Why an R18+ rating doesn't matter

Opinion from AJ - Monday, 29 November 2010 @ 9:45pm

There is a lot of hubbub once again about the meeting of the Attorneys General next month. Most gamers have it on their Christmas wish list that the issues of R18+ ratings comes up again. Their hope is that with ex-SA Attorney General Michael Atkinson out of the picture, that the introduction of an adults only category for games may get a look in.

I'm here to tell you two things:

1. It won't happen.
2. It won't matter.

The main claim of mature adult gamers in Australia is that as adults we should be able to play and watch just about anything we like. I can see an R18+ movie, but I can't play an R18+ game? That's not fair! That's not consistent! It's a fair argument too. About a decade ago, all our classifications systems were brought into alignment. For example, in TV we used to have ratings like AO where we now have MA. The idea was to make it clearer for parents what was and what wasn't suitable for the their children. The problem is that there is no R18+ for TV, and yet we seem to get by without a problem. So why do we need an R18+ rating for games?

The question to ask perhaps is why isn't there an R18+ for TV? Not just free to air, but Foxtel as well (Foxtel is allowed to screen R18+ "narrowcast", meaning on pay-per-view type channels). The reasoning is simply that broadcast TV must (by law) be suitable for children. I don't think too many people argue that that isn't a sensible idea. In fact, during the whole R18+ debate, I've never heard it mentioned once. If it is sensible to allow R18+ games, then surely it is sensible to allow R18+ on TV if not what's the difference?

The difference, supporters of a ratings review suggest, is the ease of acquisition. Buying a video game is no different than buying a DVD or a movie ticket. There is someone, presumably trained, to check whether I am 18 or not before selling me the content. TV, obviously doesn't have that. You just flick the channel and watch what you want. The second argument is that it's the parent's responsibility to supervise their children, and that the only way a child could gain access to this content, is with the knowledge of a parent. Pay TV in particular has a parental lock system, similar to those found in all modern gaming consoles. All a parent need do is restrict the content, and the child cannot watch it. If only that were what actually happened. It's quite clear that not only are some parents incapable of adequate supervision, but that they don't use these features out of lack of knowledge or simple laziness.

The reality is, that it is our own adult need for adult content that puts said content in the hands of children in the first place. If I don't own any R18+ DVDs there is simply no way my son can watch an R18+ DVD. The logical extension of that thought is that if there were no R18+ DVDs at all, there is absolutely no way my child can watch one. The same logic applies to video games. If there are no adult videogames, there is zero chance of my son playing them...with my supervision or not. As extreme as that viewpoint is, it is entirely valid.

I don't think anyone would argue that video games are still solely the domain of children. Yes the average age of gamers has increased. But you're counting people like my parents who bought a Wii and STILL only play Wii Sports Bowling. My dad got a DS for Christmas last year, and the only cartridge that has ever been in it is Sudoku. So yes, the average age has increased, but we still need to face the fact that whilst there are more older gamers than there have ever been, nearly all children play video games in one way or another.

So what's the solution? Well, there doesn't really need to be one.

The simple fact is that it is very rare for a game to be refused classification in Australia. When a game has been refused and reintroduced it has very rarely made a substantial difference to the game (Left 4 Dead 2 being the exception). The remaining games fit into the MA15+ category with mostly only cosmetic changes. The reality is that as bone headed, misguided and daft the current system is, it's not costing us anything other than a little bit of sanity (and reputation). I can't say I missed playing BMX XXX, can you? Yes, I should be able to if I really want to...but hey...whatever.

Now, that's not to say that I don't agree with an R18+ rating. I can think of at least half a dozen games that really should be R18+ (e.g. just about any FPS for starters). I can also think of at least a dozen classification rulings that have made zero sense (the banning of Fallout 3 for drug use, yet the allowance of GTA:Chinatown Wars). I am absolutely for an R18+ rating, not because I want more violent games, but because I want more sensible ratings for games we already have.

The common argument is to suggest that games that should be R18+ are being squeezed into an unsuitable ratings bracket anyway...so we should just have an R18+ and classify them accordingly. To believe that is possible suggests that it is also equally possible that by allowing an R18+ bracket that even more violent and more sexual explicit games will be "squeezed" into that bracket as well. After all, if the classifiers can bend the rules now, why can't they with a new classification as well? It's a no win argument. You either admit the system is flawed, thereby admitting that an introduction of an R18+ bracket will only make it worse, or you admit that it isn't flawed in which case there is no need for one to be added! It's a "lose, lose" debate.

As with any debate, the dispute is less often about the end point, and more about how you look at the starting point. Nobody is arguing that I shouldn't be able to play Call of Duty. And nobody is arguing that a child should be able to. We all agree on these points. The problem is that we're spending too much time arguing about HOW to do this, instead of just agreeing that there is actually a problem that needs to be solved. Our goal as gamers shouldn't be trying to get an R18+ rating for games, it should be about protecting children from violence whilst supporting our rights to choose our entertainment. An R18+ rating is certainly a part of that, but it is only one part of it.

You, as a gamer, need to stop and think about what you're really saying when you demand an R18+ rating. What you're saying in the eyes of others is that you want more violence and more sex in your games. The more you argue this point, the more the opposition hears "more sex and violence please". It's the wrong tact, and will never achieve the desired outcome. The quest for an R18+ rating is doomed to failure, not because of the end result, but because of the differing viewpoint on what it stands for. Chasing an R18+ rating is like chasing legalised porn (yes it's actually not legal here!), or legalised marijuana. It doesn't matter how sensible or "right" the outcome is, you can't argue for any of these things without seeming like some kind of deviant. More to the point, the moral guardians of society will NEVER support it...no matter how sensible it may seem. In their eyes you're fighting FOR sex and violence in video games....an argument that is hard to counter.

There is little point arguing about the merits of our classification system when there is little to no enforcement of it. If we truly want an R18+ classification we need to take steps to ensure that it is, in fact, restricted. There should be (and is) fines for selling this content to a minor, but equally there should be education to assist parents in making informed decisions about what their children play. No classification system is of any value while there are still parents out there who take little interest in what their kids are actually playing. The number of times I've been into a game store to see a parent buying their 11 year old an MA15+ game astounds me. How is an R18+ rating really helping that child? Critics of a "restricted" category argue that it won't stop kids playing these games, and sadly they're right. Unfortunately, you can't legislate against stupid parents.

In the end though, all of this doesn't really matter. So few games have been banned or modified to make it really worth the battle. Even if the classification system does come up for debate when the Attorneys General meet, it will most certainly not result in a change of rating. Not because it doesn't make sense, but because politically it would do nothing other than upset off a lot of overly moral, overly vocal, Luddites. There are no points to be gained by diverting from the status quo. The only way forward for us as gamers, is to set about educating parents and non-gamers about the role gaming plays in our adult lives. Until such time that gaming is as much a part of all our lives as TV and film, this is how things are likely to stay. But in the short term, we need to demonstrate that a R18+ isn't about getting us access to more violence or more sex, but doing our best to keep it away from kids. The addition of an R18+ classification or the absence of one will not ultimately make parents more responsible. All we can do is highlight the failure of these parents to adequately supervise their children's entertainment, and the failure of the classification system to adequately educate them.