Michael Atkinson Once Again Dismisses Gamers

[AceDiamond]

Wow. I love this guy. It is true as proven in the US that ratings do not work. People just buy their kids whatever they want and everyone thinks that kids have the right to play whatever. So no, parents do not take care of their kids. They just give them whatever they want to shut them up.
Basically it comes down to this. It is the law. Shut up and deal with it or leave.
You do not see pedos or other criminals trying to state the laws are stupid. (well except for stoners but who gives a feth what they think.)

(Of course it helps that I am in New Zealand. A sane country where ratings exist and are enforced as well as such things can be. Plus this is amusing as hell.)

...Speaking as someone whose parents actually did a pretty good job of trying to keep me from playing M-rated games until I became 17 I am appalled that you would suggest they were incapable of raising me. Then again you are in New Zealand and odds are you're just a sheep with a keyboard rather than an actual person.

See I can make wild conjectures too.

The point is that anybody who says that only they have the ability to properly raise the youth of any country is a dangerous and deluded individual who should not be holding power. Especially because what he has said here is "guess what parents, you don't have to try and be responsible for your children anymore." That is not the right message whatsoever.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Someone please tell this idiot to step down from office and jump off a cliff before someone goes over there and beats him to death with a trout. Seriously, dude, get a life. Everyone wants an r18+ rating in Australia and democracy is supposed to be what the people want. You are not a fucking dictator, now get off your high horse. [/end rant]

Sorry about that, but I meant every word.

 

[In Limbo]

"It is important that you do not confuse the classification rating of a game with the game's sophistication, or the challenge or interest to the player," he wrote. "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 goes into 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!'"

At least he's stolen a decent argument from somewhere. That it's irrelevant to this debate doesn't make it any less true.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

The Australian Jack Thompson, lovely.

I'd say he's worse.


He actually has a position of power that effects them. Jack just yells about things, and gets kicked out.



I agree with him in the sense that no other candidate will care to run.


What I don't agree with him is everything else.

 

[Kandon Arc]

Basically it comes down to this. It is the law. Shut up and deal with it or leave.
You do not see pedos or other criminals trying to state the laws are stupid. (well except for stoners but who gives a feth what they think.)

Yes because all laws make perfect sense and should never be questioned. You would make a great apologist for Jim Crow laws.

I'm sorry but fundamentally it is up to a parent what content their child is exposed to (unless of course the parent is unsuitable to care for their child, in which case it becomes an issue for social services). This a case of paternalism at it's worst. I mean, if we follow his logic, why are there 18+ DVDs allowed? A child could easily watch their parents' DVDs, so therefore there should be no 18+ DVDs because a child might watch them.

I'm sure 'Pedos' would state that Megan's Law is, if not stupid, extremely unjust.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

Wow, I can actually related to his argument and see where he is coming from. If anything, I commend him on defending his stance well.

But he's still being a prick though. Really just boils down to how responsible parents are and how much video games affect kids. And he apparently has a negative view on both.

 

[cobra_ky]

Noting that he'll be up for re-election early next year, Atkinson said he will continue to fight efforts to introduce an R18+ videogame rating. "I would welcome advocates of R18+ computer games testing public acceptance of my policy by standing a candidate against me in that general election," he concluded.

there you go, Aussies. get off the internet, go to the polls, and replace this twat with someone who respects the constituents of South Australia. I'm tired of hearing about him.

 

[BlueberryFalacy]

Lets see if I can get this right, a developers work is not valid unless you say it is, seriously Mr Atkinson grow the fsck up and realise that you can't run the country just because you live in the city of churches. I will agree with him that some games do deserve to be banned (thankfully it isn't legal for us to buy those certain games at this time) but just because Valve releases a "realistic mutant combat simulator" that doesn't have them bleeding rainbows whilst being killed by overhugging or Risen involves the use of fake drugs (which if he's that worried about kids wanting to try them ban sports or celebrities altogether) does not mean their market is 15 year olds. It has been proven that the average age of australian gamers is actually 30, not 7. With proper restrictions on the sales of these games (Behind the counter, ID needed, that kind of thing) you can cut back how often they will reach the hands of minors. Also as a side note, saying that you know whats good for the youth of australia is like me saying you are a flaming homosexual who snorts coke off of lady boy's a**e cracks (a flat out lie[if the gaming community can actually prove he does this i'll retract my statement]).

 

[quiet_samurai]

I wonder if him and Jack thompson have secret meetings in dark alleys together.

 

[seule]

And sadly, he can challenge anyone to stand against him, because he is in what's considered a "safe" labor seat, that is, it would take something extraordinary occurring for him to lose at the next election.

We can only hope that the opposition unseat the government at which point a new Attorney-General would be appointed. Sadly, the opposition in this state appear to be rather incompetent, so we in South Australia are sadly, likely to be stuck with him for another term.

 

[lodo_bear]

I would never play an R18+ game, but I don't see a good reason not to have such a rating. It feels a lot like restricting freedom of the press to deny such things the right to exist, and we have learned the hard way that when you grant people power to restrict things you don't like, you also grant them power to restrict things you do like.

