 and/or a 12 month jail term.
Is the violence in MadWorld worth getting cut up about?
It makes sense that an R rating for games would offer the same punishments that the R rating for films currently offers, providing a greater deterrent against retailers doing the wrong thing and keeping potentially damaging content away from minors.
More parents understand the R18+ rating
The only survey we could find on the level of recognition and comprehension of the classification system was a 2002 report from the Office of Film and Literature Classification titled Australian Consumers’ Understanding of Classification Information. The report found that the MA15+ symbol is not well recognised or understood in either movie or film classification. The report found that:
There is obvious confusion with regard to the MA15+ symbol. It is most commonly interpreted (40%) to indicate a film is for mature audiences. Consumers are failing to distinguish the “accompanied” and legally restrictive elements of MA15+ from that of the M15+ classification.
While the recognition and understanding of the MA15+ rating has probably improved over the past seven years since this report was issued, it still would not be as recognisable as the R18+ rating which has been around since 1971.
War is hell in Call of Duty.
With regard to the R18+ classification, the majority (65%) of people recognised it and understood it according to the survey. A further 23% gave responses that indicated they knew the symbol meant that the material was for adults, and not children. The Classification Board concluded that there seems to be "little confusion with this symbol".
So if an R18+ rating was put on games with high impact content, such as those just scraping in under the MA15+ classification, parents would better understand it and know that they shouldn't be letting their young children play it.
Change will not happen overnight
Let’s be honest here. Game classification is not a high priority for politicians at the best of times, least of all in the current economic climate. However, we need to band together as a gaming community. Too many of us are playing right into the hands of conservative politicians by writing defamatory letters and emails to people such as Mr Atkinson, and even sending death threats. This only helps to strengthen their perception that gamers are immature and that playing violent games causes people to be violent.
The fact is, Mr Atkinson was voted in by the public so it’s not just his opinion we need to change. The issue needs to be raised at every level of government and at every level of the community. Write to your local member for parliament, write to your state’s Attorney General, talk to your friends and family about the issue and make some noise. But do it sensibly!
If there is enough pressure from the South Australian people and from other politician, Mr Atkinson will be forced to listen and put the issue back into the public arena where it belongs. Show him that the gaming community is intelligent, can handle adult material, and is a strong-knit group that will vote against him if he ignores us.
Dangle a carrot, don’t throw a hand grenade.
As part of the push for an R rating, PALGN has helped create a new website specifically aimed at raising awareness of the issue - http://everyoneplays.org.au.
Could you link us to all of Atkinson's statements on the issue? I see quite a few responses but not much of Atkinson's opinion.
Loading...
