The R18+ Rating for Games Thread

[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!

[FrozenSoul80]

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.

[super_deformed]

Originally Posted by FrozenSoul80

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]

PG-13 is only American isn't it?

[super_deformed]

Originally Posted by fishonthecarpet

PG-13 is only American isn't it?

Ha. yeah. Buying stuff from amazon gets confusing.

M is for what age here?

[fishonthecarpet]

It used to be recommended 15+, but looks as if since they made the colour-coded changes it is just "Recommended for Mature Audiences".

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by fishonthecarpet

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]

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.

Kinda like the weak locking/deleting of IRS' racism thread >_>