The R18+ Rating for Games Thread

[Shorty]

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. 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]

Originally Posted by From the article

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

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

[Jickle]

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]

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.

[Vindik8or]

Originally Posted by FrozenSoul80

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?

[fishonthecarpet]

Originally Posted by Vindik8or

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?

[Vindik8or]

Originally Posted by fishonthecarpet

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.

[fishonthecarpet]

Originally Posted by Vindik8or

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!

[Stevorooni]

Originally Posted by fishonthecarpet

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.

[Xanafalgue]

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