The_root_of_all_evil said:
In fact, Mister Atkinson, these are the 2019 films that Adults are perfectly allowed to watch that children can get hold of in the same way as games.
http://www.imdb.com/List?certificates=Australia:R&&heading=14;Australia:R
Let's see: "Masters of Horror" (2005): Right to Die, "Porno Valley" (2004): Titsicle, A Clockwork Orange (1971), Behind the Scenes of an Adult Movie (1981) (V) ...
Good thing there's nothing explicit in there, is there?
Some of these movies have even been broadcast on late night TV, before the ratings were shifted over from M15 to MA15+. SBS (foreign content/movies) still airs a few every so often, the movies that have been created in australia, ie mad max, et.al. would be more violent now out of context, unedited, than in a video game setting.
while atkinson comes across as polished and well meaning, a lot of the arguments are self-effacing without context. some of them even seem rational, more so than previous arguments, and far more than from other politicians who have been involved in parallel issues about censorship and ratings systems before.
Perhaps it's an educational problem, he has not seen the content he is prohibiting, but has seen cinema content and pornography, and knows that an R18+ rating would be mostly softcore sex and brutalised violence. which it very likely would be, in conformance with R18 movie standards.
Modern Warfare 2, out of context is ultraviolent. but so are half of the M15 and MA15+ games on the market. the "warfare" in the title might be somewhat evident, but the context is the problem, with TV and movies there's sex, violence, but it happens elsewhere, to other people. to strangers and people you don't care about at all.
while 'extreme cuddling' on evening TV might be somewhat dull, and mildly titillating, in a video game setting, it's far more intimate when you're in control of the action, as is interaction violence.
There's also the problem that i think margaret atwood or someone at the OFLC mentioned, in that with imagined, virtualised and interactive cinema, you have more control over the actions of a protagonist, and the effect of interactive sex and interactive violence catalyses a younger audience. That effect is far more pronounced in an interactive setting, and a teenage audience, than an older audience with previous and social/moral context for the exposure to that material.
the crux of the argument is that video games don't show any social or moral context to actions except death, and the moral judgement is that if it can be fixed by restarting a game, it trivialises the progressive gratuity of sex and violent behaviour and removes any affect for the emotions or actions of either protagonist or antagonist, there's just a reset button so you can do it again.
even given all of that, the problem lies in adjusting the norms of a society, since video games are one aspect, not the whole of the social adjustment that an adult or a child recieves from their development. in context, video games are more powerful educators of behaviour and can define fantasy roles for some children. the immediate problem for atkinson, adults aren't supposed to be children, and R18+ games aren't supposed to be for children at all.
