Australian Government Slows R18+ Rating Process
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I am not a supporter of any political party (to my mind, that would require subjugating my own views to a standarised set), but if anyone is regarding this as the doing of the ALP and hoping that the Coalition are going to champion this cause to win Greens preferences, they'll be sorely disappointed.Silva said:
Neither party cares much for this issue. The Coalition have been in power for 12 of the last 15 years and they have done no more to introduce an R rating than Labour has. It's just not a major national issue and not on their radars, so an attitude of 'Boo, hiss, vote Ruddy out!' based on this single issue would achieve nothing to speak of.
In short, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, but I don't see that the shifting political sands will have any bearing on this issue. Nor will an election based on climate change give either side an advantage, as Rudd has scrapped the ETS and Abbott was dead set against it from the start.
Or in other words, you're right to see the potential for the Greens to grow. But we already have a third party in the Nationals and the Greens would need ten times their current support base to approach the profile of the Brtish LibDems.
Do they really need an 18+ rating, we all know if kids really wants a game thats too old for them,they'll find other places to get ahold of it.
I don't see a problem. They are stalling because the majority of people who care about the issue are for the rating? What the hell?
This government needs to stop treating us like children who can't take care of ourselfs. Give us the damn rating, I don't see any reason to stop it.
This government needs to stop treating us like children who can't take care of ourselfs. Give us the damn rating, I don't see any reason to stop it.
Uh, yeah, go team?
The thing that annoys me is it's not about the games it's about the ratings.
There's a pretty lousy consistency between rating and content. I mean if you're someone that cares about the rating of a game, say a parent, there's assassin's creed which has an MA15+ rating and then GTA IV which has the same rating but content wise is much worse, it would be very confusing if they were naive about video games and just went by the box.
Then there's games like the new AVP. It was originally denied classification then it was resubmitted with no changes and received an MA15+.
The fact that they're arguing that 'we don't want an R18+ rating because that means there will be more violent video games' is stupid. There will be the same video games. They'll just have an appropriate classification. And it's not going to affect children at all. Children can't buy them. I get parents who think that an MA15+ game isn't that bad for their 13yr old son. But I highly doubt there'll be as many children playing inappropriate content if it has a higher rating.
I also think it will encourage game store employee's to pay closer attention to the rating on the game and the age of the person they're selling it too. Not many kiddies carry around ID's. Or at least not in my part of the world. There's a big difference between a child that looks almost 15 and an 18 yr old that carries an ID. Make it a bit easier on the retail monkeys anyway.
The thing that annoys me is it's not about the games it's about the ratings.
There's a pretty lousy consistency between rating and content. I mean if you're someone that cares about the rating of a game, say a parent, there's assassin's creed which has an MA15+ rating and then GTA IV which has the same rating but content wise is much worse, it would be very confusing if they were naive about video games and just went by the box.
Then there's games like the new AVP. It was originally denied classification then it was resubmitted with no changes and received an MA15+.
The fact that they're arguing that 'we don't want an R18+ rating because that means there will be more violent video games' is stupid. There will be the same video games. They'll just have an appropriate classification. And it's not going to affect children at all. Children can't buy them. I get parents who think that an MA15+ game isn't that bad for their 13yr old son. But I highly doubt there'll be as many children playing inappropriate content if it has a higher rating.
I also think it will encourage game store employee's to pay closer attention to the rating on the game and the age of the person they're selling it too. Not many kiddies carry around ID's. Or at least not in my part of the world. There's a big difference between a child that looks almost 15 and an 18 yr old that carries an ID. Make it a bit easier on the retail monkeys anyway.
Actually, this reminds me of the French government's attitude... We've been having that kind of "try and try again until the people get the right opinion" for quite a few years, now... It seems to me the politicians around the world realized that they were able to do whatever they want no matter what the people might say, and just decided to use democracy as a pretext and go their way anyway.
Therefore, I fully support Australian gamers in favor of an R18+ rating (banning adult games was downright daft in the first place, anyway...)
Therefore, I fully support Australian gamers in favor of an R18+ rating (banning adult games was downright daft in the first place, anyway...)
Wow, just wow.
This is just major BS.
They asked the people, the people who care have stated their oppinions, they don't lke what have been stated so they seek to change that in asking people who don't know or care.
This is clearly and directly working against democracy up there.
