The R18+ Rating for Games Thread [Archive]

Shorty

24-08-2009, 11:53 PM

Recently, conservative columnist Miranda Devine published an article blaming the Australian Christian Lobby's efforts to prevent a R18+ rating for video games from being introduced for the "abhorrent" content in House of The Dead: Overkill (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/a-wii-shock-to-the-system-for-parents-20090821-etph.html?page=-1). Her argument is that the game is far too graphic and profane for an MA15+ rating and that the game could've easily deserved an R18+ rating if the ACL hadn't been lobbying against it.

Personally, I think she spends a little too much of the article telling us how disgusting she thinks HotD is and how it really should be rated R and too little time explaining how the current classification system causes this situation and who is standing in the way of progress. It's kinda difficult to take seriously the indignation of a journalist who describes as "unspeakable" a scene that they then go on to describe in detail.

Still, do you think she's right? Is she arguing for a just cause, albeit possibly not in the best manner? Is this article really going to do anything other than suggest to politicans another game they can lobby to have retroactively banned?

Space_Monkey

25-08-2009, 12:05 AM

the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults

Everytime I read this I want to gouge my eyes out.

Jickle

25-08-2009, 12:25 AM

I don't really care whether I disagree with a person's justification at this point. The fact that we should have an R rating is so obvious that any argument reaching that conclusion is fine in my book.

FrozenSoul80

25-08-2009, 01:03 AM

Xanafalgue

25-08-2009, 01:11 AM

Miranda Devine right about something? Stop the ****ing presses...

nintendo

25-08-2009, 02:46 AM

I find it amusing that the argument gamers have been putting forward all along is being used by a person like her.

Well.... It is common sense after all.... It would eventually need to prevail wouldnt it?

EDIT:
Although I could see this going a-wire on us. It could just end up in the banning of HotD and nothing else. Either that or the banning of HotD and they become even more strict on classifying games that would usually be an R18+ rating.

sausage

25-08-2009, 05:39 AM

I live in NZ.

We have a R18+ rating here.

We are smarter than Australia.

Forced MA15+ rating is forced.

Vindik8or

25-08-2009, 06:39 AM

I feel she is right on the money. When playing Fallout 3, and to a lesser extent Bioshock, I was shocked to discover a 15 year old could legally play it. We need this R18+ rating, not to legalise previously banned games, but to properly rate existing games which just scrape through with an MA15+ rating.

Shocked? WTF, mate? There's nothing in these games you wouldn't see in a good MA Arnie action flick.

Put it another way. A 15 year old is only one year from the age where they can be declared legally independant, can be tried as an adult, is old enough to give consent for sex. And you want to shelter them? From what? A bit of gratuitous over-the-top gore?

sausage

25-08-2009, 06:55 AM

Legislation does not guarantee maturity.

Lazlow

25-08-2009, 07:51 AM

I live in NZ.

We have a R18+ rating here.

We are smarter than Australia.

Despite this they've still managed to ban Manhunt 1/2, Postal 2, and Resevoir Dogs. :rolleyes:

Halt, Hammerzeit

25-08-2009, 08:06 AM

I was trying to think of something to say here, but realised that I'd be preaching to the choir, so I'll just say that this can only be a good thing. Even if it does spend more time descibing HotD than promoting an R18+ rating, it's a step in the right direction.

Clockw0rk

25-08-2009, 11:03 AM

Despite this they've still managed to ban Manhunt 1/2, Postal 2, and Resevoir Dogs. :rolleyes:
Didn't all of those games suck anyway?
I think it's ridiculous that Australia doesn't have an R18+ rating for games yet, but sadly I don't think that's about to change anytime soon.

Vindik8or

25-08-2009, 11:18 AM

Legislation does not guarantee maturity.

No, but the violence in those things mentioned is decidedly immature.

Lazlow

25-08-2009, 11:36 AM

Didn't all of those games suck anyway?
I think it's ridiculous that Australia doesn't have an R18+ rating for games yet, but sadly I don't think that's about to change anytime soon.

Product quality is neither here nor there when government departments play mother. ;)

That said, the Manhunt games aren't that bad. Bit monotonous, otherwise good.

fishonthecarpet

25-08-2009, 11:42 AM

Shocked? WTF, mate? There's nothing in these games you wouldn't see in a good MA Arnie action flick.

Put it another way. A 15 year old is only one year from the age where they can be declared legally independant, can be tried as an adult, is old enough to give consent for sex. And you want to shelter them? From what? A bit of gratuitous over-the-top gore?

I'd hardly go with that Arnie movie comparison. In Fallout 3 you can take chunks out of a guy's head with a pistol and watch it all in slow motion glory over and over again. It's in your control. There's something to be said for the fact that you are the one causing these actions over and over again rather than just simply observing it. There's a big difference in the psychology behind games and movies.

I'm not sure that I'd claim it's about the literal meaning of an MA15+ or R18+ classification but the level of seriousness with which parents and guardians take these guidelines.

Does anyone else agree that a parent is much less likely to be lenient with an R18+ rating than a MA15+ rating?

Halt, Hammerzeit

25-08-2009, 11:49 AM

I think most of the parent's that complain about it are the ones buying their 8 year old the MA15+ game, so I'm not sure if an R18+ rating would actually deter them.

Space_Monkey

25-08-2009, 11:58 AM

Despite this they've still managed to ban Manhunt 1/2, Postal 2, and Resevoir Dogs. :rolleyes:

Don't forget they got the same censored versions of GTA4 like us!

super_deformed

25-08-2009, 12:06 PM

I they bring in an R18+rating Id hope it would enable more adult content, not necessarily more VIOLENT content. Cause Im not sure games could get anymore violent.

And I dont mean 'strip tetris'. Though Im sure it would sell

Vindik8or

25-08-2009, 12:23 PM

I'd hardly go with that Arnie movie comparison. In Fallout 3 you can take chunks out of a guy's head with a pistol and watch it all in slow motion glory over and over again. It's in your control. There's something to be said for the fact that you are the one causing these actions over and over again rather than just simply observing it. There's a big difference in the psychology behind games and movies.

Is there really such a big difference? Actual psychologists can't prove one way or the other any of the media effects, but hey play pop-freud anyway!

The gore in Fallout 3 is completely hilariously over-the-top, you're kinda bespeaking the mind-stripping terrors of The Black Knight scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail in the same sentence.

Stevorooni

25-08-2009, 12:38 PM

I'd hardly go with that Arnie movie comparison. In Fallout 3 you can take chunks out of a guy's head with a pistol and watch it all in slow motion glory over and over again. It's in your control. There's something to be said for the fact that you are the one causing these actions over and over again rather than just simply observing it. There's a big difference in the psychology behind games and movies.

I can rewind and play an Arnie movie in slow motion during the gory bits, it's in my control at the push of a button, much like playing a game where a button has an impact on what's happening on my screen.

fishonthecarpet

25-08-2009, 01:27 PM

Is there really such a big difference? Actual psychologists can't prove one way or the other any of the media effects, but hey play pop-freud anyway!

The gore in Fallout 3 is completely hilariously over-the-top, you're kinda bespeaking the mind-stripping terrors of The Black Knight scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail in the same sentence.

I'm not quite sure how you got Freud from what I said - perhaps because I used the word "psychology?"

There's obviously a big difference between passive and active involvement in entertainment, yes. There's clearly a difference between being observational and partaking. I'm not claiming to know the long term effects on anyone, but the simple act of interaction gives you a different investment in the situation.

It's not the same as rewinding and rewatching - you're interacting in an environment with virtual laws of cause and effect.

Obviously anyone who plays through Fallout 3 is going to become desensitised to the violence in it - same goes for any game. Unlike an arnie movie you might see a head or limb explode over 100 times in one playthrough of Fallout 3 - as part of the core experience you are intended to have. Unlike replaying and rewinding one scene over and over again where it is not part of the movie itself. Should quantity be a factor as well as quality? Repeated viewings do change your perception.

It could be one of the reasons why a movie like Monty Python was stuck with a PG rating whereas another movie with an over-the-top approach to violence, Kill Bill, was rated R18+. There were far more instances of violence and the context and tone is completely and utterly different (violent acts being one of the big focusses of the experience).

There's more to it than the simple display of blood and guts, I'm not claiming any more than that.
That's my two cents, and doubtless as I am that this post will be picked to shreds I'm not getting sucked into being an outlet for anyone else's personal frustrations with the world. Good day to you!

