Discussion in 'PC Games' started by mecka, Jan 28, 2009.
Taken from here.
He's an idiot
How does having an R18+ increase the chances of kids and vunlerable adults seeing damaging images or messages? Are parents really dumb enough to go "duurrrr R18+ sounds good for my 13 year old.". If anything R18 will protect vulnerable adults from things they shouldn't see. And if you can't figure out that R18 games aren't going to be filled completely with happiness and good intentions, you deserve to get mentally scarred.
Parents are abusing the system: simple enough! Plus there are gamers that aren't violent....look at Child's Play charity started by Penny Arcade for starters. But that aside, his view is old and has no real backing. He needs to quit while he's still got a chance!
I wrote a post for my blog 2 nights ago regarding the R18+ situation.
If anyone is interested.
I would be curious to see the research on this. I'm not saying it isn;t true but people throw around all sorts of justifications for their actions.
I think we need the classification.
I think whether it's interactive or not makes do difference in what a person thinks: it's just poor justification on his part....that's my opinion.
Kotaku has an article on it too http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2009...o_australian_children_says_minister.html#more
Take note when he mentions "child".
When he talks about parenting...
Basically he said "I find parenting difficult, and i find video games make parenting more difficult".
He also refers his 22 year old son ... a child. And the average Australian gamer (28-30) "older children".
Reality must suck for his sons.
Having R18 will result in several games being 18+ that would otherwise, under the current system, be squeezed into MA15+.
Atkinson is a fucking idiot for not seeing this. Every flimsy point of his argument could be applied to SUPPORT 18+ when the above is taken into consideration.
If someone pulled a gun on me I'd be scared shitless...not kidding either! No way games make you less scared when you face the real deal.
I didn't realise movie DVD's had a built in locking mechanism that prevents anyone under the age that they're rated for from putting them in the player. Why can't they transfer this technology to video game DVDs, is it something about the pixels?
His (Atkinson) reasoning and logic is well just not logical. If there were R18+ games it would be as simple as to ask for proof of age ID: like to you for R18+ videos....how hard is that to transfer and apply? I don't see it that hard? Does anyone else?
Because his irrational parenting example leads him to believe that if his 22 year old child bought GTAIV and left it lying around the house, his younger kids will also be playing it without access control.
He forgot the fundamental rule of parenting, and jumped to the conclusion that banning the game from the country is far better for the community than being stricter as a parent in front of his children.
What I cant understand is how does democracy work amongst the AG's? All the AG's have to agree to allow R18+ ratings for video games in Australia? How does anything get past the AG's when one man could veto the discussion every time it's brought up no matter how irrational his reasoning is?
That's exactly right, if some guy pulls a gun on me I'm not going to be standing there thinking about the last computer game I played and then attempt to strafe right and return fire. I'm gunna be there shitting myself hoping to hell the guy is mentally stable enough to think a bit more before he pulls the trigger.
Oh the other side of the barrel I'm not going to pick up a gun and shoot somebody because I did it in a game which apparently "desensitized" me to such situation and possible outcome. The people it does influence to do such a thing are twisted pricks who given a push in the right direction would have done it anyway.
Edit: And lets face it, if a person wants to play a game that's been banned they will just download it anyway.
Because the the "think of the children" cries from dickhead pollies like him wouldn't be heard as loud
So he has decreed that anyone under 30 is a child, he had better change the voting and alcohol laws to prevent anyone under 30 from voting or drinking alcohol then.
There has to be a way of getting him removed from his position as AG without waiting until the next election as he is clearly not qualified for the position and is not representing the publics views.
He claims he wants public discussion after stating he will not change his views, this means it will not be a discussion.
He (Atkinson) assumes that people can tell the difference between real life and a game....I think I can tell the difference!
I'd switch to my shotgun and frag him for a point before someone else does.
On the subject of Michael Atkinson and his thought provoking essay: I think it sounds reasonable enough. He wants to avoid difficult things like hit detection and map flow and just keep things pleasant. Now I'd like to see a counter-argument, not from the usual suspects (no offence intended towards the usual suspects), but from someone in a similar position.
Mr Atkinson makes a decent point that not all games that appeal to adults are (or have to be) "naughty". The trouble is that "adult" seems to have become a euphemism for "smut", and it's an indictment of the games "industry" (there's that word again) that "mature" seems to be taken largely to mean "explosive gizzards/cleavage/swearing oh tee hee". In other words, I think what he's touching on is the failure of games in general (so far, and with some exceptions) to move beyond the puerile and act a bit grown up.
that's how he defines "naughty". the gaming community's definition is much different.
Certainly saw my first porno mag left around by my brothers at about age 5, and saw my first porno movie sometime late in primary school. What's the difference? I certainly didn't buy either.
Censorship is about the limitation of who may purchase the product. It is then up to the individual responsibility to ensure that product is not exposed to unsuitable people.
It is the opposite of what he is saying. An R18+ classification would protect kids from buying the games they can legally go out and buy right now. GTA4 for example. This should be R18+ and is rated as such everywhere else in the world. But it is rated MA15+ which I think doesn't receive the same level of enforcement as R18+ and nearly any kid can buy it.
We've all had a bit of a whinge before regarding Michael Atkinson.... in the thread about Fallout 3 being refused classification in the Games forum. (Too drunk to link)
I reckon this bloke has some serious issues. His attitude towards this issue and SA's draconian "Serious and Organised Crime (control) Bill 2008" make me think he's a raving, religious fanatic. Just my opinion.