You don't like something that has been stated by the public?
Hey, let us ask as long and often as we need to get the answer we like!
This is just major BS.
They asked the people, the people who care have stated their oppinions, they don't lke what have been stated so they seek to change that in asking people who don't know or care.
This is clearly and directly working against democracy up there.
You don't like something that has been stated by the public?
Hey, let us ask as long and often as we need to get the answer we like!
You don't actually understand why?DalekJaas said:
The reason being is because adults want to be treated like adults. The lack of an R18+ rating means games are forced to be censored or dumbed down in order to be released in Australia. This means adults lose out on their share of a full experience of a game; the way it was meant to be experienced originally by the developers.
It also means games will continue to be treated like a toy for kids, which is a stereotype people want to get rid of as we move on into the future. Gaming is a growing entertainment media for all ages.
A common misconception is that an 18+ rating means there will be more violent video games. This is incorrect - it just means they'll have a correct classification, so adults can play their games and other age groups can play what's appropriate for them.
Second, your stereotyping is not helping out. If you are disturbed by so called "angry nerds", why go to a gaming website like the Escapist?
More importantly though, you're failing to see the whole issue here. This isn't 'caving into a bunch of angry nerds'. As you can see, they held a public consensus, the majority of people voted in favour of a proper rating, and the government denies action, stating they want the opinions of people who did not care enough to provide an opinion. This makes little sense.
It is also arguable that this goes beyond the ratings (government censorship, etc.).
In the end, the Mature rating is needed for Australia. Adult gamers want to be treated like adults, rather than being shafted into the 15 or less year old group and be forced to play censored/dumbed-down games.
If we assume that this rating is bias because gamers make up the majority of responders because they are interested and have universal support, then it is natural to assume that anyone else who was interested also participated. Those who lack interest must then have not participated. Therefore, Those who did not vote must not feel strongly enough to register their opinion. Therefore, they must not care enough which either makes them neutral or so little polarized that their opinion isn't worth it to them and probably shouldn't be worth it to us. As a result, Either those that feel strongly, positive and negative, would have participated the first time and an accurate picture of opinion from both factions would appear. The one problem here is it is possible that gamers advertised this more then other groups. Therefore, Australia should attempt to tell everyone about it and ensure that everyone knows about it. Then the poll is guaranteed, more or less, to get all the people who care. Even if we don't explain this on the grounds of the government controlling public expression by essentially banning games, I think gamers would still win on the grounds that most people probably won't care or be in support.
Of course, I still think this is kind of stupid, if people really hate it then wouldn't they have sent in letters of support or something? What info is the government really getting here?
Of course, I still think this is kind of stupid, if people really hate it then wouldn't they have sent in letters of support or something? What info is the government really getting here?
You're one to talk about Discrimination, Mister "Halfling Supremacist".RelexCryo said:
OT: When is Australia's next election or is everyone who does anything in your government part of a bureaucracy?
I'm Australian and I wipe my hands clean of the government in charge. I am rather frustrated that worldwide we're seen as jokes because of decisions like the R18+ games rating.
The old men in charge are probably trying to delay it so they don't have to break their wrists over the mammoth paperwork required.
Hey, my state's government only sits 32 days this year. That's Aussie politics for you!
The old men in charge are probably trying to delay it so they don't have to break their wrists over the mammoth paperwork required.
Hey, my state's government only sits 32 days this year. That's Aussie politics for you!
Exactly, and I think this is how the pro-R18 advocates have managed to defuse attempts at public scare mongering. Rather than sit around bleating "I want, I want!" they've gone out of their way to approach the matter on a broader social scale, engaging the parents (and sometimes grandparents) of young gamers on thing such as how existing content control technology can be used and how the existing rating scheme for games does very little in protecting their nippers from age inappropriate material.Bellvedere said:
The number of games that have R17/18 classifications in other countries that just get slapped with the MA15 here far outnumber the combined total of titles that have modified content or are refused classification. Simply put when it comes to video games we, as a nation, are allowing children to be exposed to higher levels of graphic material than other western nations. "Think of the children," indeed.
Throw in on top of that the OFLC's seemingly arbitrary method of deciding whether a game should be RC'd or given an MA15 rating and yes it has been quite easy to defuse any public groundswell against R18 if not actually gaining any broadbased support.