FrozenSoul80

25-08-2009, 01:41 PM

super_deformed

25-08-2009, 02:14 PM

The content in Fallout 3 and Bioshock is strong enough to get an 18+ rating from the European ratings system. I honestly feel video games have a stronger impact on people and that teenagers should not be playing games like this. I don't feel 15 year olds are mature enough to be able to fully understand the consequences of some of the actions we allow them to perform in a game. That's not to say they will try and copy these actions in real life, but 15 is a very young age to be desensitising them to these things.
I havent been 15 for a while but I'd still like to say that, on behalf of my former 15 year old self, I was very capable of telling the difference between pretend and real. And that was still the case when I was asked to perform button action. Not to clear on it now, hence why I own a gun and hear voices.

But Id be very happy for violent games and movies to be given higher ratings and for dodgy categories like PG-13 to be revised. Im often shocked at some of the content that 'slips through' when Im watching some 'kids' PG movie with my nephew.

From memory PG-13 was created so Speilberg could show a man getting his heart ripped out (Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom) to the widest possible audience.

Id wager most wouldnt be able to tell the difference between an aussie MA15+ and R 18+ entertainment if they were given a selection. So why have the MA category? So the industry can legally show extreme violence to pre-adults.

I say reshuffle the whole ratings system. Make the differences clear. And stop censoring things.

Always comes back to the parents. If the parents don't care then even the best ratings system in the world wont help.

And by the time the kid's 15 there's not much you can do to stop him/ her seeing whatever he/she wants. By then a great deal of the damage you can do as a parent has been done.

Oh and for the record I don't think Games should be treated more harshly than movies when rated. Movies are still capable of involving you more emotionally imo. Keep the ratings system clear and uniform across all media. Based on definable content not some guess on how 'touched / effected' the viewer might be (pressing buttons for the sex in GOWII did not heighten the investment)

fishonthecarpet

25-08-2009, 02:29 PM

PG-13 is only American isn't it?

super_deformed

25-08-2009, 02:33 PM

PG-13 is only American isn't it? Ha. yeah. Buying stuff from amazon gets confusing.

M is for what age here?

fishonthecarpet

25-08-2009, 02:42 PM

It used to be recommended 15+, but looks as if since they made the colour-coded changes it is just "Recommended for Mature Audiences". (http://www.classification.gov.au/www/cob/classification.nsf/Page/Community_and_ConsumersClassification_MarkingsFilm _and_Computer_Games)

Halt, Hammerzeit

25-08-2009, 02:43 PM

15. There's M15, which is recommended for ages 15 and over and MA15+, which is restricted to ages 15 and over.

Edit: For those playing along with their new colour scheme at home, green is G, yellow is PG, blue is M15+, red is MA15+ and black is R18+ (which obvisously doesn't apply to video games).

Lazlow

25-08-2009, 03:07 PM

Id wager most wouldnt be able to tell the difference between an aussie MA15+ and R 18+ entertainment if they were given a selection. So why have the MA category? So the industry can legally show extreme violence to pre-adults.

It was introduced to differentiate between higher level M rated films, and R. Prior to its introduction, the M rating covered a pretty broad range of content (IIRC it went, G PG/PGR, M/AO and R), and it was a lucky dip as to how graphic the content was.

Personally I believe R is used whenever there is a high level of sexual content. Violence gets looked at in a softer light.

To say the whole system is inconsistent is stating the obvious though.

EDIT:

Took me a while to find to official wording, but my biggest beef is with the seemingly arbitrary guidelines under with RC decisions are goverened;

The National Classification Code sets out the criteria for refusing to classify a film or video. The criteria fall into three categories. These include films that:

depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should be classified RC.

depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult a person who is or who looks like a child under 16 (whether or not engaged in sexual activity), or;

promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence.

Vindik8or

25-08-2009, 03:24 PM

I'm not quite sure how you got Freud from what I said - perhaps because I used the word "psychology?"

There's obviously a big difference between passive and active involvement in entertainment, yes. There's clearly a difference between being observational and partaking. I'm not claiming to know the long term effects on anyone, but the simple act of interaction gives you a different investment in the situation.

It's not the same as rewinding and rewatching - you're interacting in an environment with virtual laws of cause and effect.

Obviously anyone who plays through Fallout 3 is going to become desensitised to the violence in it - same goes for any game. Unlike an arnie movie you might see a head or limb explode over 100 times in one playthrough of Fallout 3 - as part of the core experience you are intended to have. Unlike replaying and rewinding one scene over and over again where it is not part of the movie itself. Should quantity be a factor as well as quality? Repeated viewings do change your perception.

It could be one of the reasons why a movie like Monty Python was stuck with a PG rating whereas another movie with an over-the-top approach to violence, Kill Bill, was rated R18+. There were far more instances of violence and the context and tone is completely and utterly different (violent acts being one of the big focusses of the experience).

There's more to it than the simple display of blood and guts, I'm not claiming any more than that.
That's my two cents, and doubtless as I am that this post will be picked to shreds I'm not getting sucked into being an outlet for anyone else's personal frustrations with the world. Good day to you!

Okay, I will avoid your obvious strawmans, and ignore your small baseless assumptions, and go for the big one that pervades much of this thread:

That the media (whether it be games or whatever) are inherently damaging.

There is just no evidence of this. For every experiment and study that 'proves' there is, there is at least one more which shows nothing, or a peer review that discounts its findings.

Then there's the more insidious assumption that everyone else has: paternalism towards those they perceive as 'weaker'. It's even in children - you ask an ten year old boy if he would be scared of a film, and who else he thinks might be scared by it, there will be variance on the first part of the question, but the second part will invariably get the response, "well girls and younger kids probably will be".

Everyone has inbuilt the functions and abilities to decide what they like and want to watch - those should be encouraged. A kid should be encouraged to get up and walk away from a film they don't like, to understand what it is they don't like about it. Just assuming inappropriateness is as bad as forcing someone to watch something horrific that they would otherwise avoid.

Lazlow

25-08-2009, 03:30 PM

Shorty

25-08-2009, 07:49 PM

Blizzard to pre-emptively "edit" Diablo III for certain regions (http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/08/diablo-iii-some-versions-will-be-edited), including ours.

Azzaman

25-08-2009, 08:35 PM

Welcome to Australia, home of the import

Slippery

25-08-2009, 08:43 PM

That shat me really bad till I remembered I could import.

Now it just shits me bad, rather than really bad.

Pauly

25-08-2009, 09:32 PM

Everyone has inbuilt the functions and abilities to decide what they like and want to watch - those should be encouraged. A kid should be encouraged to get up and walk away from a film they don't like, to understand what it is they don't like about it. Just assuming inappropriateness is as bad as forcing someone to watch something horrific that they would otherwise avoid.
in light of that final sentence, how do you gauge what is appropriate then? i agree with your sentiment but who decides on the middle ground? at what point/age is my 8 year old cousin ready to watch the exorcist... is it when he asks to or should there be a responsible age?

Araenel

25-08-2009, 09:50 PM

There's something to be said for the fact that you are the one causing these actions over and over again rather than just simply observing it.

Except there isn't.

Maybe if you compare the difference between watching a violent movie and playing, say, paintball.

The physical act of manipulating a game controller is so far removed from reality. The fact that you try to invoke psychology is laughable and to mention cause and effect. Say what? That you learn more about the consequences of shooting someone in the head because you pushed the A button compared to watching John Matrix do it?

The only issue that requires any sort of attention is assisting children in determining between fantasy and reality, and that has nothing to do with the type of media they're watching, be it games or movies.

Shorty

25-08-2009, 10:48 PM

The problem is that the research itself very inconclusive. All that the good research has been able tell us so far is that there is a correlation between playing "violent" games and increased "agression" but nothing that has been able to establish a direct causal link between playing something violent and then acting more violent. At best you may be able to argue that violent games tend to attract more violent people but even that's a stretch because the criteria for "aggression" in these studies can be so vague that just about anyone could be classified as "violent". So there's no sound scientific basis for any negative psychological effects of violent media.

Vindik8or

25-08-2009, 10:59 PM

No they haven't. There has almost literally been no rigorous conclusion drawn from the entire media effects research field in the some 50+ years it has been going on. It is a monumental waste of resources, time, and people's talents.

Pauly

26-08-2009, 08:58 AM

Stevorooni

26-08-2009, 09:12 AM

That would be hard to determine because it's reported a lot more these days and stored in databases of information readily available for statisticians to poke and prod and create percentages and whatever.

So it might look like there is more violence today but we weren't recording and reporting it as much 30 years ago so we can't accurately compare.

AranchineD

26-08-2009, 09:14 AM

But the records only go back 30 years when the Hall Of Records Regarding Violence was mysteriously blown up!

