Poll: Why do we need R18+?

[Golden Hawk]

Hi, I'd just like to introduce myself to the Escapist. Anyway, I've been reading through the forums for a long time and I perceive a lot of fixation over the institution of an R18+ games rating for Australia. Now personally, just for the sake of creating some well meaning discussion, I'd like to question why? For what reason should we have R18+ ratings?

And please don't say 'because everyone else has one', it is not a logical reason.

Personally, I dislike playing games above an M15+ rating. In my mind's eye, if a game is so graphic or violent that it is rated MA15+, I don't need to play it; it's just violence for the sake of violence. Yes, I just shot that person with my blaster. Yes, they got shot in the arm, yes they fell over and died. So? My objection to R18+ games is that I don't want (or need) to see the person's arm being blown off in a splash of blood, with tendons still hanging from the dismembered flesh and the person screaming wildly as you then proceed to bludgeon them to death with their own arm. I realise now that a lot of hardcore gamers will disagree with this point, as they tend to regard ?realism? as central to a game.

I agree that realism is, to an extent, vital to a game in this modern age. However, mindless violence is detrimental to many games (remember the outrage of Australian gamers when, I think it was Dead Rising 2, had to be modified to fit the MA15+ ratings for Australia? One of the thrilling things they were missing out on was specifically 'the ability to strangle to death with the victim?s intestines'. Ha ha...) Perhaps a reasonable alternative could be that games could have in-built rating customisation? In the same way you change difficulty, why not change the amount of violence, gore etc? In Unreal Tournament there is always an option to turn off blood and gore, and because of this I've spent many happy hours versing my like-minded mates.

That said, I have played and enjoyed (enjoyed a lot!) MA15+ games such as Halo: Reach and Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, and I believe them to be excellent. However, these games were neither mindlessly or gratuitously violent.

I guess all that I'm really saying is that it saddens me that whenever I walk into EB games these days, it's an actual struggle to find any game that isn?t rated MA15+ for the 360, and a torment to actually find many good games rated under MA15+. So I have to sit sadly on my couch, continually playing NBA Live or go back to playing wonderful PS1 games such as Crash and Spyro...

Anyway, after all that, I don't want comments on my opinion. If you decide to abuse, insult or objectify me, you probably only read the first sentence of my post, AND you are missing the point of this thread. Read the first paragraph again and comment on that please! Thanks!

GH

 

[AwesomePeanutz]

Welcome to the Escapist, Golden Hawk.

To answer your question, "To protect minors from overt violence and/or sexualisation".

But what do I care...I don't even live in Australia!

 

[Canid117]

Because games can be banned in Australia if they do not meet the 15 rating.

Welcome to the escapist BTW!

 

[Jules57]

Because politicans like to look like their solving problems when really they are simply inconvenienceing everyone, much like the fabled long gun registry in Canada. Hmm I wonder how I can extend my term without doing any work but still appealing to modern problems like desensitization, Offer reduced prices on organized sports, or open various youth centers. Screw that I'll just throw a number and some harsh words on new entertainment mediums with more than a nose bleed worth of blood.

 

[Jekken6]

We need an 18+ rating so it's consistent with the classification for film and causes less confusion.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Pretty simple answer here. The first duty of classification in Australia is, and I quote "To allow adults to see/hear/read whatever they want to." Also as a secondary effect it keeps games that might be too violent out of kid's hands.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm not an Australian, but it is my understanding that

games can be banned in Australia if they do not meet the 15 rating.

I think that's the main reason.

 

[Woodsey]

Because games that should be 18s are rated 15s a lot of the time (thereby defeating the point of thinking of the children), and the ones that are denied a rating result in grown adults being treated like 10-year-olds.

Also, 18+ doesn't instantaneously mean cartoon-ish, OTT violence.

 

[fishy009er]

If a parent sees their 12 year old child with an MA15+ rated game, they could, maybe, let it slide. However, if they saw the exact same game in their child's hands with an R18+ rating, they would instantly take it from their child and never let them touch it again until they had turned 18.

Also, if you want to play more games that are M rated or lower, you probably should get a Wii.

 

[Macgyvercas]

For Australia not to have an R18+ rating means that games that are not outright banned are being giving a lower rating than they would elsewhere. Take F.E.A.R 2: Project Origin for instance: given an M rating here in the States, and an 18 rating by the BBFC. What did it get in Australia? MA-15. Now I personally don't think that F.E.A.R is a game that the majority of 15 year olds should be playing (of course, there are exceptions, but in the end, it's all up to the parents to decide what their children do and do not play).

Another reason that Australia should have the rating is because not having it is essentially the government saying to parents "You're not mature enough to decide what your children play, so we're doing it for you". It is not the government's job to determine for parents what games they feel are appropriate. This is also the reason I'm heavily opposed to what is going on in the Supreme Court concering video games.

Long story short, if you don't like R18+ games, don't play them. But don't deny people who want the rating and the games that fall under that rating the ability to play them.

 

[lacktheknack]

Hi, I'd just like to introduce myself to the Escapist. Anyway, I've been reading through the forums for a long time and I perceive a lot of fixation over the institution of an R18+ games rating for Australia. Now personally, just for the sake of creating some well meaning discussion, I'd like to question why? For what reason should we have R18+ ratings?

And please don't say 'because everyone else has one', it is not a logical reason.

