A response to Michael Atkinson
By Gaetano Prestia
Many of you have signed petitions, written letters and emails and debated about the lack of an R18+ rating for video games in Australia. It is a heated issue, no doubt, one that has infuriated both sides of the spectrum.
As gamers we may feel obligated to be for the notion of introducing an adult rating for games, but have we really considered all sides of the opposing argument, or are we merely engulfed in the maturity and "cool" factor associated with R18+ content? We really need to ask ourselves: Is a lack of an R18+ rating for games in Australia really endangering our ability to experience the best games available?
Below are extracts taken from a letter I received from The Hon Michael Atkinson MP. I assume that some of you may have received the exact same letter and I doubt it's a personally written letter conjured up specifically for me. But nonetheless, it is very much worthy of a read, as Mr. Atkinson puts forth some interesting and respectable points in regard to his stance.
His paragraphs below are in bold. My response is in normal text. Feel free to comment on my posts as well as any of the extracts from Mr. Atkinson's letter.
The R18+ game debate is not new - the question of whether we should have an R18+ category for games was on the SCAG agenda before I took office. With a change of SCAG membership, the R18+ classification issue has again been brought to the Committee's attention. Although some members are advocates of this classification, I believe other Attorneys-General, like me, reject it. Hitherto, Attorneys-General have not agreed to create an R18+ category for computer games. Other Attorneys-General who are opposed to introducing an R18+ classification for computer games are content to let me be the lightening rod for the gamers.
The SCAG, for those not in the know, means "Standing Committee of Attorneys-General". It is true that in previous years, before Michael Atkinson was in office, all members of the Committee did not approve a R18+ rating for games. However, to say that a change in membership has equated to the discussion being brought back to attention disregards the actual problem at hand. The Committee probably brought the issue back up again because of the noise created by the general gaming public, not because the Committee decided randomly to start discussing it again.
It's also worth noting that, unlike Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls, it is not really known what the stance of the other Attorneys-General is. It may be easy to point the finger and criticize Mr. Atkinson for his inability to support such a notion, but you have to respect his dedication to the issue and continued support for his argument. He is the only Attorney-General against the cause that seems to be making a stand for what he believes is right for the people of this country.
I have considered the statistics. I am well aware that many games players are adults. Indeed, a whole generation has now grown-up with computer games. It is not surprising that those who enjoyed gaming as children go on playing into adult life and, indeed, play electronic games with their own children. Added to this, games grow ever more sophisticated, challenging and entertaining, and, accordingly, more attractive to adult players. My three sons are always playing computer games at home and one of them is now 22.
However, it is important you do not confuse the classification rating of a game with the game's sophistication, or the challenge or interest to the player. I understand the Wii console has been phenomenally successful for Nintendo and that system provides many games to challenge and develop skill, physically and intellectually, without depraved sex, gore and cruelty. Depending on tastes and interests, adult gamers will find something challenging to play in all of the categories of games now available. It does not follow that a game is more interesting to an adult simply because it contains extreme violence, explicit sexual material or highly offensive language. Indeed, with all the effort and money that does into a game development, coupled with the effects and graphics now available, there is no need to introduce these extreme elements. I am baffled and worried about why proponents of R18+ games are putting up their hands and saying, "Give us more cruel sex and extreme violence!"
Firstly, a majority of game players are adults. A vast majority. As strongly aimed at a younger audience anyone thinks the Wii is, you can't argue with statistics. Males lie, females lie, but stats don't. The gaming medium for primarily aimed at adults. No matter how many titles there are aimed at younger audiences, the 18-35 age bracket is the main one.
The whole argument about the Wii offering challenge and allowing you to develop skills, physically and intellectually, without depraved sex, gore and cruelty, makes reference to only one specific genre of games, ones that most likely have no story or characters. Games like Wii Sports, EA Sports Active and Wii Fit, fit into that category. While they are entertaining to a certain degree, it's a weak argument to highlight them as a reason why a game shouldn't have adult content, considering they represent one specific genre of game.
However, I am just as baffled as to why people use the "Give us more cruel sex and extreme violence!" argument when debating for an R18+ rating for games. A game has between one and two core components: the core gameplay experience and the story. In plenty of instances, the core gameplay experience is the sole factor when considering a game's quality - not all games have a story, and not all memorable and brilliant games have narrative. But very often we see a game driven by the characters and story, which in turn have an influence on how the game is played. But ultimately, they are the two main factors. Very often gamers argue that they don't want to play a censored version of a game (Grand Theft Auto IV, for example), because it doesn't have has much blood or as much sex. But the question needs to be asked: does the censorship really affect the core gameplay experience? No, it doesn't. It's really no different than having a few swear words and sex scenes censored out of a movie playing on TV during prime time. If those instances have no influence on the core plot and characters, there's no need for them to be in there if it's believed they may compromise the film's classification.
