Act now to say NO to more violent and sexually brutal games

Comment

Comment by Daniel Tonon on May 21, 2010 at 11:58am

We actually have a few more people on the Grow Up Australia Facebook page following this debate without actually contributing, they must think we're doing a good enough job on our own.

You're arguments have been the most rational and logical arguments we've seen in a long, long time. You're giving us some good practice and proposing arguments against the issue we haven't thought of yet.

Comment by Daniel Tonon on May 21, 2010 at 11:46am

Oh, no. It's Ok. Ctrl+Z to the rescue... few :)

I found this site because I'm part of a facebook group called Grow up Australia that is dedicated to bringing an R18+ rating to the Australian Video Game industry. We have over 36,000 members now but only about 10 - 20 of us actually visit the page as much as I do. Dominicus is also part of this group. One of our members found this site and posted the link onto the groups wall. He's really good at finding thing's like this from all over the web. I have no idea how he does it. Maybe he just googles "R18+ videogames" every day or something.

Anyway, after reading it, this article posed a serious threat to the introduction of the R rating by listing the contact details of the Attorneys Generals and urging people who had no understanding of the issue to write into the government and complain. We have been fighting this war for years now and non-gaming people are so morally against the thought of an R rating that it’s been an uphill battle to change people’s minds. We really don’t want this to be any more difficult than it needs to be.

Comment by Daniel Tonon on May 21, 2010 at 11:42am

Damn! I lost the bit about how I found the site XP
I'm going to have to write it out again :(

Comment by Daniel Tonon on May 21, 2010 at 11:40am

And while I'm commenting...

"You've confused two issues here, you're arguing that the games do no harm but then you're bringing economic arguments in. That's a separate issue"

They may be separate but they are strongly linked. games cost money... A LOT of money. Anything that costs money effects the economy.


What you're arguing is that bringing in the R rating to increase economy is not a good reason to bring it in and you're right about that but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

An R rating won't really increase Australia's economy by much. Gamers are still more or less getting the games they want in this country since the edits made to games are so insignificant that they can generally be shrugged off (except when their edited like L4D2 was).

The point I was making was that if ALL MA games were edited to the extent that L4D2 was, then we would see a massive plummet in Australia's economy because Gamers wouldn't be buying their $100 games in Australia any more. It's not an argument to increase the economy. Its an argument to protect the economy and keep it stable.
The economy is alright as it is and will practically be unchanged in regard to what happens with the R rating but my argument shows that stricter rules on the MA Classification without the introduction of the R rating will ruin our economy.
Stricter rules on the MA classification WITH the introduction of an R rating won't really make any significant changes to Australia's economy.

Comment by Melinda L on May 21, 2010 at 1:18am

Hi there Dominicus, sorry if you thought I had ignored you, but there is *a lot* of text here to read through, certainly a lot to take in. I'm going to respond to Daniel's most recent post and then if i have time i might go back and look at what you said too.

"What I was trying to say there was that banning and editing these games to the extent that you’re thinking of will murder Australia’s economy."

so the avatar example is an economic argument? I see what you're saying Daniel, but as with everything, there are a number of issues that need to be weighed up when talking economy.
Smoking is awesome for the economy but the downside is, well people *die.* So the boost to the economy that the sale of tobacco might bring, is offset by the public health concern.
Similarly here, when considering possible benefits to the economy, other risks need to be considered, such as the risk of harm to citizens and that is what the research is about.

"Games like Rapelay are still going to be banned. All we’re asking for is a stable rating system that gives games the classification they deserve rather than squeezing them into a classification that’s too small for them."

I think we both agree that the ratings system needs an overhaul, but we obviously don't agree about the R rating.

Regarding the line in the sand, you said:

"No, I don’t think so… maybe a little… if we were arguing about that then I would be saying how I enjoy watching my enemies heads get blown off while you get thoroughly repulsed by it. But lets not get into that debate. Ones debate’s enough.

Your, argument for fixing up the MA rating isn’t valid because of the downfall of the Australian economy, which is what that way of thinking will lead to."

You've confused two issues here, you're arguing that the games do no harm but then you're brining economic arguments in. That's a separate issue.

There are lots of harmful things that could boost the economy - some say legalising drugs, prostitution etc. but that is not enough reason to introduce something that is harmful. So we can't just think in terms of "will it boost the economy" which it may well do, we have to look at the longer term consequences. Often these consequences are a drain on the economy (for example the cost of smoking on the health system.)

That's all i've got for tonight guys! Meanwhile i'm going to see if i can access the research. :)

Also - i'm now really curious, can you tell me how you found this site?

Comment by Dominicus Lindquist on May 20, 2010 at 9:06pm

Daniel:
Sorry to make you think that, due to my past enthusiasm, I would jump in as soon as Melinda returned. I was tempted, but restrained myself and actually planned to wait until she had read through everything so far and 'caught up' (I assumed she would say so when she had, or that it would be obvious).
So you don't worry about me adding more fuel to the fire prematurely - we can both sit back and wait for Melinda to say she's caught up.