Araenel

26-08-2009, 09:21 AM

i would be interested to know, as a whole, if crime is as much a problem as it was all those years ago without violent video games. i mean sure there may be strict rules about weapons these days, which may be the biggest factor. but there was a time when people ran around swinging axes into each others heads :p

I don't have any sources on me, nor an inclination to find it, but I'm pretty sure society has been getting progressively less violent since, well, ever.

Lazlow

26-08-2009, 09:40 AM

For one you can no longer lay a 30s style beat down on your spouse and get away with it.

sausage

26-08-2009, 11:15 AM

I don't have any sources on me, nor an inclination to find it, but I'm pretty sure society has been getting progressively less violent since, well, ever.

I'm pretty sure the 20th century was the most violent ever so umm yeah.

Pauly

26-08-2009, 11:22 AM

I'm pretty sure the 20th century was the most violent ever so umm yeah.
i'm pretty sure the majority of this did not take place in the last 20 years...

sausage

26-08-2009, 11:48 AM

I'm pretty sure history is full of twenty to thirty year periods of relative calm that lulled people into thinking society in general was changing...

Pauly

26-08-2009, 11:56 AM

there is always going to be genocide. and wars. i don't think anyone can dispute that. but you're an idiot if you think video games are the cause of that. we are talking more about the day to day violence in our society here.

Vindik8or

26-08-2009, 11:56 AM

Rates of Violent Crime in the US since 1960 peaked around 1991-1994

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

I'm not sure about 19th century crime, though - modern policing was in its infancy and record-keeping was not the science that it is today. There is a great deal to suggest that rates of crime, especially violent crime, were exceedingly high.

sausage

26-08-2009, 11:58 AM

Pauly

26-08-2009, 11:59 AM

that's pretty interesting vin. especially seeing that since 94 crime has been on the decline in the US.

edit: i never said you were but was just reinforcing what the actual topic was we were on about. and that is if there is a correlation between video games and violence or not.

sausage

26-08-2009, 12:00 PM

That's the legalised abortion kicking in there.

Meg

31-08-2009, 05:27 PM

I think most of the parent's that complain about it are the ones buying their 8 year old the MA15+ game, so I'm not sure if an R18+ rating would actually deter them.
On relation with your reply:
I was in the local indie videogame shop(Tunza games) here in Shepparton once and a scrag of a lady came in asking if they had a copy of God of War, it was for her 8-9 year old. Im thinking "It's irresponsible parents like you why there is no R18+ rating on games" "Learn to read the labels dumb bitch". My folks didn't let me watch M rated movies until I was about 12 and no way in hell let me play games like that at that age either. My parents knew how to say no and my sister and I are better people for it.

Shorty

25-05-2010, 01:55 PM

Australian Christian Lobby SA claim that the ALP has "pledged" to oppose a R rating for games (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/technology/alp-pledge-to-ban-r-games/story-e6freaal-1225849628458). Minister Rau's office has refused to comment.

Lazlow

25-05-2010, 02:04 PM

Kinda makes Rau sound like a puppet

Shorty

25-05-2010, 02:07 PM

Isn't damn near everyone a puppet for the ACL, these days?

Shorty

27-06-2010, 06:58 PM

Good news: a prominent politician says the classification system is "broken".

Bad news: it's Tony Abbot (http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/06/tony-abbott-classification-system-is-broken/).

Lazlow

27-06-2010, 09:14 PM

$10 he's saying it's too lenient.

EDIT:

Well he doesn't really say one way or the other, he literally just says, "it's broken"

sausage

28-06-2010, 07:23 AM

Well shit, everything is broken; tell us something we don't know.

Vindik8or

28-06-2010, 07:42 AM

I'm pretty sure the 20th century was the most violent ever so umm yeah.

Strange I didn't directly address this before. The 20th century was the most violent by raw numbers, as a direct function of a massive increase in population over previous centuries, but going by the rate of violent death (and other deaths in general), it was significantly lower than previous centuries, even taking into account the two World Wars, and continued to lower as the century wore on. This also contributed to the massive population boom.

sausage

28-06-2010, 07:58 AM

Interestingly enough you could replace "20th century" with pretty much any date in the past and the statement could be true.

Wouldn't you agree that industrial slaughter of nearly entire human groups overrules a few localised skirmishes between rival tribes in Africa circa 50,000 BC?

StorminNorman

05-07-2010, 06:40 PM

Games need long pants, not ill-fitting SquarePants. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gamers-need-long-pants-not-ill-fitting-squarepants/story-e6frg6zo-1225887105651)

Interesting article from former Queensland premier Peter Beattie.

REQUIEM

06-07-2010, 03:42 PM

http://www.gametrailers.com/news/dead-rising-2-slays-australian/2267

Which zombies get through and which dont?

TheresAChimenyInMySoup

28-07-2010, 12:24 PM

I Think They Shouldn't Make An R18+ Rating Because It Will Ruin The Gaming Industry Alot. And Everyone Knows That Games That Are Rated G, Are The Best Ever, Like "Wii Play","Wii Sport" And Ofcourse "Wii Fit".

BB2K

28-07-2010, 05:28 PM

I Like This Guy's Trolling And Grammar Skills.

REQUIEM

28-07-2010, 05:31 PM

Vindik8or

28-07-2010, 05:37 PM

Please actually do that.

REQUIEM

28-07-2010, 05:40 PM

Please actually do that.

Without me you bitches would have nothing to type.

HiredMan

28-07-2010, 06:05 PM

The best part about the new troll is he cant figure out the caps filter :p

Mr Pie

29-07-2010, 05:09 PM

Everytime somone types in caps like that, the voice in my head yells at me.

Spazzola

30-07-2010, 10:44 AM

Hey, Mr Pie. How Are You? Are Those Voices Giving You Trouble Again?

Mr Pie

30-07-2010, 04:44 PM

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Make them STOP!

Hemish71

18-09-2010, 09:26 PM

So has anymore news on this come up?
Been awhile and hadn't heard anything

Zeph101

18-09-2010, 10:18 PM

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSc6ap4ql_VtJ72qcpqTSbdoc9AzQpeg QPxcgu9mOB6VZ_Z-JU&t=1&usg=__3kFVR2EKyw6q0V87alVjI-ENNNM=

aubergine

19-09-2010, 12:23 AM

Since Atkinson resigned there's been no games banned, until there are people will forget about this issue.

Having no federal government has been bigger news.

Xanafalgue

01-12-2010, 09:28 PM

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/369850/attorney-general_overwhelmed_by_support_r18_games_classific ation/

TrinityJayOne

01-12-2010, 10:06 PM

Why is that being linked exactly? Those stats are ancient history and I don't see why that website saw fit to basically slap today's date on a several months old article. :confused:

Shorty

01-12-2010, 10:11 PM

Isn't there another Standing Committee of the Attorneys-General coming up, though? That might be why they're publishing it now.

Xanafalgue

01-12-2010, 10:13 PM

Yep, 10th December.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/research-fails-to-prove-link-between-violent-video-games-and-aggression/story-e6frf7l6-1225964121126

Xanafalgue

01-12-2010, 10:14 PM

Why is that being linked exactly? Those stats are ancient history and I don't see why that website saw fit to basically slap today's date on a several months old article. :confused:

See above! :p

Hemish71

01-12-2010, 11:01 PM

Yeah they had this on Sunrise a couple of days ago when Call of Duty came out
Family committee guy saying the usual crap games should be banned blah blah

Mr Pie

02-12-2010, 10:48 AM

I hate those people.

StorminNorman

05-12-2010, 03:17 PM

Particularly appalling Daily Telegraph article on the matter. (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/game-over-for-children/story-e6frezz0-1225965671392)

This part is a little disturbing, though:

And Mr O'Connor also gave a guarantee he would not allow games that had been banned in Australia to be approved for release under the new R18+ classification, if it is approved.

So yeah, don't get your hopes up for uncensored L4D2.

9warbane

05-12-2010, 03:21 PM

I would think most people who were fussed about L4D2 being censored have worked their way around it.

Shorty

05-12-2010, 03:24 PM

So yeah, don't get your hopes up for uncensored L4D2.

Thus reinforcing what I've been saying for years about the process being too vulnerable to political interference. If the uncut L4D2 would pass the R rating if it were submitted today, let it bloody well pass.

Natrak

05-12-2010, 03:37 PM

It leads me to think that perhaps we'll see more games being appropriately rated but with largely the same criteria for classification. The same games would run the same risk of being RCed, perhaps.

Shorty

05-12-2010, 04:12 PM

Games which in most cases weren't prohibited by overseas ratings systems. Ergo our system would still be harsher in comparison.