I stand with y'all on this one, though I realize my stance amounts to "GIVE MY CREEPY FRIENDS THEIR VIOLENT SEX GAMES!"

 

[The Sorrow]

Annnnnd that's another face to print out and tape to my punching bag.
Thanks for the extra motivation, Mikey.

 

[Tempest Fox]

And sadly, he can challenge anyone to stand against him, because he is in what's considered a "safe" labor seat, that is, it would take something extraordinary occurring for him to lose at the next election.

How about Yahtzee running against him? Outspoken, pulls no punches, already has a hate for the guy anyway. Realistically probably wouldn't work out too well as far as The Escapist in general goes, but one can dream right?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I wonder if him and Jack thompson have secret meetings in dark alleys together.

Along with Keith Vaz. We all have them.

 

[gillebro]

Well hmph.
I actually agree with most of what he's saying. A game doesn't have to be 18+ to be clever and challenging and all the rest of it, and the law probably doesn't effect most gamers - i've never bought an 18+ game (not that i've been able to until a year and a few months ago, being a citizen of the same country as that douche-bag, and resident until that time) and have never had any desire to.
but the point is that this is blatant censorship. blatant, unfair, pointless censorship, and bugger me if australia isn't incredibly well known for its censorship and propaganda *coughworldwaronecough*. it's the same as anything else that people have fought to ban: a person with power has a personal dislike of something, so rather than being an at least semi-reasonable arsehole and ignoring it, or changing the channel or whatever, he's doing the full-grown tosser thing and using his power to stop anybody else from having the opportunity to enjoy something that he personally doesn't fancy.
and i'm sorry, but keeping an 18+ game away from kiddies in the house once it's in there? what the hell? ask any young adult who's hidden his or her porn collection from their younger siblings and parents, mike. i'm sure they'll be happy to give you a few pointers, before stabbing you repeatedly in your non-existent balls.

 

[Jumplion]

Wow. I love this guy. It is true as proven in the US that ratings do not work. People just buy their kids whatever they want and everyone thinks that kids have the right to play whatever. So no, parents do not take care of their kids. They just give them whatever they want to shut them up.
Basically it comes down to this. It is the law. Shut up and deal with it or leave.
You do not see pedos or other criminals trying to state the laws are stupid. (well except for stoners but who gives a feth what they think.)

(Of course it helps that I am in New Zealand. A sane country where ratings exist and are enforced as well as such things can be. Plus this is amusing as hell.)

That's a piss poor way of seeing any sort of situation, "Shut up a deal with it! There's nothing you can do! You're powerless, you're all worthless!"

Yes, there is something we, or at least they, the Australians, can do. I have no idea how Australian politics work, but maybe they can veto him off of vote for another general or whatever the hell they can do. But the absolute worst thing they could possibly do is to give in a be a bunch of sheep.

There is no reason why Australian games can't have an R18+ rating, it just denies the right for mature, adult Australians to have some damn fun without the kiddies ruining it, and this is coming from one of those kiddos. Hell, Australia could not have any damn rights at all for all I know.

So many precautions could be taken against Atkinson's fears; I.D. the fuck-mothering people who buy the games, educate the parents about the damn ratings, set up guidlines for what is a "mature" game and what is a "teen" game, etc... The parents should raise the damn kid, not the government. My dad lets me play any game I want so long as I "don't take them too seriously" and it works. Other parents may be strict, others might just buy whatever their kids what, but that shouldn't ruin it for the 20-35 year olds who are the actual demographic in gamers in Australia now.

 

[tthor]

nothing fixes a prick better than a good ol' fashion town hanging =)

 

[TheRealCJ]

And sadly, he can challenge anyone to stand against him, because he is in what's considered a "safe" labor seat, that is, it would take something extraordinary occurring for him to lose at the next election.

How about Yahtzee running against him? Outspoken, pulls no punches, already has a hate for the guy anyway. Realistically probably wouldn't work out too well as far as The Escapist in general goes, but one can dream right?

Sure.

There's only the problem of 2 states and 3000 kilometres between.

 

[Baby Tea]

Hmm.
It's funny, really: I'm torn with this guy.

Let me explain. I worked at an EB Games (The Canadian version of Gamestop), and watched parent after parent buy M rated games for their young kids. 8 years old kids walking out holding Grand Theft Auto. That's not right. Flat out, straight up: Not right. Even Rockstar would tell you that their games aren't made with younger kids in mind (In fact, I think I saw that on a recent Escapist article). I totally get where is guy is coming from. And, for the most part, I agree with him.

But then there is the sacrifice of these gaming 'freedoms' for what he might consider a 'greater good'. No R18+ games because they would be hilariously easy for kids to get a hold of. The debate is, of course, whether or not these games would actually bring some measure of 'harm' to young children. My thoughts? I don't know, I'm not an expert.

But I do agree with his concern for people crying out, essentially, for extreme violence and sex.
Doesn't that seem odd to anyone else?

I can't say/decide either way, so I'll remain apathetic about it all (It helps that I'm not Australian).
But I really do see where he's coming from. Whether it right or not...? I'll leave that alone.