Personally, I dislike playing games above an M15+ rating. In my mind's eye, if a game is so graphic or violent that it is rated MA15+, I don't need to play it; it's just violence for the sake of violence. Yes, I just shot that person with my blaster. Yes, they got shot in the arm, yes they fell over and died. So? My objection to R18+ games is that I don't want (or need) to see the person's arm being blown off in a splash of blood, with tendons still hanging from the dismembered flesh and the person screaming wildly as you then proceed to bludgeon them to death with their own arm. I realise now that a lot of hardcore gamers will disagree with this point, as they tend to regard ?realism? as central to a game.

I agree that realism is, to an extent, vital to a game in this modern age. However, mindless violence is detrimental to many games (remember the outrage of Australian gamers when, I think it was Dead Rising 2, had to be modified to fit the MA15+ ratings for Australia? One of the thrilling things they were missing out on was specifically 'the ability to strangle to death with the victim?s intestines'. Ha ha...) Perhaps a reasonable alternative could be that games could have in-built rating customisation? In the same way you change difficulty, why not change the amount of violence, gore etc? In Unreal Tournament there is always an option to turn off blood and gore, and because of this I've spent many happy hours versing my like-minded mates.

That said, I have played and enjoyed (enjoyed a lot!) MA15+ games such as Halo: Reach and Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, and I believe them to be excellent. However, these games were neither mindlessly or gratuitously violent.

I guess all that I'm really saying is that it saddens me that whenever I walk into EB games these days, it's an actual struggle to find any game that isn?t rated MA15+ for the 360, and a torment to actually find many good games rated under MA15+. So I have to sit sadly on my couch, continually playing NBA Live or go back to playing wonderful PS1 games such as Crash and Spyro...

Anyway, after all that, I don't want comments on my opinion. If you decide to abuse, insult or objectify me, you probably only read the first sentence of my post, AND you are missing the point of this thread. Read the first paragraph again and comment on that please! Thanks!

GH

But that's just it. Without 18+ games, then "violence for violence sake" will be forever trimmed until it just barely passes the 15+ requirements, and thus you have an 18+ game rated 15+.

For example: Silent Hill Homecoming. It was refused classification in Australia. So they trimmed it to get a 15+ rating. What did they take out? One sequence involving a chainsaw and someone's face.

Thus, Silent Hill Homecoming is now rated 15+, but should only be played by the 18+ crowd. This could have been avoided by simply allowing an 18+ rating, so 15-17 aged gamers couldn't buy it.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

It's simple, the classification guidelines and how they're applied in Australia are horribly broken and need reform. MA15+ contains so many titles that should have gotten R18+ (and have elsewhere) that the rating itself has become meaningless and is no longer a guide as to age appropriate material, which is the whole point to classifications. Despite what some people would try and have you believe, a game that is R18+ elsewhere is far more likely to get a MA15+ without modifying the content than it Refused Classification or modified to conform to MA15+ standards. However, the criteria for which games get a pass and which ones don't seems entirely arbitrary which is irritating.

MA15+ only exists because film distributors lobbied for the rating in the first place over losing the money of the teenage market when a popular title got slapped with R18+.

 

[Golden Hawk]

thanks to all the good contributors, I'm only wanting to hear opinions; I gave you mine, thanks for yours =)

@Pararaptor, I don't think the notion is 'because not everyone is [me]', it's just you like a bit of violence, swearing, etc in your games. I can and do respect that, and am by no means against the institution of an R18+ rating (I do dislike violent games, but that's the difference between human beings

@fishy009er, I have virtually no interest in motion-sensor technology, but thanks anyway...

@macgyvercas, Good points, thanks, and I'm not against an R18+ rating or attempting to deny others anything, that would make me some kind of troll

@lacktheknack, Good point, cheers.

@RhombusHatesYou, Good points, classifications are entirely subjective

@Ilagrok, my argument was by no means a 'I dislike violence in games, therefore R18+ shouldn't exist', it was more to do with hearing the opinions of other gamers, when all I tend to hear in other forums are hardcore gamers showering me with hate. Yes, I dislike overtly violent games. No, I don't care if an R18+ rating is introduced. Yes, I wouldn't mind a serious reply from a fellow gamer on a topic of particular concern within the australian community.

 

[bob1052]

To appease the government in allowing games that do not meet R15 or lower standards from being banned.

The government wants to protect minors from overt violence and/or sexualisation

 

[Lexodus]

@Ilagrok, my argument was by no means a 'I dislike violence in games, therefore R18+ shouldn't exist', it was more to do with hearing the opinions of other gamers, when all I tend to hear in other forums are hardcore gamers showering me with hate.

Probably because you go on forums, tell them that there's no need for a particular rating because you don't like the games that fall under it, and then deny it when called out? That behaviour's not going to get you very far in life, you know. A better question is 'Why do we not have R18+?', because every other market has one and it's just a stupid thing to do. It also, as it has been pointed out, means that certain games that shouldn't be played by under 18 year olds are being played by them, because the game has been censored a tiny bit to pass the stupid classification system in place.

 

[JediMB]

For the sake of... being strong! (強くあるため&#12395

Okay, basically to avoid censorship, bans and/or giving games lower ratings than they deserve.

Which I suppose is basically a summary of the thread so far.

 

[manaman]

How about "because?"

Oh and "Why not?"

Who are you protecting, adults? Adults who should be able to make decisions on their own.

I don't like cake, but you don't see me calling for a ban on cake because I don't like it and if you indulge in it in excess it can lead to a person being overweight. That's basically what you are doing, except the downside isn't really there, or as harmful.

 

[blankedboy]

What I hate is that maturity and age are two very different and almost irrelevant things, but censorship confines to age when it should confine to maturity. Therefore we have say, a 12-year-old who already knows heaps about sex and can handle intense gore and stuff who wants to play an R18 game but can't. Which sucks.