This question should be straight-forward: Yes it should. We recognise that movies can contain content which is inappropriate for minors, so we have an R 18+ classification for movies. We know that this rating is not universally enforced, but the principle is clear: we draw a line between adult content and content suitable for minors.
There is no compelling reason to apply different standards to games. Right now, game developers who are producing games intended for adults must either forgo an Australian release or attempt to shoehorn the game into a lower classification. This costs money and attracts a negative reaction from the gamer community, both of which conceivably have negative effects on the livelihood of Australian game retailers. This is exacerbated in an era when games are sold online (gamers will ignore an Australian release and order the international version on sites like Amazon) and sold digitally (gamers can purchase software and download it directly using content platforms like Steam). The incentive to support Australian retailers is low if there is a perception we are purchasing a bowdlerised copy of the game.
This was widespread during the release of the co-operative survival game Left 4 Dead 2 (2009). Many gamers chose to circumvent the region restrictions – not because gamers are sociopathic junkies craving a violent fix, but because they wished to play the game as it was intended to be played. The often poorly expressed anger from the gaming community about decisions such as Left 4 Dead 2 is a symptom of the problem: the classification board is not able to perform its role satisfactorily while the ratings are inconsistent between games and movies.
There is no consensus in the psychological research on whether gaming can have a negative affect on the development and temperament of children. The discussion paper refers to this. Some research has shown that gaming can have a cathartic effect and act as a place for already-aggressive people to work out their frustration. In any case, violence stemming from video games is so rare as to be inconsequential compared to violence from sport, from road-rage, or even outside pubs.
An R 18+ classification would create an explicit line for parents to adhere to. Right now, it is all too easy to imagine a parent of a 12 year old in a retailer, looking at an MA 15+ game and saying to themselves “Well, my child is rather mature for a 12 year old. I’m sure this game will be ok for them”, oblivious that the game is aimed at adults. The absence of an R 18+ classification forces the classification board to either ban a game outright or force it into a category it does not belong to.
It is paternalistic in the extreme to prevent adults from purchasing games on the basis that the games are inappropriate for children. It reflects the ongoing belief that gaming is something that kids do. But games are capable of being art just as movies are. The merit of a work does not come from whether or not it is violent but whether or not it is good. Adults are gamers and should be able to access the same games that are available worldwide.
Of course, simply holding a public consultation doesn't mean that positive change will happen. But, ever the idealistic type, if I'm given an opportunity to voice my opinion, I will certainly voice it. If you're reading this prior to February 28th, head to the first link above if you'd also like to express your opinion. It has the discussion paper, which is reasonably balanced, and it has guidelines for submission.
I return now to the regular program. Which is pretty much "I'll post next time I write something I like, which might not be for six months or more".
No comments:
Post a Comment