Right: Commentators have claimed that many online gamers cannot separate the virtual worlds they visit from the real one they live in.
Arguments supporting the introduction of an R18+ video game rating
1. Australia is the only comparable country with a classification system without an R18+ video game rating
The computer games classification system in Australia is government-regulated. Similar schemes operate around the world, for example, the Media Development Authority (MDA) in Singapore, and the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) in the United Kingdom. By comparison, the Pan- European Game Information (PEGI) scheme across 29 countries in Europe and the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) in the United States represent self-regulatory approaches where the entertainment industries regulate themselves.
However, unlike other jurisdictions, Australia is the only developed nation without an R18+ (or adult-audience) classification for games; France, Germany, Sweden, the UK, Singapore, Japan, Canada, the United States and New Zealand are among other nations allow for adult games.
In the United States of America and Canada, the ESRB (Entertainment Software
Ratings Board) provides a voluntary rating system that is applied to computer games
and provides for an 'Adults only' category. This applies to games that contain
'prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity'.
Japan's CERO (Computer Entertainment Rating Organisation) provides a rating for
ages 18 and over.
In Germany, the USK (Entertainment Software Control) may classify computer games as restricted to persons aged 18 years and over This rating category applies to games that may contain scenes of brutal, moderately bloody violence and they may glamorise war or the violation of human rights. However, if a game is particularly violent it is sent from the USK to the BPjM (Federal Verification Office for Child-Endangering Media) who can rule that it is not to be advertised or sold openly in Germany, making it difficult to obtain.
In New Zealand, under the Office of Film and Literature Classification, computer games may receive the restricted ratings of R 16 and R 18 (note- the same classification rating applies to films and computer games). The Office for Film and Literature Classification only classifies games with restricted or objectionable content. The Office of Film and Literature Classification also has the power to ban computer games, the consequence of which is that it is illegal to possess, supply or import the game.
The South Korean Game Rating Board is a government organisation that classifies arcade games, computer games and mobile phone games. The system provides for an 18 + rating. Singapore also has an M18 classification for computer games which restricts games to those aged 18 years and above. Checks are conducted at the point of sale to ascertain a customer's age. Games will be classified M18 if they contain mature themes, realistic depictions of violence and drug use, nudity or frequent use of strong coarse language.
Game users, manufacturers and distributers argue that there is no reason why Australia should have a more restrictive system than other similar jurisdictions elsewhere in the world.
2. There is no conclusive proof that video games influence behaviour
The claims that video games influence behaviour have been disputed. Comparative Studies professor, Henry Jenkins, has stated, 'Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, "media effects".
This research includes some 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds.
In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand. Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played.
Most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment. That's why the vague term "links" is used here.
If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences - which can contribute to anti-social behaviour. But no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer.'
After a 1999 study by the United States government, the US Surgeon General, David Satcher, 'We clearly associate media violence to aggressive behavior. But the impact was very small compared to other things. Some may not be happy with that, but that's where the science is.'
A meta-analysis by a United States psychologist, Jonathan Freedman (who reviewed over 200 published studies) found that the 'vast and overwhelming majority' did not find a causal link.
A United States Secret Service study found that only 12% of those involved in school shootings were attracted to violent video games, while 24% read violent books and 27% were attracted to violent films.
An Australian study found that only children already predisposed to violence were affected by violent games.
Helen Razer, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, in October 2009, noted, 'Without evidence of a causal link between art and violence, Australian legislators have long been eager to act on a hunch, prompted by suspicion, religion and junk psychology. [This]... irresponsible wowserism is really nothing new. The only new thing here is the medium.'
Those who play the games claim they are not harmed by them. There's Nick Miller, a health editor for The Sydney Morning Herald, a computer gamer playing violent games, who has argued, 'There's an illogical, reactionary resistance to the proposed R-rating for games.
The argument against seems to be that the immersive, interactive nature of games makes them much more corrupting, so R-rated material would surely turn us into psychopaths. Well, I'm not a psychopath, and neither are my friends.'