Cerebral

05-12-2010, 04:47 PM

borgster101

05-12-2010, 05:01 PM

Particularly appalling Daily Telegraph article on the matter. (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/game-over-for-children/story-e6frezz0-1225965671392)

Despite the points of the article that you outlined, the article makes it sound like the R rating is actually going to happen .. which is something! At least games will get appopriately rated, the broad specturm of what is available under the MA banner is an example of how ancient the system is in Australia.

Stevorooni

05-12-2010, 05:25 PM

Thus reinforcing what I've been saying for years about the process being too vulnerable to political interference. If the uncut L4D2 would pass the R rating if it were submitted today, let it bloody well pass.

Hopefully they'll just need to submit a 'new' game, L4D2:Unnecessary Subtitle Edition for classification.

Shorty

05-12-2010, 05:46 PM

Given their past history, there's a good chance that would actually work.

Stevorooni

05-12-2010, 05:51 PM

WA Attorney General might not agree (http://www.news.com.au/technology/wa-government-under-pressure-from-mps-on-r18-video-games/story-e6frfro0-1225965950660)

grrrr

StorminNorman

05-12-2010, 05:57 PM

This is the appropriate time to post a "FFFFFFUUUUUUU--" macro.

Shorty

05-12-2010, 06:16 PM

They're talking about "moral issues", which is basically code for "the Christians asked for this".

Stevorooni

05-12-2010, 06:54 PM

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b358/Stevorooni/facepalm.gif

fishfishmonkeyhat

05-12-2010, 07:01 PM

CHILDREN will be banned from playing the world's most popular computer games, including Grand Theft Auto and Call Of Duty, after the Gillard Government approved classifying them R18+.

The federal Cabinet has approved an adult rating for computer games after finding that many classified as suitable for 15-year-olds in Australia had been ruled suitable for adults only overseas.

So wait, we have this now?

Stevorooni

05-12-2010, 07:30 PM

No, despite the federal government giving it the thumbs up we still have to wait for the moons to be in alignment while the states chant and wield their magic rocks.

StorminNorman

05-12-2010, 07:36 PM

FrozenSoul80

05-12-2010, 07:41 PM

At least this time we are protecting children in a way that makes sense.

borgster101

05-12-2010, 07:50 PM

I believe one of the key elements in the "for" position for the R rating for games was always that it would actually be more effective in protecting children, through better information provided to parents as well as the legal restrictions associated with R ratings.

fishfishmonkeyhat

05-12-2010, 08:04 PM

I liked how on the news tonight their angle was "So, 16 year old, what do you think about this?"

I imagine they were sitting around a table at the office and were like "Ok, so who can we find that will be pissed off about this that isn't a christian fundy?.."

Natrak

05-12-2010, 08:17 PM

That's something that's bugging me about this. Suddenly the angle has changed from "We need an R18 classification so that thinking adults can play games for thinking adults" to "We need an R18 classification so we can protect the children".

Why are we doing it this way now, when "protect the children" was the argument we spent so much time shooting down?

There's a difference between "protecting the children" through banning material from the country and "protecting the children" through rating material more appropriately so that parents can make the "right" decision.

It was always a part of the argument for an R18+ rating that those so very abhorrent games children can play now would be more appropriately rated and thus less likely to fall into the "wrong" hands.

Regardless of personal opinions on the effects of such material on minors, I think it's reasonable to see that there will always be those who don't feel violent (etc.) videogames are appropriate for their children (as well as those who worry over other people's children) and I think it's perfectly reasonable to explain to them that an R18+ rating will actually be beneficial to helping them make the right decisions for their children and help to prevent these games from being played by minors.

If you thought the argument was purely "WE NEED AN R18 RATING BECAUSE CHRISTIANS HATE OUR FREEDOM" you were wrong.

Fenrir

05-12-2010, 09:01 PM

"We need an R18 classification so that thinking adults can play games for thinking adults"
This point is purely academic, though, right? I mean, I'm all for principled activism and all that; but what thinking adult game has there ever been that has been met with a ban by the classification board?

Shorty

05-12-2010, 09:36 PM

This point is purely academic, though, right? I mean, I'm all for principled activism and all that; but what thinking adult game has there ever been that has been met with a ban by the classification board?

By nature, a ban makes it difficult to determine that.

Fenrir

05-12-2010, 09:51 PM

In what way? I'm given to understand that on The List Of Countries Game Development Companies Market To, we're pretty far down the pecking order.

Shorty

05-12-2010, 10:31 PM

texta

06-12-2010, 06:37 PM

That's something that's bugging me about this. Suddenly the angle has changed from "We need an R18 classification so that thinking adults can play games for thinking adults" to "We need an R18 classification so we can protect the children".

Why are we doing it this way now, when "protect the children" was the argument we spent so much time shooting down?

Protecting children is the fundamental point of an R18+ rating. If you don't think that children should be protected from violent video games you should not be arguing for an R18+ rating at all.

In fact you've highlighted what fundamentally shits me about the R18+ movement. It's only ever really existed because people want to play some games that have been RCed. Not because people want to restrict some games from people under 18 years of age.

So while I don't really care at all, I think it is Fcking hilarious that the Government look like splitting the MA15+ rating and making half those games R18+ and keeping the RC threshold the same. It sounds like the plot of one of those 'be careful what you wish for' stories.

sausage

06-12-2010, 06:39 PM

And yet

sorry, forgot what I was going to say

fishfishmonkeyhat

06-12-2010, 06:43 PM

Are they going to reclassify games that have already been released as MA15+? Considering they said they wouldn't do it in the other direction..

Also kids can go and **** themselves, I want my GTA hooker sex.

lex3191

06-12-2010, 06:55 PM

I think it is Fcking hilarious that the Government look like splitting the MA15+ rating and making half those games R18+ and keeping the RC threshold the same. It sounds like the plot of one of those 'be careful what you wish for' stories.

Is this true? Where did you read this?

Cerebral

06-12-2010, 07:35 PM

Is this true? Where did you read this?

http://everyoneplays.org.au/current-classification-system

Shorty

06-12-2010, 07:41 PM

In fact you've highlighted what fundamentally shits me about the R18+ movement. It's only ever really existed because people want to play some games that have been RCed. Not because people want to restrict some games from people under 18 years of age.

So while I don't really care at all, I think it is Fcking hilarious that the Government look like splitting the MA15+ rating and making half those games R18+ and keeping the RC threshold the same. It sounds like the plot of one of those 'be careful what you wish for' stories.

Classification system reform is not entirely about getting a R rating for games and to imply that this is the case is rather disingenuous. The problem with the RC rating (Australia is the only country in the Western world that has this kind of legal limbo rating) and the criteria to earn that rating is its own argument. It just happens to intersect with the argument for a R rating for games.

Simply splitting the MA rating and putting a new label on it would not, as you rightly point out, solve any of the underlying issues.

lex3191

06-12-2010, 07:47 PM

http://everyoneplays.org.au/current-classification-system

It is important to note that point (d) in the classification code explicitly states that any game only suitable for people over the age of 18, must be refused classification in Australia.

Wouldn't a new 18+classification allow games suitable only for people over 18 to be allowed into the country? Their are films that get RCd in this country, how would it be any different? I am not arguing, I just don't see the link... how will adding an 18+ still see games RCd that are deemed to be unsuitable for people under 18+?

StorminNorman

06-12-2010, 08:27 PM

Well, if we have the rating, and they make a Ken Park video game, it would still get banned.

texta

06-12-2010, 08:57 PM

Classification system reform is not entirely about getting a R rating for games and to imply that this is the case is rather disingenuous. The problem with the RC rating (Australia is the only country in the Western world that has this kind of legal limbo rating) and the criteria to earn that rating is its own argument. It just happens to intersect with the argument for a R rating for games.

Simply splitting the MA rating and putting a new label on it would not, as you rightly point out, solve any of the underlying issues.Arguments for classification reform are not the same as the 'R18+ Movement' and my comments should not be read to imply any opinion regarding reform but are only an expression of the embarrassing arguments that certain people and organizations have made.

Wouldn't a new 18+classification allow games suitable only for people over 18 to be allowed into the country? Their are films that get RCd in this country, how would it be any different? I am not arguing, I just don't see the link... how will adding an 18+ still see games RCd that are deemed to be unsuitable for people under 18+?I think the legislative amendments would be more complicated than just removing the clause you've quoted and tacking on an R18+ rating at the end.