That argument as a whole is definitely out of whack. The sole purpose of a game is to entertain, first and foremost. The gimmicky aspects of an experience (excessive gore and sex) really aren't necessary if the core experience is still there to be had. There has been this mentality created within the gaming public that an R18+ automatically makes a game better or "cooler", but all it really represents is the title's excessive and explicit content and experience. One has to ask if Left 4 Dead 2 really needs blood and gore for a fun gaming experience to still be had. If you're after a genuine FPS multiplayer experience, blood splattering onto the screen really shouldn't matter to you.
Yet then the whole debate of adult liberty comes into play. Mr. Atkinson has said in the past that his cause is for a greater good and that he acknowledges that he may be stepping on our rights as adults. We do have a right to experience a game in its entirety, with all the blood, gore and sex that was put into the game. But then we have to consider whether or not we want such content in our society. Censorship has always been a hot topic of discussion, and as aggressively as we think it is being used here, statistics show that we really haven't missed out on all that much, and that any games that have been changed to fit into our classification system haven't had any changes made to the core experience.
Some of the kinds of games that I expect would be available on the Australian market under an R18+ classification include Blitz the League, an American football game where illegal performance enhancing drugs can be dispensed by the gamer to the football players and fake urine samples can be used so players avoid positive drug tests. Another is Narc - as in narcotics - which allows a gamer to choose that his game character take illegal drugs, including heroin, speed, L.S.D., marijuana and ecstasy. The gamer can have his character take ecstasy so it is immune to attack and the character can escape. Further, when given speed, the character can run faster and catch opponents. These are all activities that are illegal for individuals in the real world so why ask governments to give people the right to do them virtually?
It's difficult to argue against this. While there is no solid proof to show that such virtual experiences can influence a gamer’s actions in real-life, there is the possibility of double standards. Japanese-developed games that encourage the gamer to rape virtual characters are often banned from being sold and brought into Australia. Considering the effect rape has on an individual and the possible effect on family members and friends, it's a good thing that such pieces of software aren't allowed into this country. We spend so much money trying to help both victims of sexual assault and sexual predators during rehabilitation, and considering the extremely evil nature of the act, it would be down-right wrong to introduce such content to our shores. But then we have to ask: why should we allow the same for games depicting virtual drug taking and murdering? When you consider the amount of taxpayer funded money that goes on assisting drug addiction in this country and around the world, we're essentially promoting the act through a virtual brochure.
However, as Mr. Atkinson has mentioned before, game classification isn't anywhere near as broad as film classification, and this needs to be changed. He seems to argue that the introduction of an R18+ rating for games means any and every type of game is automatically allowed into the country, no matter how taboo or socially unacceptable it is. That's incorrect. There are often films banned from public screening in this country because they go beyond the basic guidelines to achieve an R18+ rating. If a film can be banned, even with an R18+ for films, why can't a game that is so strong socially unacceptable and taboo (a game with excessive and pointless drug taking, or rape, for example) be banned, even if there is an R18+ rating for games?
An adult rating for games doesn't automatically mean that bad content hits our shores. It just means there is a broader and more accepting classification system for games, allowing more excessively violent and mature games to be released here. Any game that is deemed too excessive and therefore inappropriate to be sold here in accordance with social acceptance (not because of the classification system) should then be banned.
'Interactive Australia 2007', a report prepared by Bond University for the Interactive Entertainment Association, surveyed 1,606 Australian households randomly. The report found "79% of Australian households have a device for computer and video games". Further, "62% of Australians in these gaming households "say the classification of a game has no influence on their buying decision".
Given this data, I cannot fathom what State-enforced safeguards could exist to prevent R18+ games being brought by households with children and how children can be stopped from using these games once the games are in the home. If adult gamers are so keen to have R18+ games, I expect children would be just as keen.
So Mr. Atkinson is coupling the buying trends of children with that of adults. The fact he has used a survey made when the highest possible rating for a game is MA15+ definitely defeats the purpose of his argument. Why would a household with 14-15 year olds care about classifications of games, when the highest possible rating is MA15+, which is restricted to 15 and over, or under 15 when accompanied by a guardian? They shouldn't care, because, for one, some of the children are over 15, therefore making them legally able to purchase and play the game, and secondly, because there are adults in the house that have the ability to determine whether or not their child under 15 can play the game. Granted, a guardian would have to consider if their child under 15 should be playing such a game, but what percentage of those 62% actually had children under 15 that played games? That would be an interesting statistic to use in your argument.
Classification of electronic games is very different from the classification of film. In cinemas, the age of movie-goers can be regulated...Rising game and console sales make it clear that this is a growing area that needs careful regulation, even more so than cinemas and private DVD hire and purchase. Access to electronic games, once in the home, cannot be policed and therefore the games are easily accessible to children. If adults think they can devise a lock-out system to defeat children, tell 'em they're dreaming.