3. Adults' video game playing should not be shaped by regulations intended for children
It has been claimed that the MA15+ upper rating for video games in Australia means that many adult titles are either being modified or are simply not being sold in Australia.
Some games, such as Left 4 Dead 2, have been heavily censored and later allowed to be sold but others, such as the highly anticipated Aliens vs Predator, are unlikely to ever be sold in local games outlets. It is believed about 74 video games have been banned in Australia since 1995 because they do not meet MA15+ standards for violence, drug use or sexual content.
Critics claim that this means that adults' viewing options are being curtailed in the name of protecting children. In the United States the Entertainment Software Association has claimed that the average video gamer is 35. The same group claims that the average age of the most frequent game purchaser in the United States is 39 and that in 2009, 25 percent of Americans over the age of 50 played video games, an increase from nine percent in 1999.
The Interactive Games and Entertainment Association recently commissioned a study which found that the average age of gamers in Australia is 30 years; the average age of
non-gamers is 40 years. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008), the average age of Australians is 36 years.
Given such estimates of the age of gamers, it is claimed that it is not appropriate to deny these adult players the opportunity to play games which include material specifically designed for them.
A survey of 1614 Australian adults commissioned by the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association found 91 per cent were in favour of an R18+ rating. Ron Curry, chief executive of the Interactive Games & Entertainment Association stated, 'The debate keeps raging around children but we need to look at this debate also in terms of adults being able to access content that's age-appropriate for them.'
The Adelaide Advertiser published an editorial on April 1, 2010, which stated, 'Video gaming is no longer a niche market for children. There are millions of gaming consoles and computers in Australian homes, used by people of all ages.
The gaming lobby has collected tens of thousands of names on petitions calling for the introduction of an R18+ classification.'
4. If adult video games had a broader classification system their distribution could be better regulated
It is claimed that currently some violent video games are given an MA15+ classification in part because there is no other more restrictive classification that can be given.
A 2005 survey by Bond University found that Australian adults, 88 per cent of whom had household access to a gaming device, were overwhelmingly in favour of the R18+ classification. Survey respondents said it would diminish the risk of children being exposed to potentially harmful material. Many gamers felt that in shoehorning violent games into the MA15+ rating, the office of classification legitimised their content for a young audience.
Susie O'Brien in an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on March 23, 2010, argued, 'if we want to protect children from the worst video game titles, then Australia needs to bring in an R rating for games. This will make a new category of games that can be bought only by people over 18.'
Ms O'Brien further argued, 'video game manufacturers would still want to sell their biggest titles in Australia, regardless of the lack of R rating. And so they pushed to get their titles inappropriately rated M15+ or just M.
So in Melbourne a violent war game like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is given an MA15+ rating, while overseas the same game is rated M17+ in the US and 18+ in the UK.
So this means our children are playing games where they get a "tactical nuke" as a reward for a 25-person killing streak... there are dozens more examples where the industry has shoe-horned adult titles into weaker ratings so they can keep making money.'
Helen Razer, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald in October 2009, noted, 'If you have ever played the best-selling game Grand Theft Auto, you may concede the point. It is possibly not a good practice to let a 15-year-old beat up virtual citizens for pixilated cash. But, under the current classification system, they can do so legally. Gamers, whose average age is creeping up to 35, feel that imaginary violence should be the sole province of those mature enough to distinguish the imaginary from the real.'
5. Technological controls can supplement a classification system
Recent technological developments enable parents to restrict the games played on various games devices. The Interactive Games and Entertainment Association reports that major game console developers and the Microsoft Windows Vista operating platform offer parental controls in their current systems. These controls, often referred to as parental locks, allow parents to set a limit on the level of material to be played. Playing higher-level material requires a PIN or password to override the limits that have been set.
It has been claimed that a better classification system would enable parents to use such technological blocks more effectively. Under the current system (where it appears some inappropriate material may be given an MA15+ rating only because there is not a higher, more restrictive classification that can be given) some parents may not realise that these games contain material they do not want their 15, 16 or 17 year old children exposed to.