Some of the banned games haven't been banned because of the under 18 bit but because they supposedly promote drug use or sexual violence which is an automatic RC no matter what the medium.

lex3191

06-12-2010, 09:15 PM

I see, but do you know that they will not be amending the legislation accordingly if a new classification model is passed?

Stevorooni

06-12-2010, 09:54 PM

It's only ever really existed because people want to play some games that have been RCed. Not because people want to restrict some games from people under 18 years of age.

Haha I was thinking that the other day people are just using the excuse that is most likely to fly, but really we just don't want anyone ****ing with our games.

I can see the plus side to restricting some content from younger people but don't really give a shit.
Parents should pay attention to what their kids are viewing/playing so if the ratings makes things a little more obvious then so be it.

aubergine

06-12-2010, 10:18 PM

I bet they just make M games R18+ and all MA15+ games will now be banned.

Stevorooni

06-12-2010, 10:25 PM

One of the AG's will probably block it and we'll have to start the whole process all over again.

Hopefully not the SA one because I'm sick of you guys blaming us :(

Lazlow

06-12-2010, 10:30 PM

More likely it'll be the WA one, apparently he's getting some heat.

Stevorooni

07-12-2010, 09:49 AM

Brendan O'Connor on The Punch (http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/why-the-government-backs-an-R18-games-rating/)

It's a good read.

aubergine

07-12-2010, 11:43 AM

The first comment, and reactions to, was pretty funny.

texta

07-12-2010, 12:04 PM

I see, but do you know that they will not be amending the legislation accordingly if a new classification model is passed?I'm just going by what's been reported in the media. Until the AGs agree and we see the actual legislation it's all really just speculation.

Haha I was thinking that the other day people are just using the excuse that is most likely to fly, but really we just don't want anyone ****ing with our games.

I can see the plus side to restricting some content from younger people but don't really give a shit.
Parents should pay attention to what their kids are viewing/playing so if the ratings makes things a little more obvious then so be it.Here's the issue. If you accept the first part of what you say; that some material is Inappropriate for children to view - what do you do when parents don't pay attention to that. Is it just bad luck for the kids? Do you take them away from their parents because they played one game that they shouldn't? Do you fine the parents which just punishes the kids?

I agree that the parents should be responsible, but I think it's not unreasonable to prepare for the possibility of people being irresponsible. That's why we have criminal law and prisons and courts etc.

Vindik8or

07-12-2010, 12:19 PM

If you accept the first part of what you say; that some material is Inappropriate for children to view - what do you do when parents don't pay attention to that. Is it just bad luck for the kids? Do you take them away from their parents because they played one game that they shouldn't?

If you accept the first part then yes you do take them away from their parents, or else you're tacit in actually rejecting the first part.

Fenrir

07-12-2010, 01:49 PM

That's not what I meant. If you're not allowed to import or purchase RC content (regardless of how much this law is actually enforced) then that makes it more difficult for the public to determine whether or not it's a "thinking adult game". That's not an assessment I'd like to leave solely up to the Classification Board.
Ah, so that is to say, "We need an R18 classification so that thinking adults can subjectively discern games for thinking adults from games for mature-age children". Fair point.

That said, surely this argument can only truly garner widespread support on the back of media which are widely regarded on their merits as being "thinking adult games". I mean, you have a point, but people just aren't rational like that. Other media have some true masterpieces (granted, amongst a lot of crap) in the R-sphere. Maybe the wider public sees fit to "punish" immature gamers for GTA and other such dead-hooker tripe?

Here's the issue. If you accept the first part of what you say; that some material is Inappropriate for children to view - what do you do when parents don't pay attention to that. Is it just bad luck for the kids? Do you take them away from their parents because they played one game that they shouldn't? Do you fine the parents which just punishes the kids?

I agree that the parents should be responsible, but I think it's not unreasonable to prepare for the possibility of people being irresponsible. That's why we have criminal law and prisons and courts etc.
Yes, but doesn't this same argument apply to, say, film, too? I can imagine children getting their hands on, say, Cannibal Holocaust by the same means.

aubergine

07-12-2010, 01:55 PM

Stevorooni

07-12-2010, 02:19 PM

Here's the issue. If you accept the first part of what you say; that some material is Inappropriate for children to view - what do you do when parents don't pay attention to that. Is it just bad luck for the kids?

Yes.

Do you take them away from their parents because they played one game that they shouldn't? Do you fine the parents which just punishes the kids?

You let the parents deal with the consquences of their own decisions. If their kid learns to swear from GTA, has a nightmare about a monster in Dead Space, or is confused by a game's sexual references (all problems that can picked up anywhere else) then the parent has to deal with that themselves.

In the extreme cases where the kid becomes a cat beheading homicidal maniac then I think you need to look a little deeper than what videogames they were playing at the time.
"He used an axe to kill that guy, we should ban axes and any axe related material so this never happens again!"

Shorty

07-12-2010, 04:16 PM

Ah, so that is to say, "We need an R18 classification so that thinking adults can subjectively discern games for thinking adults from games for mature-age children". Fair point.

That said, surely this argument can only truly garner widespread support on the back of media which are widely regarded on their merits as being "thinking adult games". I mean, you have a point, but people just aren't rational like that. Other media have some true masterpieces (granted, amongst a lot of crap) in the R-sphere. Maybe the wider public sees fit to "punish" immature gamers for GTA and other such dead-hooker tripe?

That would imply a bizarre catch-22 situation where the public won't support a R rating for games because nobody has come up with a "thinking adult game" (I wouldn't put too much stock in the public's assessment of "thinking" or "masterpiece" culture considering that Michael Bay films are still popular), which developers won't put out because it'd be unlikely to pass muster with the Classification Board unless there was a R rating for games. This is more of a "if you build it they will come" situation.

If the greater public sees fit to "punish" so-called "immature" games, they can do so by choosing not to buy them (even though, realitistically, those games usually have a large enough audience to support themselves). Otherwise, it's hypocritical for them to support "torture porn" movies like Saw and Hostel in droves but deny a similar rating for games because they want to punish "immature tripe" like beating up hookers.

Lazlow

07-12-2010, 04:27 PM

Beating up hookers is simply a allegory for corporate america. The hooker is the low income hard working American, while the guy beating the hooker represents the corporations who treat the lower class as an expendable commodity.

It's layers upon layers.

Xanafalgue

07-12-2010, 07:09 PM

TrinityJayOne

07-12-2010, 07:17 PM

Mark Ecko's Get/ting Up.

texta

08-12-2010, 08:19 AM

Kitchen knives, cleaning chemicals, swimming pools and bathtubs, medicines and large, tippable-over flat screen TVs pose a mortal danger to children, yet we leave it to the stupidest of people to protect their own children from.

But the REAL threat is videogames.Putting aside the fact that half the things you've listed are legally restricted (eg not having appropriate fencing around a swimming pool is illegal, selling knives to minors is illegal, selling prescription medicine without a prescription to adults or minors is illegal), I think we as a society are capable of protecting our kids from more than one thing at a time.

texta

08-12-2010, 08:24 AM

What was the game that was banned because it glorified vandalism?

That was by far the most ridiculous, even worse than Fallout 3 and the Morphine (?).

These are examples of games that would still be RCed with an R18+ rating. The problem wasn't that they contained 'adult material' but that they allegedly promoted illegal activity and drug use respectively.

Lazlow

08-12-2010, 09:47 AM

Getting Up was only RC'ed because Brisbane City Council kicked up a stink. It got a pass before they intervened. Its a clear example of how the system can be perverted due to pressure from minor political factions and fringe interest groups.

that they allegedly promoted illegal activity and drug use respectively.

This sort of argument is why the whole system is a massive joke.

Vindik8or

08-12-2010, 11:52 AM

I think it was actually the State Government under Peattie Beattie that kicked up the stink.

Lazlow

08-12-2010, 12:14 PM

aubergine

08-12-2010, 02:10 PM

A game where you steal cars, gun people down, beat up hookers is fine - GRAFITTI IS THE REAL THREAT!!!

Beattie was probably sick of all the "Power-Point Pete" drawings popping up everywhere. What an arsehole.

StorminNorman

08-12-2010, 02:13 PM

To be fair, the Classification Board tend to come down very harshly on anything that deals with graffiti in a positive way. The ban graffiti mags all the time.

Stevorooni

08-12-2010, 02:37 PM

Yet "Hooker Beating, Car Stealing, Gun People Down Magazine" is still on the shelves. Disgusting!

Shorty

08-12-2010, 04:50 PM

It started with the Local Government Association of Queensland, with Townsville and Brisbane councils being the most vocal.

Then Beattie took it up in state parliament, issuing a request to the attorney-general for it to be banned.