Comment by Daniel Tonon on May 20, 2010 at 7:40pm

Not sure weather it's worth replying or not to Alex's post since she said she wasn't coming back... but I will anyway.

"How can it be ok to 'test' this sort of material on a WHOLE generation - if its not ok to test it on a small sample?"
No one is forcing kids to play these games so that statement doesn't hold up. But these games are much easier to access at the moment for kids than if the rating was introduced.

Comment by Daniel Tonon on May 20, 2010 at 4:02pm

I wanted to make sure I got my comments in before Dominicus, otherwise I would have waited for your next response and tackle your arguments all at once…

You completely missed my point in the Avatar example.
Where did I say “people are going to do it anyway”?

Read through my Avatar example again… CAREFULLY. Try and take in what I’m saying (remember, almost everyone in the country wanted to go see that movie):

“What if GTA was the recent movie Avatar. Now what if the Avatar movie was completely banned from being viewed by Australian audiences before the movie came out? How happy do you think the people of Australia would be then? There could possibly be riots of people bashing down Parliament houses doors wanting change. Or if things didn’t go that badly, there would be a massive jump in the number of people illegally downloading or importing the movie which would severally hurt the film industry and not to mention hurt Australia’s economy because so many people are buying the movie from overseas. That isn’t a good thing in the current economic crisis.

Alternatively, the film could have been edited to suit Australian Audiences. So instead of showing a character dying, it just skips that part of the scene. Or when 2 characters kiss the whole screen blacks out then fades back in after their done, and then of coarse they would have to remove all fight scenes because little Timmy might just want to try that at home. What you end up with is a shriveled up shadow of what the real movie should have been. That is the feeling that us gamers get when our games are censored to the point that Left4Dead 2 was (which was probably the only game in existence to actually censor enough content to actually deserve it’s MA15+ rating). I admit that those edits I stated above aren’t the sort of edits that are generally made to games but you understand my point right? It really hurts the experience as a whole when a game is butchered like that.
This drastic censorship ends up leading to the same sort of issues that banning a game has with people downloading and importing the un-edited versions of the game.”

What I was trying to say there was that banning and editing these games to the extent that you’re thinking of will murder Australia’s economy.
Banning and editing these games isn’t going to stop people from wanting to play the uncut original versions. We are in an economic crisis at the moment which the government is trying to get out of. However, for some reason, they are telling the people of Australia that they don’t want their money. They want them to give their money to overseas countries, boosting that countries economy while sabotaging our own. It doesn’t make any sense. Gaming is a billion dollar industry. The government wants gamers to give their billions of dollars to someone else and by saying you want the MA rating to have stricter laws on game classification without the introduction of an R rating you’re AGREEING with them.

…

you said:
“Those who wish to access stuff that is restricted or unclassified are going to be disappointed and maybe consider it ‘unfair.’ People who want “rapelay” may argue that it is unfair that they can’t access it. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.”

I say:
Games like Rapelay are still going to be banned. All we’re asking for is a stable rating system that gives games the classification they deserve rather than squeezing them into a classification that’s too small for them. If you read through the 2nd part of Dominicus’s post (the one right after the long list of games post I made). He raises an extremely good point about how the games aren’t going to be squeezed into the R rating like they are with the MA rating at the moment.

…
You said:
“Daniel, do you agree that we’re arguing about where the line should be drawn? So far I think my argument for M15+ and fixing up the guidelines for that category is a valid one.”

I say:
No, I don’t think so… maybe a little… if we were arguing about that then I would be saying how I enjoy watching my enemies heads get blown off while you get thoroughly repulsed by it. But lets not get into that debate. Ones debate’s enough.

Your, argument for fixing up the MA rating isn’t valid because of the downfall of the Australian economy, which is what that way of thinking will lead to.

…

You said:
“I’m not denying that some young people are downloading games. It’s common practice now to get everything off the net, but I’m not convinced that the prevalence of people stealing is reason enough to change community standards.”

I say:
The games aren’t here because of people downloading them secretly off the internet. The games are already here as in on the store shelves being openly displayed in EB Games, able to be bought by any 15 yr old with a school id. That’s what I meant by they’re already here.

…

You said:
“What do you mean by ‘confused parents.’ I understand your argument that parents are buying games that are M15+ perhaps assuming they are suitable, not realizing they are adult rated overseas, but again, isn’t that a good reason to challenge the rating system for M15+?”

I say:
That’s what I meant by confused parents. They’re confused by the ratings thinking MA games aren’t as bad as they actually are.
And again, the Avatar thing. As I keep saying, increasing the strictness on MA15 games leads to an economic downfall and a much greater chance of ruining the future for Australian kids than the introduction of an R rating. In fact, an R rating will probably improve the future for Australian kids because of the clarity it will bring to the ratings system for Parents.

…

You said:
“That is interesting Daniel about the hype about games in the lead up to a release, I assume you mean on the net and gaming community sites? Or do you mean mainstream magazines (because the rating is not given until just before release?)”

