One of the most anticipated titles for 2009, Left 4 Dead 2, was a source of controversy in Australian video gaming circles recently after being refused classification by the Classification Board, an independent body responsible for the rating of media in Australia. As it currently stands, the highest rating available for video games is MA15+.
Games that don’t meet this requirement are either banned from sale, never to be released or, more commonly, edited/”toned down” to meet the standards required. The latter path was chosen by the developers of Left 4 Dead 2, Valve, who eventually managed to secure a MA15+ rating with an edited version of the game. The question is, however, why does Australia lack an R18+ classification for video games in the first place?
The answer? Michael Atkinson, South Australian Attorney General and his vehement opposition to the introduction of an R18+ rating. He has long advocated that his position is safeguarding children from exposure to violence through video games. Such a quest would be considered noble, were this 20 years ago and gaming was almost exclusively marketed to children. Gone are the days when thinking of the “average gamer” would conjure an image of an adolescent male hunkered down in front of a screen.
Today’s average gamer is 30 and almost as likely to be female as male (according to the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association).
Australia remains one of the few first world countries to lack an 18+ classification. Japan, the US and the majority of Europe all have individual systems in place to cater for today’s gaming market. This oversight flies in the face of the National Classification Code, which states that “adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want.”
In fact, Victorian Deputy Premier and Attorney General Rob Hulls has stated that he considers the current legislation to be “out of step” with other first world countries. “It seems inconsistent that in Australia, adults are allowed to view ‘adult only’ films which have been classified R18+ by the Classification Board, but not computer games with an equivalent high-level content” he said via statement.
The truly strange thing is, though, that the introduction of an R18+ rating would probably do a better job at protecting minors than the current system or Mr Atkinson’s antiquated beliefs. Currently, many games that would attract an R18+ rating in other countries are deemed suitable for 15-year-olds in Australia. Isn’t that exactly what Mr Atkinson is hoping to avoid?
There are several measures that can be taken — many of them already in place — to prevent younger people getting access to restricted games. Retailers can refuse to sell restricted games to anyone they believe is under age that can’t produce ID. Developers already prominently display ratings on games, keeping consumer awareness high. Consoles such as the Xbox 360 have parental control options available, enabling parents to control what ratings their children have access to.
But most importantly, parents should be involved in the games their children play, as to better understand the content.
Australia has to get with the times. Gaming is a media juggernaut (earning $1.96 billion in Australia in 2008) that attracts a broader range of users than ever before. By restricting a large portion of the gaming market, we become victims of media censorship. I’m fairly certain the National Classification Code doesn’t say “adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want … so long as it’s what we want you to see.”
Until Atkinson leaves his job, one way or another, it appears we’re stuck with this anachronism. The other State A-Gs aren’t going to take him on on this issue.
It has been commented several times over at Game Spot (au.gamespot.com) that Michael Atkinson is merely the vocal representative of these views. He’s not the lynchpin. His removal will not solve this issue. Yes, a total overhaul is required. No, it won’t happen as soon as he leaves his job. So long as people keep focused on the issues and not the personalities on this one something might be achieved one day.
R18+ is only one step though. The whole classification process is incredibly subjective and inconsistent in its current form. Modern Warfare 2 achieved an MA15 rating. There is conjecture among gamers that the strength of impact of the content of this game is much more shocking than L4D2 and disbelief that it could be permitted an MA15 where L4D2 was not.
I think an often ignored problem is that a single person _can_ veto rule changes. This doesn’t make a lot of sense, when the rest of our political system is formed around majority rule. I’m not sure if removing Atkinson would solve the problem, he does appear to be the only one willing to take heat on the issue, which makes me think the other AGs are probably more agnostic than anti-R18 games.
I agree with the comments about Modern Warfare 2… much more likely to scar youngsters than Left 4 Dead 2 – consistency is pretty bad.
People just have to keep making noise about it and lobbying. I wish the industry would get more involved, but they don’t seem that willing to make noise.
Why does South Australia’s AG have the power to determine what happens in other states? We don’t have uniform laws across states in many areas, so what harm would one more exception make?
Meski, their AG has the power to overturn it, because when it comes to changing these laws, there needs to be a 100% agreeance on the changes submitted – if just one AG opposes the change, it’s scrapped.
The main problem with Michael Atkinson is that he ‘railroads’ any suggestion you give him, and has zero facts to back his opinions…
He’ll say that he wants to protect the kids: yet when you suggest that the R18 rating will help protect children, he’ll say he doesn’t believe it’ll be correctly enforced.
He says that video-games have more impact because they’re interactive: Where are the studies to prove this?
He says that there are video games that have “cruel depraved sex and rape” in them: What games is he talking about? I’ve played games my entire life (I’m 30), and I’ve never played a game containing rape or “cruel depraved sex”. X-rated games like he’s describing will never be approved, whether you have a R18 classification or not, this is a moot point – he just likes using these scaremongering words to get attention.
You tell him that if he approves the R18 rating, then he’ll even get to have a further say in the actual classification boundaries: but he says that he doesn’t trust the Classification Board to do it’s job even if they are changed.
You show him results from studies that show facts about gaming being more mainstream, and played by adults more than children: He’ll claim that there’s big business who have directly funded the study, therefore it must be false results (given the number of game developers who have shut down in this country, I wonder who’s left to do this supposed influencing?)
He’s in the prime position to allow us to keep up with the rest of the western world’s ratings, and then control what the new classification will entail, even launch a whole new marketing campaign to correctly educate parents. He just simply won’t. I can only assume it’s because he doesn’t want the workload that this will entail.
Plain and simple, this man cannot be reasoned with.
The entire country is being held back because of the stoneage views of one person who presides over a space of land a mere 17 square kilometres in size.