EDIT:

This is months before the board classified it MA15+. Then the real soap boxing started.

To give another example, Manhunt was banned eighteen months after it was put on shelves because the Western Australian Minister for Justice complained to Ruddock and he leaned on the OFLC to "review" the classification.

texta

08-12-2010, 05:32 PM

Lazlow

08-12-2010, 05:40 PM

Alternatively, just download it and tell everyone to get f***ed.

Shorty

08-12-2010, 07:09 PM

That's how the system works.

I think you can make a case that leaving scope for intervention from politicians allows for some democratic accountability against what is otherwise an unelected body. If you don't like what the politicians are saying join a political party/faction and help get good progressive people into Parliament.

That might be easier to argue if this "accountability" wasn't invariably leveraged by minority groups to ban games they don't like. I mean, has a politician ever intervened in favour of a game not getting banned? I honestly cannot think of a single example.

sausage

08-12-2010, 07:54 PM

Gamers 4 Croydon had politicians.

Shorty

08-12-2010, 08:05 PM

Gamers 4 Croydon had politicians.

That's not quite the same thing. I'm talking about the opposite of our past history with games where, instead of an otherwise passable game being given the banhammer on a politician's whim, a politician has intervened to save a game from getting banned.

texta

09-12-2010, 12:01 AM

That might be easier to argue if this "accountability" wasn't invariably leveraged by minority groups to ban games they don't like. I mean, has a politician ever intervened in favour of a game not getting banned? I honestly cannot think of a single example.
That's exactly why I added the second part to that paragraph.

If you think about the development of games and the fact that we've had a Liberal government from 1996 to 2007, it's not really surprising that most/all of the appeals have been negative.

That said it would be ludicrous to suggest that gamers or in particular gamers that want to play RCed games are not also a minority group. People who want an R8+ rating for games are also a minority group. I would agree that politicians find it easier to run with a moral outrage/tough on crime line than anything sensible. Crime fell by 30% in Victoria under Labor but they lost the election to the Libs promise to be tough on crime. If people don't like those kind of politics they need to start voting differently.

The reality is that while any minority group can pressure the government for a review of a game's classification, there still has to be a lawful basis for the decision. So rather than blaming politicians or interest groups, I think the issue comes back to the legislation itself and the need for reform.

Vindik8or

09-12-2010, 12:17 AM

Shorty

09-12-2010, 12:21 AM

Who intervened on behalf of Aliens vs. Predator?

No one. Sega won that on appeal to the Classification Review Board. Valve tried the same thing with Left 4 Dead 2 but failed.

TrinityJayOne

09-12-2010, 12:21 AM

That was Sega themselves. When it was intially banned they said they wouldn't be editting their game just for us and submitted an appeal. They won.

AranchineD

09-12-2010, 01:11 AM

Posting to say I really don't care anymore

aubergine

09-12-2010, 02:06 AM

Who intervened on behalf of Aliens vs. Predator?

As part of their re-review, the CB called for the public to make submissions too I think. I sent them a message saying (words to the effect) that the ruling was inconsistent, and that there job was not to keep reasonable and legal content from anyone but to put things into the classification closest to suitable, which in this instance was MA15+ due to the lack of an existing R18+ one. I think I actually quoted something from their own guidelines which says that it isn't their job to ban shit. Essentially though, I solved that entire problem.

But the game was ****ing shit.

Stevorooni

10-12-2010, 11:16 AM

Hey those guys are meeting today!

fishfishmonkeyhat

10-12-2010, 12:06 PM

I just heard online that R Rating is being discussed RIGHT NOW.

SCOOOOP!

NiB

10-12-2010, 12:07 PM

Yeah just heard that, bring on R18

Xanafalgue

10-12-2010, 12:53 PM

They should really be debating this on an internet forum...

LOL gaems r danger 4 kidz

^This

More like Christian LOLbyist, amirite?

...just...wow...

AGporter = AGatkinson, ban evasion, perma incoming 3...2...

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/174/trollface.png

..1..

LMFAO

sausage

10-12-2010, 01:13 PM

what the hell

Xanafalgue

10-12-2010, 01:17 PM

*bans sausage*

sausage

10-12-2010, 01:26 PM

that's third banning from a NEXT related site; must be a rocord.

Stevorooni

10-12-2010, 01:32 PM

nah Moggo has you beat

Stevorooni

10-12-2010, 01:49 PM

The WA A.G isn't making a decision until he meets with cabinet. ARGH

lex3191

10-12-2010, 01:52 PM

when will that happen?

aubergine

10-12-2010, 03:30 PM

2015

There was already notes made in some articles I've read that WA's overlords had instructed him to oppose the R18+. What this probably means is that he's going to go back to them and go "come on guys, we are completely on the wrong side of this."

In the meantime, another huge waste of money piles up on government gravy street.

Lazlow

10-12-2010, 03:51 PM

Called it (http://hyper.com.au/forums/showpost.php?p=1261777&postcount=118) :cool:

FrozenSoul80

10-12-2010, 04:00 PM

So just to clarify; nothing came of this again?

Stevorooni

10-12-2010, 04:08 PM

It's not over yet I think they're still meeting and dancing.

According to twitter there could still be an announcement this arvo.

sausage

10-12-2010, 04:16 PM

an announcement...

TO CALL A ENQUIRY!

Xanafalgue

10-12-2010, 04:23 PM

An announcement of an announcement with a website countdown, in true gaming style.

Stevorooni

10-12-2010, 04:25 PM

Well the decision is definitely delayed now (Until the next meeting in 2011? I don't know).

It's not a "No" but it still sucks.

COMMENCE FACEPALM NOW

W-_sABor77E

Xanafalgue

10-12-2010, 04:28 PM

They probably just sat around bitching about Phantasmagoria.

buckstwits

10-12-2010, 04:52 PM

O’ O’ Connor: Could Have Gone Better, But On The Right Track, WA AG Not To Blame (http://bit.ly/gIGyr0)

So, yeah.

StorminNorman

13-12-2010, 07:40 PM

Attorney-General John Rau proposes scrapping MA15 for video games. (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/make-games-adults-only/story-e6frea6u-1225969832993)

WA State Council calls for R18+ support (http://au.gamespot.com/pages/news/story.php?sid=6285276)

The R18 Aftermath: Where to now? (http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/12/the-r18-aftermath-where-to-now/)

R18+ games - down but not out (http://www.efa.org.au/2010/12/13/r18-down-not-out/)

So apparently South Australia replaced Atkinson with Atkinson v2.0.

AranchineD

13-12-2010, 08:01 PM

So apparently South Australia replaced Atkinson with Atkinson v2.0.

Yes, because supporting an R18+ rating is not supporting an R18+ rating

Natrak

13-12-2010, 08:05 PM

Lazlow

13-12-2010, 08:10 PM

Not going to happen though. One of those times where a unanimous decision from all AG's works in our favour.

Hemish71

13-12-2010, 08:17 PM

Why dont Christian lobby groups just f off???

Keep their own agenda to themselves

AranchineD

13-12-2010, 08:24 PM

Wants to abolish the MA15+ rating in the hopes that a significant portion of borderline M/MA rated games games have violent content edited to fit a PG rating in order avoid an AO rating and potentially lower sales. So yeah, he's not much better.

At least I went back and read the article completely to see this part, in order to know who came up with such bullshit. The fact that that article didn't even directly attribute such a thing to Rau himself is telling.

And from what Rau has actually said, it seems like he doesn't want to get rid of the M15, not go straight to the PG rating like it suggests, so I fail to see how it would affect sales in the slightest (if most gamers are supposed to be adults then where's the problem?), and we'd have a AO rating (which I assume is effectively an R18+ rating) for the "trouble".

Lazlow

13-12-2010, 08:28 PM

Hey man I read the article too! >_>

Lazlow

13-12-2010, 08:31 PM

But yeah, you're right. There is no direct quote from Rau stating he'd wants both M and MA removed.

If they want to overhaul the system like this though, they should just adopt the PEGI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_European_Game_Information) labeling system. Doesn't get more straight forward than having an age in the label itself.

Shorty

13-12-2010, 08:35 PM

If they want to overhaul the system like this though, they should just adopt the PEGI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_European_Game_Information) labeling system. Doesn't get more straight forward than having an age in the label itself.

I think you might get some resistance from Donald McDonald from that idea, since it would effectively put him out of a job.

Natrak

13-12-2010, 08:38 PM

At least I went back and read the article completely to see this part, in order to know who came up with such bullshit. The fact that that article didn't even directly attribute such a thing to Rau himself is telling.

