South Australian AG want to scrap MA15+ rating

[Ivor The Spider]

Apparently our AGs of Australia don't seem to understand that simpler does not always mean better. The attention to detail that should go into a fully fleshed-out classification system would translate into a better way of communicating what content one can expect to find in a certain game. It seems that was always the problem in the first place; the lack of communication to provide certain information.

It just goes to show how stupidly out of touch they can be

 

[Pecoros7]

This seems to be a sensible compromise as long as the R18+ category is used correctly. I can see a viable system in which the rating denotes a simple distinction between what young audiences can access freely and what should require parental involvement. The problem then becomes a parental issue where parents don't understand how to use the rating system correctly, which is a significant problem even here in the US.

Ultimately, I support any system that encourages parental involvement so long as the government doesn't try to do the parenting itself.

 

[Zedayen]

It's a fair proposal. Right now the MA15+ is our "Not For Kiddies" rating, yet is still accessible to kiddies. If they scrap the MA rating, there is still the M rating, which a majority of games fall under. Actually, taking a look at my own collection there are a lot of MA games that don't really deserve the rating. I could see those falling back to an M rating without much hassle.

The problem is that these classifications can only go so far, in fact only so far as the cashier. Ultimately it's the parents' decision in what their children play, even if their decision is to turn a blind eye to what they play. At least with a rating system as proposed, they will have none but themselves to blame.

Though I wonder if these ratings will turn retroactive for product unsold. Until a solution is implemented one way or another, kiddies, spend that pocket money and buy as many games as you can while you still can, the law is gunning for you.

 

[Delusibeta]

Ultimately, it would bring the Australian rating system in line with the American system. Doesn't make the lack of a rating between 12+ and 18+ in both systems any less dumb, however.

 

[Zedayen]

Apparently our AGs of Australia don't seem to understand that simpler does not always mean better. The attention to detail that should go into a fully fleshed-out classification system would translate into a better way of communicating what content one can expect to find in a certain game. It seems that was always the problem in the first place; the lack of communication to provide certain information.

It just goes to show how stupidly out of touch they can be

The problem with a detailed and fleshed out classification system, from what I've seen first hand, is that most parents spend maybe two seconds looking at the box their kid is waving in front of their face. They want their kid to shut up, because the other customers are looking at them, judging.

If the box has a paragraph detailing the explicit nature of the game, they'll miss it. If there is a big sticker that says R18+, they will put it back, well I would imagine so, as without such a classification that last part is speculation. Though if the action may be comparable, witnessing a similar encounter at the "Blockbuster" a child (12-14) grabbed a DVD and ran to mummy, waving it in her face. It was an R18+ film. She immediately looked to the lower left, saw the rating and said "No sweetie, you're not old enough to watch this." The kid was annoyed, but the parents around her gave her a supporting nod.

A detailed classification may work in conjunction with the simplified. One big R18+/MA15+/M sticker, and 4-5 stickers beside it denoting it's content (i.e. violence, profanity, sexual content, drug related themes, rock'n'roll) which I believe is the system used in another country that I cannot recall right now. But like I said in my post above, in the end it comes down to the parents. They need to know what the games contain, and they need to be open to learning about these things, instead of yelling "DON'T TELL ME HOW TO RAISE MY KIDS" at the cashier when they point out the game is MA and their kid is 12.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Ultimately, it would bring the Australian rating system in line with the American system. Doesn't make the lack of a rating between 12+ and 18+ in both systems any less dumb, however.

Eliminating MA15+ would still leave the M15 rating.

 

[Ivor The Spider]

Apparently our AGs of Australia don't seem to understand that simpler does not always mean better. The attention to detail that should go into a fully fleshed-out classification system would translate into a better way of communicating what content one can expect to find in a certain game. It seems that was always the problem in the first place; the lack of communication to provide certain information.

It just goes to show how stupidly out of touch they can be

The problem with a detailed and fleshed out classification system, from what I've seen first hand, is that most parents spend maybe two seconds looking at the box their kid is waving in front of their face. They want their kid to shut up, because the other customers are looking at them, judging.

If the box has a paragraph detailing the explicit nature of the game, they'll miss it. If there is a big sticker that says R18+, they will put it back, well I would imagine so, as without such a classification that last part is speculation. Though if the action may be comparable, witnessing a similar encounter at the "Blockbuster" a child (12-14) grabbed a DVD and ran to mummy, waving it in her face. It was an R18+ film. She immediately looked to the lower left, saw the rating and said "No sweetie, you're not old enough to watch this." The kid was annoyed, but the parents around her gave her a supporting nod.

A detailed classification may work in conjunction with the simplified. One big R18+/MA15+/M sticker, and 4-5 stickers beside it denoting it's content (i.e. violence, profanity, sexual content, drug related themes, rock'n'roll) which I believe is the system used in another country that I cannot recall right now. But like I said in my post above, in the end it comes down to the parents. They need to know what the games contain, and they need to be open to learning about these things, instead of yelling "DON'T TELL ME HOW TO RAISE MY KIDS" at the cashier when they point out the game is MA and their kid is 12.

Exactly, the way of showing HOW and WHY a product has been classified seems to make sense, it's the communication and education of consumers about these factors that's apparently fallen on deaf ears. I don't know why it's never occured to anyone in government to actually do that, with a specific relation to videogames. I'd say they have to now if we're ever going to actually GET this rating.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

That's such a dumb idea.
What'll a game like Halo Reach get rated then?
It's content is a little too harsh for a simple M15+ rating, but it's nowhere near bad enough to warrant an R18+ rating.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

Well it sounded horrible at first glance, but it's solid reasoning. At least if this goes into effect the system will be doing something it's meant to be doing for once...

Gonna be bad for business though.

 

[Delusibeta]

Ultimately, it would bring the Australian rating system in line with the American system. Doesn't make the lack of a rating between 12+ and 18+ in both systems any less dumb, however.

Eliminating MA15+ would still leave the M15 rating.

Nah, the M15 rating has been all but replaced by M, which is approximately equivalent to PEGI 12+.

 

[UberNoodle]

Okay, I think this needs clarification.

Yonks ago, the ratings were, G, PG, M and R18+ and X. Only the second last rating was restricted. X was only available in Canberra where the politicians are. Funny, that. The others were all "recommended", meaning that kids could still see them but should consult their wise parents.

Then, the MA15+ rating was added. This was an interim restricted rating between M and R18+. This was to assure that certain content not suitable for kids but not as far as the 18+ rating, was sold to the appropriate groups.

M has not replaced the MA15+ rating. It's almost the other way around. This is less to do with a change in screening laws but more an increase in the intensity of media content the world over.

Anyway, I think the man has a good point, if that's the way that games can get an R18+ rating, then fair enough. The MA15+ rating won't be removed UNLESS there is an R18+ rating in place.

 

[UberNoodle]

I think Attorney-General is a pretty cool guy.

It's good to see someone in that position who seems to know what they're doing.

Indeed.


"I want to force game manufacturers to make a decision about who they are marketing to: if it is adults, their games will be rated R18+; if it is children, then they will have to ensure that their games are sufficiently pruned back to make it into the M category."

"Besides, if the latest surveys about the average gamer being a 32-year-old single male who sits at home and plays games all day are correct, then what I am proposing is not going to have much impact at all," he said.

Those quotes remind me how R rated films often have kids toys. Why would kids be the target audience of ALIEN or Terminator toys? Ratings are screwed up in the way he describes, all over the world.