Australia's OLFC peeking out from inside their own rectum?
Scythe
Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 46NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation, Reinforced - Silver
Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 46NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation, Reinforced - Silver
<div class="IPBDescription">Banning games sucks.</div><a href="http://www.ag.gov.au/gamesclassification" target="_blank">http://www.ag.gov.au/gamesclassification</a>
The impression I get is that the OLFC, Australia's organisation that assigns ratings to games and manages the list of age ratings, is starting to explore the possibility of introducing an R18+ classification for games. Whilst it's no means an indication that they're planning on introducing it, it's good to see they're even thinking about it.
My response to their survey:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The inclusion of an R18+ rating for video games is a good idea. The self-stated purpose of the NCS is to allow customers to make informed decisions on the content of a game, and this can only help. Looking past the sensationalist media spotlight-grabbing of games such as Manhunt (Published by Rockstar Games), which feature grotesque and gratuitous violence for violence's own sake, there are many games of recent times that feature an overwhelming majority of good, wholesome storyline and gameplay that do not meet the MA15+ rating. Even in the Grand Theft Auto series of games (Again published by Rockstar Games) the most morally abhorrent actions available to the player are not forced upon him or her, or even obviously presented, they're merely options available to anyone to whom that action occurs, leaving the player's own moral compass to determine their actions.
Taking the choice of whether to play these games out of the hands of the public shows a condescending and patronising attitude that results in nothing but ill will. Similar sentiments arise from the censorship of particular elements of games that the OLFC have highlighted as being the cause of the game's exceeding of the MA15+ rating. This leaves Australian gamers with a debased, second-rate version of the games overseas players can enjoy in full.
That said, I am exceedingly grateful of the fact that these questions are being asked.
Thank you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's hoping they'll have an R18+ rating in time for L4D3.
Though I think 11 months might be a bit quick.
--Scythe--
The impression I get is that the OLFC, Australia's organisation that assigns ratings to games and manages the list of age ratings, is starting to explore the possibility of introducing an R18+ classification for games. Whilst it's no means an indication that they're planning on introducing it, it's good to see they're even thinking about it.
My response to their survey:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The inclusion of an R18+ rating for video games is a good idea. The self-stated purpose of the NCS is to allow customers to make informed decisions on the content of a game, and this can only help. Looking past the sensationalist media spotlight-grabbing of games such as Manhunt (Published by Rockstar Games), which feature grotesque and gratuitous violence for violence's own sake, there are many games of recent times that feature an overwhelming majority of good, wholesome storyline and gameplay that do not meet the MA15+ rating. Even in the Grand Theft Auto series of games (Again published by Rockstar Games) the most morally abhorrent actions available to the player are not forced upon him or her, or even obviously presented, they're merely options available to anyone to whom that action occurs, leaving the player's own moral compass to determine their actions.
Taking the choice of whether to play these games out of the hands of the public shows a condescending and patronising attitude that results in nothing but ill will. Similar sentiments arise from the censorship of particular elements of games that the OLFC have highlighted as being the cause of the game's exceeding of the MA15+ rating. This leaves Australian gamers with a debased, second-rate version of the games overseas players can enjoy in full.
That said, I am exceedingly grateful of the fact that these questions are being asked.
Thank you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's hoping they'll have an R18+ rating in time for L4D3.
Though I think 11 months might be a bit quick.
--Scythe--
Comments
(11 months...lol )
And Badmouth:
Yes, they have have 2 18+ ratings, just they can't be applied to video games.
Their ratings are almost identical to US ones:
US -> AU
G = G
PG = PG
PG-13 = M
R = MA15+
NC-17 = R18+ or RX+
Same general rules apply also, up to M/PG-13 any one can get in, with R/MA15+ they must be accompanied by an adult, with NC17/R/X no one under the listed age.
I would say that it's a crap situation that the government even <!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->has the power to<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> allow or refuse anything about adults' decisions in their private lives.
It's like a 30-year-old man who lives at home with his parents complaining that his Mom didn't let him go to the bar with his friends. Maybe instead of complaining about Mom's interference, the issue is that Mom even has any say at all (and he shouldn't be living at home).
No one needs to "allow" you to do some private thing in a free society. You just do it. Unless you're not living in a free society. hint::hint
Which is one of the key "anti-game" points brought up.
Which is one of the key "anti-game" points brought up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That argument can also be applied to movies, television, porn, basically any form of media where violence could occur.
Except that the difference between a movie, television, porn and a video game is that a movie, television and porn are all things you passively watch, whereas a video game is something you actively take part in. This is why people hold games and movies to different standards. An exceptionally violent film doesn't have you controlling the violence in it. A game does.
I don't even agree with this. The only studies that show that video games cause violent behaviour are either poorly done long term studies that apparently don't know the difference between causation and correlation (violent people play violent video games? my word! How unusual) or studies that take a reading (of whatever; adrenaline levels, questionnaires etc...) immediately after playing a game and then claim that the results are applicable over the long term, which is extraordinarily dishonest.
I just get annoyed when people misrepresent the opposition's viewpoint. It's *already* demonstrably wrong, and we can prove it. Making up false claims for them (or strawmanning them) just gives them the chance to be all "but sir that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is this" and win a point in the public eye.
Movies and video games <b>are</b> different. That doesn't mean that either of them is actually harmful.
The reason I replied was to counter Juice's point:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No one needs to "allow" you to do some private thing in a free society. You just do it. Unless you're not living in a free society.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is an absurd position. There are *always* limits on what is allowed, simply because there becomes a point where individual freedom becomes a danger, directly or indirectly, to others. It's why in America, people are allowed to own a gun (under certain restrictions), but they're not allowed to own a nuclear weapon. They can own a demilitarised tank, but they can't repair and rearm it (I assume). Even if person x owns a nuke because... I dunno, they like looking at it or something and they never plan to use it, it could be stolen. Or they could go mad and activate it. Or they could trip over and accidentally enter in the arming code. Or something.
A similar (although *much* less severe, so don't go all mad on me) line of reasoning is used against video games. The people opposed to them claim that they encourage or even *train* violent behaviour, and can actually make a normal, peaceful child turn into an ax crazy murderer. That's why (ostensibly) they oppose them; not to "restrict freedom" for the common man, but to save the lives of others. I disagree with their reasoning, but making up stuff against them isn't going to help anyone.