And from what Rau has actually said, it seems like he doesn't want to get rid of the M15, not go straight to the PG rating like it suggests, so I fail to see how it would affect sales in the slightest (if most gamers are supposed to be adults then where's the problem?), and we'd have a AO rating (which I assume is effectively an R18+ rating) for the "trouble".

Don't know why we have to act like arseholes about it, but okay.

Lazlow

13-12-2010, 08:40 PM

I think you might get some resistance from Donald McDonald from that idea, since it would effectively put him out of a job.

I had to google who that was;

In 1999 he was responsible for a bunker built under the ABC's Ultimo facility in Sydney to house the Board of the ABC and the entire senior management team on the last day of 1999 in anticipation for the apocalypse to be caused by the Y2K bug. Current managing director Mark Scott has since had the bunker sealed off in embarrassment

He's crazy in the coconut

Shorty

13-12-2010, 08:42 PM

He's crazy in the coconut

He was also the guy who complained that WoW and iTunes apps weren't being classified (http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/323532/classification_board_takes_aim_iphone_smartphone_m obile_apps/).

dinopoke

13-12-2010, 09:44 PM

TBH I don't see why MMOs can't be classified.

Shorty

13-12-2010, 09:57 PM

Probably because a significant part of the MMO equation - the players interaction with other players online - can't be practically scripted or regulated by the Classification Board (being essentially a form of Internet communication). It's similar to why the ratings themselves will have "Game experience may change online" in the ratings box.

Halt, Hammerzeit

13-12-2010, 10:00 PM

So what? Just slap an "Game experience may change online" sticker on the box and be done with it. The only 'issue' I can see with it is that maybe new quests would have to be submitted to the classification board to make sure it doesn't exceed the rating that the game's already been given, since the content of the game is changing. Don't see why that's such a big thing, though.

Shorty

13-12-2010, 10:04 PM

But doesn't saying that a game experience may change online imply that there's an offline experience to change from in the first place? You can't play WoW offline out of the box. It's designed specifically to be an online game.

dinopoke

13-12-2010, 10:25 PM

What about multiplayer only games that aren't MMOs?

What I'm trying to say is that I thought the Classification Board should be rating it solely on content. There's a big difference between the content found something like Free Realms and compared to Wow or Age of Conan.

Shorty

13-12-2010, 10:46 PM

Not in functionality. None of those games can really be considered functional outside of the service that runs them, so they function more like a communications service than a boxed game would. And our Classification scheme hasn't really adjusted to this kind of idea yet. Perhaps in the future, we might establish some sort of slightly separate rating for a multiplayer-only title but given the "quality" of decision-making from them and any bandwagon-jumping politicians so far, I'm not holding my breath.

Halt, Hammerzeit

14-12-2010, 11:43 AM

If that's all your arguing, let's just change the wording of the warning. How about "Anonymous dickheads may swear on the internet"?

The Classification Board is there to rate content, not police what people are chatting about.

Stevorooni

14-12-2010, 11:48 AM

Just put the Internet Dickwad Theory on the front cover.

Lazlow

21-12-2010, 04:23 PM

Review ordered for entire classification system (http://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/federal-government-orders-review-of-classifications-amid-r18-video-game-debate/story-e6frfrt9-1225974452023)

THE Federal Government has ordered a wide-ranging review of media classifications as a row over access to adult video games continues.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland, announcing the review today, said advances in technology meant the whole system of classification needed to be considered.

The draft terms of reference for the year-long Australian Law Reform Commission review suggest the classification categories themselves may be changed.

Vindik8or

21-12-2010, 04:30 PM

Can we please get an advisory rather than censorious system? Probably not.

Shorty

21-12-2010, 06:14 PM

Am I the only person who immediately thinks "review" means "make it even more restrictive and arbitrary"?

aubergine

21-12-2010, 06:34 PM

Well at one point they mentioned getting rid of the MA15+ rating and replacing it with R18+, then probably continuing to ban everything else anyway. Because, you know, Gettin' Up is a crime simulator, unlike, say, Grand Theft Auto.

Natrak

21-12-2010, 06:41 PM

Am I the only person who immediately thinks "review" means "make it even more restrictive and arbitrary"?

Yeah, I get that sense of foreboding as well. texta's probably laughing maniacally right now.

Shorty

21-12-2010, 06:42 PM

aubergine

21-12-2010, 06:53 PM

I'm still convinced I can get this twin-stick machine-gun to work. Just four more cardboard tubes and it's rampage time.

texta

21-12-2010, 07:19 PM

Am I the only person who immediately thinks "review" means "make it even more restrictive and arbitrary"?I doubt you're the only one. It seems like there's a portion of the population that always thinks that everything is a conspiracy no matter what happens.

Shorty

21-12-2010, 07:24 PM

I doubt you're the only one. It seems like there's a portion of the population that always thinks that everything is a conspiracy no matter what happens.

If by "conspiracy" you mean "pandering to the Christian voting bloc".

texta

21-12-2010, 07:30 PM

I don't think you understand how the system works.

In order to change it you need the unanimous support of all the states and territories. So if one State is "pandering to the Christian voting bloc" as perhaps WA might be, then yes they can stop change. But if one State isn't "pandering to the Christian votiing bloc" (as Tasmania with it's Labor Left parliamentary and party majority doesn't) then they can also stop the "Christian voting bloc" from passing anything.

The fact that traditionally every state has supported an R18+ rating except SA and now WA suggests that only two States have a "Christian agenda". That means that they can prevent progressive change, but in order to implement their own changes they need the other four states and the Feds, which they don't have.

aubergine

21-12-2010, 08:22 PM

Except that there seems to be a lot more evidence lately that the "Christian" voters raving about 18+ floodgates don't actually represent many Christians at all. By which I mean Catholics and Junglist, but there's probably others.

I probably said it earlier, but I couldn't believe that Sunrise had a rational look at it and "The 7PM Project" had its presenters actually quoting the anti-R18+ lobbyists as if it were their own thoughts and not horribly scripted.

What the hell happened to Jennifer Byrne? If I remember correctly she actually SAID "floodgates!!!"

texta

22-12-2010, 06:41 AM

The majority of Christians are neither Catholic or Junglist.

However, the poor reporting in the media is more indicative of their attitude to present controversy and conflict with total disregard to accuracy. There are countless examples of how the media inflates minority views to try to run a more interesting yarn outside of video games. If there are two opinions on an issue and experts suggest one is 99% more likely than the other, the media will blindly give both arguments equal weight. Unbalanced "balance".

And the 7pm project is a poor man's Today Tonight. And I say that with no fondness for TT.

Shorty

04-02-2011, 02:01 PM

So Stephen Conroy supports a R rating for games. Wait, what?

Stevorooni

04-02-2011, 02:05 PM

He's just a mouthpiece for the mothership and has to say whatever the party says. They support R18+, he supports R18+.

Shorty

04-02-2011, 02:35 PM

That makes sense, since he used some pretty twisted logic (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/375420/conroy_backs_r18_games_rating/) to justify it. Talk about missing the point. It was like watching someone argue against slavery because they were only enslaving black people and they didn't want the other minorities to feel "discriminated".

HiredMan

17-03-2011, 02:26 PM

Interesting and positive. (http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/states-have-until-july-on-r18-video-game-rating-minister-20110317-1bxhm.html)

O'connor has given the State Attorneys-General until July to agree to an R18+ rating for games otherwise the Federal Government will attempt to take the decision out of their hands. Considering that apparently a couple of Attorneys-General have promised (in writing in one case, apparently) that guy from the whacko christian lobby thats basically been holding up the whole process, it's looking likely that the Feds will decide.

Thoughts?

Shorty

17-03-2011, 02:32 PM

Assuming the ACL won't find a way to twist the arm of the Federal Government to get them to back down as well.

Lazlow

17-03-2011, 02:38 PM

Like I said in the MK thread, could go either way, they've yet to really layout the definitions and boundaries of any new classification system.

Hide & Reason

03-04-2011, 11:41 AM

http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/games/video-games-reform-rebuffed-over-violence-fears-20110402-1csmm.html

Good old State-Federal divide's winning more fans every day.

fishfishmonkeyhat

03-04-2011, 01:01 PM

Why have you changed your avatar back to the small one?!

aubergine

03-04-2011, 04:12 PM

Voted on the poll, was at 96% of 3200 votes pro.

Shorty

03-04-2011, 05:23 PM

But the Baillieu government’s Attorney-General, Robert Clark, has echoed the concerns of the Australian Christian Lobby,

Says it all, really. There's always one state that has to go and ruin it for everyone else.

