 |
 |
|
If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these Think Services sites:
 Game Career Guide (for student game developers.)
 Indie Games (for independent game players/developers.)
 Finger Gaming (news, reviews, and analysis on iPhone and iPod Touch games.)
 GamerBytes (for the latest console digital download news.)
 Worlds In Motion (discussing the business of online worlds.)
 Game Set Watch (the Group's alt.game weblog.) |
|
|
|
| |
Australia Opens R18 Debate, Invites Public Submissions
by Leigh Alexander
|
|
| |
|
December 14, 2009
|
| |
Australia Attorney General Michael Atkinson's assertion that only "a small number of very zealous gamers" want an over-18 classification for video games in the region may soon be tested, as the Australian government has opened the issue to public debate.
A government internet portal presents the arguments in favor and against an R 18+ classification for video games, and asks citizens to submit their feedback.
The discussion paper accompanying the submission form notes opposition to the R 18+ rating based on fears that games at a certain level of violence can affect viewers: "Concerns are frequently raised that playing violent computer games has a greater negative effect on people than viewing the same degree of violence in films," it says.
"There is research that indicates at least a correlation between exposure to violent computer games and an increased likelihood of aggression," the paper continues.
But the argument in favor suggests it's necessary to have that classification to address the needs of adult gamers as well as to "[send] a clear, unambiguous message to parents that the game material is unsuitable for minors."
The rating is also necessary to help Australia's approximately 50 studios and 1500 developers -- who generate $140 million in annual revenues -- remain competitive, argues the statement: "The lack of an adult classification for computer games in Australia may affect the competitiveness of this industry internationally and could be resolved through the introduction of an adult category."
Users of the site are encouraged to fill in the submission template and either mail, fax or submit it online, and they have until February 28, 2010 to do so.
Games without a rating cannot be released in Australia, so titles that would have been classified for mature content simply don't see store shelves in the region without content edits. Aliens vs. Predator is just the most recent game to come up against this roadblock; major titles like Left 4 Dead and Fallout 3 are other examples.
Industry figures such as Tom Crago, head of the Game Developers Association of Australia, have criticized Australia's approach to ratings as "antiquated" and "a joke". The Attorney General firmly opposes the classification, however, stating: "You don’t need to be playing a game in which you impale, decapitate and dismember people."
|
| |
|
|
If that happens, where we go from there I don't know, perhaps we start writing to the Prime Minister himself to complain about the insult to democracy.
Either way, there is at least a process now.
As Ben and Nathan say, it requires a UNANIMOUS decition from all state attorney generals in order for the rating to get passed. all agree to pass it except ONE of them. the South Australian one. So one man can impose his personal view on the entire Country, and only people in his electorate in SA have any direct power over whether he remains or not. They don't even get to vote for him to be AG, only MP, and then someone just picks him to be AG, no one outside the state has the power to vote for his position or the position of anyone who leads to his election as AG, This is something that he personally has actually taunted us with!
If this was a real democracy, this issue would have been resolved years ago, and the paper would never have been necessary.
Why do STATE AGs get together to decide national issues when we have a Federal Government? I don't know.
Why do things like going to war and plunging the country into debt require only a majority decision and something as simple as this requires a unanimous one? I don't know...
This is just my understanding of the situation, please correct me if i'm wrong.
On top of that, there's no guarantee that Atkinson will remain the South Australian Attorney-General for much longer. While the current government is likely to win again at the March election, and he is likely to retain his seat, there is nothing to say that there won't be a cabinet reshuffle after the election. Atkinson is currently being probed on unrelated corruption allegations, which is not a good look for an AG. If this games rating story becomes big enough, and more people start to notice the idiocy of his position, it could add to the argument for pushing him off to a different position in the government.
Every Australian gamer and developer owes it to themselves to make a submission.
Fair enough, obviously I'm not very knowledgeable in the details of your government's democratic system, but I found it promising that they're at least openly willing to receive feedback from citizens. I am constantly frustrated by the US system in that you're forced to elect either one idiot or the other, and then sit back and watch as they make stupid decisions. With the internet being so huge now, there's no longer any reason for these decisions to be made by elected officials; the citizens as a whole could vote on everything through the internet. As bad as that sounds, I still think it'd be better than having ignorant (and in a lot of cases, corrupt) politicians making all the decisions.
(The unanimous decision on making classification changes comes about because the Federal government took over control of what was previously a state responsibility.)
But anyway, this is very positive, and it's our best shot, short of invading the SA elections, of redressing (at least one of) the problems with the classification scheme.
"So what you're saying is that the American government would never do anything like this because the American government wouldn't do anything?"
This is the most ambiguous statement I've ever read, and obviously not at all what I was saying. What I was saying is that the US government is run by a bunch of ignorant and potentially corrupt politicians who have no interest in allowing an actual democracy to take shape. All we're able to vote on is state bills and elected officials (which generally means try to guess who is less ignorant and corrupt), despite the fact that the internet could potentially allow US citizens to vote on just about everything.
If you a really interested in an issue, there are more ways to get involved in changing things than just sitting back and voting every 2-4 years for the lesser of two evils.
"The US government has plenty of faults, but they do listen to feedback (especially when it comes from organized groups of people)."
Right, and these are called special interest groups; and they "donate" to specific politicians in order to get them to vote certain ways.
Like I said, the US government has plenty of faults, but its not hopeless. At least we're free to buy mature rated titles.