So Fallout 3 is refused classification by the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification, thus effectively banning the game in Australia, yet another game on the chopping block thanks to Michael Atkinson's insistence that an R18+ rating for computer games would cause the degeneration of Australian society into violence and mayhem.
Why was the game banned? Not because of violence (though the graphic violence was enough to bump it up to an MA15+ rating) but because of drug use and the depiction of addiction to drugs. Because it has a "realistic visual representations of drugs and their delivery method." Now, call me crazy, but to my mind a realistic portrayal of drugs can't help but warn against drug use, like the portrayal of drug use in Basketball Diaries. Not only that but there are any number of games that have been allowed through with an MA15+ rating despite their depiction of drug use (Half Life 2 and Call of Cthulu spring to mind).
But that's not the point. The point is that it's not up to the government to police what we can and can't play, anymore than they should have to right to ban books or film. And the thing that would allow us to play games like Fallout 3 (along with the other twenty or so games that have been refused classification over the last 10 years) is an R18+ classification. At the moment, the only thing standing in the way of that is Michael Atkinson, the Attorney-General of South Australia. The Attorney-Generals of every other state has agreed to instituting such a classification but he's put his foot down and is refusing to budge. Why? Because "someone has to think of the children." That's right. The children. Despite the fact that the majority of gamers are aged between 18 and 30.
His main arguments are these (there's a letter from him here, dated 30 June 2008):
As for his other complaints, where to begin? I've already said that it isn't the government's role to decide what a child should or shouldn't see. Violence is a part of life, whether on the small local scale or across the world, and children are going to come up against that and accept it with or without computer games. And let's face it, it isn't violence that gets these games banned: it's sex or drugs. Film is no easier to regulated since his assumption on this front is that people only watch films in the theatre and he doesn't deal at all with the concept of DVDs, thus placing R-rated material in the home in exactly the same way.
But this is my favourite: that the edited or banned material adds nothing to the gaming experience. I can't help but laugh at that one. In the end, a computer game is more and more an artistic medium. Interactive art, if you will. And, as with all art, the experience of that art is different from individual to individual. It is fundamentally subjective. For him to suggest that there is a uniformity of experience between gamers shows a fundamental failure for him to comprehend the true nature of modern gaming, not to mention human nature. In the end, what one individual finds confronting or pointless or even disgusting may be found beautiful and intriguing and though-provoking to someone else.
The arguments against an R18+ classification for computer games in Australia are, in the end, petty, show a lack of understanding of gaming and limit the freedoms of the adults who make up the majority of the gaming community in an effort to police the lives of the rest of the Australian population. For those who'd like to have their say, it's possible to email to the Attorney-General to express your point of view on the issue.
Why was the game banned? Not because of violence (though the graphic violence was enough to bump it up to an MA15+ rating) but because of drug use and the depiction of addiction to drugs. Because it has a "realistic visual representations of drugs and their delivery method." Now, call me crazy, but to my mind a realistic portrayal of drugs can't help but warn against drug use, like the portrayal of drug use in Basketball Diaries. Not only that but there are any number of games that have been allowed through with an MA15+ rating despite their depiction of drug use (Half Life 2 and Call of Cthulu spring to mind).
But that's not the point. The point is that it's not up to the government to police what we can and can't play, anymore than they should have to right to ban books or film. And the thing that would allow us to play games like Fallout 3 (along with the other twenty or so games that have been refused classification over the last 10 years) is an R18+ classification. At the moment, the only thing standing in the way of that is Michael Atkinson, the Attorney-General of South Australia. The Attorney-Generals of every other state has agreed to instituting such a classification but he's put his foot down and is refusing to budge. Why? Because "someone has to think of the children." That's right. The children. Despite the fact that the majority of gamers are aged between 18 and 30.
His main arguments are these (there's a letter from him here, dated 30 June 2008):
- Despite classification stickers, parents still make bad choices in regards to what content their children view;
- Our desire for unedited games shouldn't come ahead of protecting children from inappropriate material;
- R18+ content adds nothing to the gaming experience;
- Games classification is different to film classification, in that films can be better regulated; and
- Children and "vulnerable" adults should not accept violence as a part of everyday life.
As for his other complaints, where to begin? I've already said that it isn't the government's role to decide what a child should or shouldn't see. Violence is a part of life, whether on the small local scale or across the world, and children are going to come up against that and accept it with or without computer games. And let's face it, it isn't violence that gets these games banned: it's sex or drugs. Film is no easier to regulated since his assumption on this front is that people only watch films in the theatre and he doesn't deal at all with the concept of DVDs, thus placing R-rated material in the home in exactly the same way.
But this is my favourite: that the edited or banned material adds nothing to the gaming experience. I can't help but laugh at that one. In the end, a computer game is more and more an artistic medium. Interactive art, if you will. And, as with all art, the experience of that art is different from individual to individual. It is fundamentally subjective. For him to suggest that there is a uniformity of experience between gamers shows a fundamental failure for him to comprehend the true nature of modern gaming, not to mention human nature. In the end, what one individual finds confronting or pointless or even disgusting may be found beautiful and intriguing and though-provoking to someone else.
The arguments against an R18+ classification for computer games in Australia are, in the end, petty, show a lack of understanding of gaming and limit the freedoms of the adults who make up the majority of the gaming community in an effort to police the lives of the rest of the Australian population. For those who'd like to have their say, it's possible to email to the Attorney-General to express your point of view on the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment