I'm unsure exactly where to start this, so I'm going to go with the central thought that runs through every argument I come across: Michael Atkinson is allowing children to participate in adult content. Regardless of what he says, his actions prove vastly different in the real world outside of his politics. He's quite happy to talk political rhetoric about his constituents, how the OFLC has failed to hold up its own regulations and that the vested groups behind the R18+ rating are solely economically interested in the debate. He admits to the censorship label of his politics, and talks quite candidly about his own children playing the video games he disagrees with.
(Didn't realise this got so long. Follow the cut for the rest!)
Yet instead of attempting to negotiate or provide a solution to the problem he vocally debates, he makes every move possible to block what is globally recognised as a socially responsible Good Idea. If the system of the OFLC and video game interactivity is so broken that the issue warrants this much attention - why oppose a potential solution? Why do "gamers" have to live up to his expected outcomes when the games industry is the group putting the first foot forward in finding a solution?
Back in '08, my then -eight-year-old cousin was not allowed to play any Ninja Turtles games, despite being a pretty big fan. My aunty and uncle didn't want him exposed to the violence. Fair enough, that was their choice, and as their gaming-enabled nephew I obliged - all presents were either G-rated games, or non-game related presents.
Imagine my surprise then when this Christmas just past, at the viewing of a simulated car-jacking on the news, my cousin said, "That's lame, I do way worse things taking a car in GTA." I was left momentarily stunned. Had my aunty and uncle backflipped completely in just over a year? Maybe exposure from school friends made it too hard to uphold such a regulation consistently? Regardless, I was very curious to find out how my cousin had come to finding himself playing a game which, to be honest, I don't find very appealing. I checked with my uncle - it seemed the MA15+ rating had little impact over what games the kids at school were playing.
I asked my uncle; if GTA had an R18+ rating instead of MA15+, would the kids at school be playing it? The answer was a definitive no - anecdotally, most of the parents considered their sub-teenage child to be mature enough to handle content that was rating M or MA15+. Were the game rated R18+, the parents would not have allowed such easy access to the material. He was pretty surprised when I told him the same game my cousin was being allowed to play is globally rated an Adult Game - M(17) in the US, and AO18+ everywhere else.
One of my favourite games to talk about when discussing the R18+ rating is EA's The Godfather II. If you decide to play this game, within the first hour of play you will have violently taken over a drug distribution ring (and be rewarded with in-game bonuses for it), execute other gangsters (that is, force into unarmed submission and kill), violently take over a prostitution ring (and again, be rewarded in-game) and make an assault on a strip club, fully undressed women dancing with poles included.
No censorship involved.
In the first hour.
And I can legally go and give this game to a 15 year old.
I don't want this kind of content available to kids. Frankly, I felt pretty sick playing it myself - it severely lacked the moral gravity and faithfulness to its movie counterpart that made the original Godfather game so enjoyable. I didn't make it much past that first hour before putting the controller down and filing the game away in the back of the cupboard. So how can this type of experience, shared by many, many other members of the Australian public, justify not having an R18+ rating?
The argument that's often brought up with this issue is what the OFLC considers as the "impact" of the content. Games with high impact content are being made to submit modified versions of the game to receive a legal rating to distribute in Australia. This is where I fail to understand the argument logic:
Games should be heavily monitored and classified accordingly due to the interactive nature of the content.
For a game deemed to high in violent or adult impact, certain elements are modified or removed from the game - eg. drug names are changed, sprites of dead bodies are removed faster.
Thus resulting in a game that still has the same level of interactive function with a lower level of conscious repercussion.
Isn't that counter-active to what's trying to be achieved?
Perhaps, at the end of it all, I will be disagreed with because I am a "gamer"; and furthermore, even worse, a developer that produces content for "gamers" for economic benefit. Atkinson is very, very keen to separate his idea of "gamer" from the rest of the Australian public. It's apparent in all of his rhetoric - only "gamers" support the R18+ rating, the same "gamers" that swear and curse and send death threats. Except, no, not all "gamers" swore at Atkinson during his Kotaku forum debate, and it's not gamers exclusively that want a well-functioning ratings system for video games.
As an adult, as a gamer and game developer, as a business man, as a socially responsible member of my community and as a (distant) future father, I want to keep interactive adult content out of children's hands. The difference between me and Michael Atkinson is that I'm willing to actually do something about it.
-Anthony
if you haven't yet, make sure to speak up at the online discussion paper while there's still time
No comments:
Post a Comment