As for Robert Clark, well...

http://i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu328/zerosignal/red-forman-picture.jpg

Lazlow

03-04-2011, 07:53 PM

Just means the Federal government will have to sort this one out.

Slippery

03-04-2011, 08:01 PM

God damnit Ted.

Spazzola

28-04-2011, 02:27 PM

SA AG backs new rating. (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australia-attorney-general-john-rau-backs-new-games-rating/story-e6frea83-1226046221183)

borgster101

28-04-2011, 02:48 PM

Yeah but isn't the Vic one against it now? LOL.

SA guy also says "abolish" MA15+ ... wouldn't it be better to just keep it consistent with the film system?

VanAce

28-04-2011, 04:02 PM

I say it should be just like all the other rating systems in order not to cause confusion.

oogi2000

28-04-2011, 06:54 PM

In all honesty it should be like the PEGI system, big fat numbers what show the minimum age to access the material.

That said, people would still misunderstand it.

JubeiSaotome

28-04-2011, 06:59 PM

Merge M & MA. Right now it seems like "mature" and "more mature but needs age check". Just have mature with age checks, Jesus.

Shorty

28-04-2011, 07:22 PM

So would that make it a "soft" M (recommended for 15+) or a "hard" M (15+ required)? Because having the ratings jump from a soft M to a hard R would probably just polarize games even further between the two ratings.

aubergine

28-04-2011, 07:29 PM

Kotaku reported that SA might just break ranks and have R18+ games sold there if the other ****wits cant get it together.

http://m.kotaku.com/5796492/australia-is-getting-adults+only-games-sort-of

fishfishmonkeyhat

28-04-2011, 07:59 PM

Wait, THAT WAS AN OPTION!?

aubergine

28-04-2011, 08:12 PM

The states had separate ratings for years, which is why we now have the "let's all agree, or not" system. Interesting way around the current retarded system; revert to previous retarded system.

Lazlow

28-04-2011, 09:42 PM

Gamespot article, misleading (http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/04/john-rau-spokesperson-r18-reports-are-misleading/)

grimace06

29-04-2011, 01:54 AM

“For videogame distributors it would be extremely difficult – especially when games rated MA15+ in some states are rated differently elsewhere."

Since when?

aubergine

29-04-2011, 02:00 AM

It's saying under a system with different states having different systems. Eg one state might replace MA15 with R18

Lazlow

29-04-2011, 02:01 AM

I assume they're talking in the hypothetical sense, if SA were to go rogue.

Between the gamespot article and the correction, ACT also weighed in saying they would follow SA's lead if there were to adopt their own system.

texta

25-05-2011, 02:24 PM

http://www.abc.net.au/technology//images/general/docs/110525_Draft_Classification_Guidelines.pdf

Draft guidelines

R 18+ - RESTRICTED
Impact test
The impact of material classified R 18+ should not exceed high.
Note: Material classified R 18+ is legally restricted to adults. Some material classified R 18+
may be offensive to sections of the adult community.
Classifiable elements
THEMES
There are virtually no restrictions on the treatment of themes.
VIOLENCE
Violence is permitted except where it offends against the standards of morality, decency and
propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it should not be classified.
Sexual violence may be implied, if justified by context.
SEX
Sexual activity may be realistically simulated. The general rule is
“simulation, yes – the real thing, no”.
LANGUAGE
There are virtually no restrictions on language.
DRUG USE
Drug use is permitted.
NUDITY
Nudity is permitted.

Lazlow

25-05-2011, 02:26 PM

Those are essentially the same guidelines that are in place for films, and have been since the 80s.

This bit;

permitted except where it offends against the standards of morality, decency and
propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it should not be classified.

has always shit me the most.

fishfishmonkeyhat

25-05-2011, 03:13 PM

Wait, we don't have this yet?

aubergine

25-05-2011, 10:40 PM

I was just thinking the other day "that texta never posts here anymore" but of course he's been busy writing guidelines.

Lazlow

25-05-2011, 11:09 PM

I also find it odd they choose to refer to "simulated" sex scenes.

aubergine

25-05-2011, 11:16 PM

Footage can be part of a game. However, in an R movie you can't see a cock smashing the hole. I doubt, in an R game, you could have a graphical beaver cleaver in progress either, just people banging hips and moaning.

By the way, I host trivia nights and tonight I learned that the family in "Leave It To Beaver" was the "Cleaver" family. His name was Beaver Cleaver? They got away with that on old television?

Lazlow

25-05-2011, 11:26 PM

Footage can be part of a game. However, in an R movie you can't see a cock smashing the hole. I doubt, in an R game, you could have a graphical beaver cleaver in progress either, just people banging hips and moaning.

I understand that, I'm pretty sure you can't go out and buy hardcore cartoon porn, my point is that they use language that can be confusing.

Unless FMV games make a come back, wouldn't sexual content of any kind be simulated?

Just specify what you can and cannot include.

aubergine

26-05-2011, 02:38 AM

The language is defininitely inappropriate to the medium!

Xanafalgue

26-05-2011, 07:06 AM

Can't wait for 9 Songs: THE GAME.

Lazlow

26-05-2011, 01:39 PM

Draft Guidelines Fail Families - ACL (http://australianchristianlobby.org.au/2011/05/mr-draft-r18-computer-game-guidelines-fail-families/)

We're cool with the draft guidelines - Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/05/australian-catholic-bishops-welcomes-the-draft-r18-guidelines/)

Whilst the Bishops still stand in judgement of content they consider immoral, they are at least realists.

TrinityJayOne

26-05-2011, 01:47 PM

The ACL article is maddeningly dumb and uninformed, like most christians.

For those who don't want to subject themselves to it, the take-home message is "parenting is hard and I shouldn't have to do it, let's just ban stuff instead".

Slippery

26-05-2011, 01:56 PM

“All concerned Australians, especially concerned parents, should carefully consider the draft Guidelines and tell the Government of their views,” said Fr Leonard. “We all have a vision of how we would like our society to be, but we as a society need to address the world as it is, not as we would like it would be.”

Has the world gone topsy-turvy!?

VanAce

31-05-2011, 02:30 AM

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/05/new-tas-attorney-general-supports-r18/

Also I think that parents need need to do their part when purchasing games for their children. I saw some guy in JB the other day who was going to purchase CoD for an 8 year old.

oogi2000

31-05-2011, 11:32 PM

Shorty

31-05-2011, 11:41 PM

Well, the Minister is officially "concerned", so it'll probably be banned pretty soon.

AranchineD

31-05-2011, 11:55 PM

Ayane has been 15 for over a decade now, it's time she grow up!

Lazlow

01-06-2011, 12:00 AM

The obvious solution is to change the ages in their bios.

fishfishmonkeyhat

01-06-2011, 12:20 AM

A spokeswoman for Nintendo said she believed some Australian versions of the game did not specify the characters were under 18

Crisis averted!

oogi2000

01-06-2011, 08:51 AM

Imagine if they went back and saw Rumble Roses or DOA:Xtreme Beach Volleyball... lol.

Ad-Rock

01-06-2011, 06:21 PM

Dead or Alive is now officially child porn. (http://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/child-porn-concerns-over-nintendo-game-dead-or-alive-dimensions/story-e6frfrt9-1226066811839)

Took them a while after the broo-ha-ha in Europe.
From ABC news, same story
'Child Porn' Nintendo game gets PG rating (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/01/3232865.htm?section=justin)

Shorty

01-06-2011, 07:15 PM

From ABC news, same story
'Child Porn' Nintendo game gets PG rating (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/01/3232865.htm?section=justin)

Oh, that's not slanted at all. WTF, ABC?

Watchers

01-06-2011, 07:43 PM

Why did they take a joke image from GamesRadar as their image of the game? One of the girls has Ridley shopped over her head...

dinopoke

01-06-2011, 08:16 PM

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201106/r776771_6653723.jpg
lmao

dinopoke

01-06-2011, 08:17 PM

Raww I'm a dinosaur

Space_Monkey

18-07-2011, 07:25 PM

So Greg Smith the NSW Attorney General has decided that despite numerous industry and public polls, government enquires and precedent set elsewhere in the world that there is still more evidence needed to introduce an R classification.

http://au.gamespot.com/news/6323864.html?tag=newsticker%3Bheadline%3B1

Yet John Rau Attorney General for South Australian has decided to scrap the MA classification in favour of slapping an R rating on everything above an M classification. Thereby continuing to convolute an already flawed ratings system by placing considerably violent video games (probably Halo) into the same classification as extremely violent video games (probably mortal kombat).

http://au.games.ign.com/articles/118/1182354p1.html

Argh... How do these people still have jobs, the incompetence and ignorance is baffling.