I will direct you all to this link. There is a lockout system in place for adults to stop children from accessing mature content. Mr. Atkinson is also taking a lot of emphasis off parents, insinuating that typical Australian parents don't have the ability to police what content their children view and experience. Furthermore, just like cinemas, retail stores that sell games are, by law, forced to restrict sale of classified content to a person not of the required age (a 14 year old wanting to purchase an MA15+ game without an adult, for example). It is the responsibility of the retail salesperson to ask for ID and/or refuse sale.
On balance, the rejection of less than a handful of games each year has a trifling impact on the choices available to Australian adult gamers, compared with the impact extremely violent and sexually explicit games would have on at-risk adults and minors
What the present law does is to keep the most extreme material off the shelves. It is true that this restricts adult liberty to a small degree, however, I am prepared to accept this infringement in the circumstances.
Children are the most computer literate and computer savvy group in our society and the interactive nature of electronic games has a high impact. I watch my own children become obsessed with games and I can find it difficult to drag them away from the gaming console.
I believe the repeated act of killing a computer-generated person or creature desensitizes them to violence. Moreover, this makes violence part of their everyday lives and what is especially worrying is that it is their recreation. To my mind, a child being able to watch depraved sex and extreme violence in a movie is damaging to the child, but the child's participation in depraved sex and extreme violence in a computer game is worse.
It is true that, when compared to the amount of games release each year, the number of games banned is quite insignificant, and they are often titles no one knows about. It is also worth considering that the effect on our liberties as adults when a game is banned, isn't quite as damaging as having a rape victim or cured drug addict see a game depicting those acts so openly and vigorously with no consequence to the gamer for their actions in the game, or no real influence on the story.
However, to say children are the most computer savvy in society is absurd. Considering the age of the mainstream internet and the evolution of games over the past two decades, as well as the statistics of both internet users and gamers, it's nothing more than an assumption to say that children have that position within society. It is true that children born now will be more influenced by computers and technology than someone born, say, 20 years ago, but that in no way makes them more literate. It's obvious here that Mr. Atkinson refers to his own children, even though some of them are adults, as "children" in the natural form - they will always be "children" to him. Yet doesn't he have an obligation to his children, as a parent, to monitor and parent what they can and cannot play and watch? His argument that his children are subjected to bad content doesn't say much about his parenting skills, does it?
Also, the introduction of an R18+ rating wouldn't make it easier for children to experience adult material. Its purpose is to restrict content from children. As mentioned above, game sales are supposed to be monitored, just as cinema ticket sales are. And what exactly is a child doing experiencing depraved sex and extreme violence in a computer game? Where are their parents exactly? Oh that's right - they aren't allowed to parent. Because there are no "safeguards" or preventions in order. Because children run the world.
Game-houses are always free to adapt games that would otherwise be R.C. and modify the game content to be in line with the MA15+ classification. Decisions of the Classification Board show that in February 2008, Dark Sector was refused classification and a revised version was modified by the game’s producer to meet the Australian classification code. The modification of the original GTA IV game shows that the game can be played in an MA15+ format and can still be popular without the R18+ content. I do not accept that this destroys the artistic integrity of the game – excusing gore and depraved sex as art is an immature argument.
As mentioned above, if a particular element of a game (blood, gore, violence, sex) has no real influence on the core experience, it’s not really necessary. While it does affect our liberties as adults by restricting our right to see explicit content, it’s not a strong argument for a R18+ rating for games to say that worthless and pointless aspects of the title increase the game’s quality. The censored version of GTA IV is just as good as the non-censored version, so that argument as a whole is, admittedly, immature. Surely there is a more genuine and mature argument for an R18+ rating than to simply argue that a game should include blood and gore.
However, Mr. Atkinson is being rather ignorant and arrogant to suggest that both gore and sex can’t be used to create art, or that their exclusion from a game may influence a game’s artistic integrity. I direct you to a title like Killer7, where the game’s presentation, blood and extreme adult themes essentially make up the core experience. If that game were to be censored to exclude aspects of terrorism (of which were portrayed quite extensively throughout the gameplay and story), then the game would essentially be pointless. Furthermore, Modern Warfare 2 has a level where users control terrorists as they kill innocent and helpless civilians in an airport terminal. Had that level had no influence on the story and/or no consequences to the player of the action, it probably would have led to censorship, as has been seen in the past. The same can also be said for film, literature and other forms of art, where excessive gore and depraved sex are used to get a point across. While different under the circumstances, to insinuate that these explicit aspects can have no artistic focus is quite absurd. However, if such content was used in a pointless way with no direct influence on the story and/or no consequences (the Japanese-developed “rape” games, for example), then their consideration as art is obviously void.
The letter contained quite a bit more, and the above are just extracts of which I thought were the most important.