I say:
The advertising for games is completely different to the advertising for film and TV. Games aren’t seen by society as mainstream media yet so they generally aren’t advertised in mainstream entertainment. Usually the only ones that are actually advertised in things like TV adds are only PG rated games being advertised during kids shows or games that are Movie tie-ins when the movie its based on comes out (and those sorts of games usually aren’t very graphic anyway).
The way that they are usually advertised is through devoted gaming magazines and websites. The devoted gamers out there seek out these websites and magazines (I collect the “Official Australian Xbox Magazine” and visit the Gamespot and IGN websites a lot) and then tell their friends (who might not be as devoted) about all the awesome games that are coming out. I actually have a friend that is just as hardcore as me when it comes to gaming but gets all his gaming knowledge through word of mouth (no idea why, he just does). So unlike film and TV, the advertising for games is available for those who seek it, then travels through word of mouth to those who are interested but can’t be bothered searching for the information themselves.

Soooo… an R rating won’t affect the advertisement or demand for a game in the slightest because (yes) the rating for games is only done at the very last second before release.
Only the people who are extremely interested in games actually see the advertising. Everyone else only hears about it through word of mouth.
The only “advertisement” that places like EB have are posters that announce “yes we are going to have this game in stock on this date!” to the people already interested.

…

you said:
“So as I understand it, this man has performed a meta-analysis. If he has done his research properly he would have included research that does and doesn’t support his thesis”

I say:
The thing is, he hasn’t done his research properly. I knew my arguments were a bit weak on the meta-analysis but read through the 1st section of Dominicus’s post and listen to the radio interview link. The results from the meta-analysis were completely biased and can’t be used as real evidence to fuel your argument. In fact, in the radio interview, he mentions that the evidence is so sketchy it ALMOST proves there is no link between violent games and aggressive kids. I’m not saying it does, it only almost proves there is no link.

…

If you’re somehow still not convinced, I advise that you read this article:
https://sites.google.com/site/r1nceandrepeatramble/home/attackofthe...

I know I’m giving you a lot of reading but there really is not a single good practical argument for not introducing the R rating and the more research you put into the issue, the more you will see that.

Comment by Alex Todd on May 20, 2010 at 2:15pm

Hi again,
so much to do - so little time!

just a quick reply in response to Dominicus
you said: "So my main point in all this is that if we are going to stop adults from accessing confronting, controversial and interesting artworks, we should only do so because the evidence says that the detriments outweigh the benefits."

I challenge you to consider that ANY detriment/s outweigh the benefits.

On a personal level - my flashbacks, they haven't caused me to harm anyone else, or 'act out' what i was exposed to. But they have harmed me. They disturb my sleep, they interrupt my thinking at ramdom times with little or no stimulus... They take away some of my potential to contribute meaningfully and helpfully to those around me. (Three of these people being young children who depend on my ability to think clearly to care for them!) Let me clarify - it is not a huge issue for me, but with even this small insight - I will not allow my children to fill their brains with unhelpful images/information. I have chatted with others - who had reported similar impact from limited exposure to unhelpful/unplesant stuff.

We need to remind our culture that we all have a conscience - yours and Daniels are working well - because you are looking into both sides - and attempting to establish an ok platform to create and play the games others question. Please be challenged to listen to your conscience, even if the 'evidence' presented is opposed to it.

To Daniel - just re read your argument about not being able to do a study - because: 'That sort of test goes against so many morals though that it will never actually be done in real life.'
How can it be ok to 'test' this sort of material on a WHOLE generation - if its not ok to test it on a small sample?

I learnt last night some staticstics on 'social networking' sites - sort of like this one - but without a 'purpose/cause' Facebook etc... overwhelmingly users are reporting LESS real friends than before they joined up, a concerning note: the number of people who previously considered themselves to have no friends doubled. I realise that video gaming isnt online networking... but it is all in the same category as far as not-3D-real-person-interaction users are not learning to relate and comunicate on all levels - and that is harmful to individuals, families and our culture. (Even without violence added) The point was also made that communication via these types of technology - help us develop BAD habits, but don't provide any helpful skills (relationally).

Thanks for chatting, I am sorry to say I am not converted to your point of view Daniel, Thanks Dominicus, Thanks Melinda, let's keep wrestling with the issues, I am an optimist - there is a way forward.

I won't be back to reply again, & thanks again for the respect & thoughtfulness! Be challenged & move forward... :)

Comment by Melinda L on May 20, 2010 at 2:17am

Alright! It's 11.36pm at night, but i've been feeling really bad because you guys have posted such long thought out responses and i've abandoned the conversation for over a week. Please forgive me, i've been really loaded up with other stuff. So i'm going to check go through your post and see what thoughts come to mind.

"You’re a real stubborn little cookie aren’t ya Melinda?"

We can agree on your first point. Ha ha!

In response to your example with Avatar:

Ok, I think I understand what you’re saying. However “people are going to do it anyway” is not an adequate reason to remove or change standards and laws. Theft from k-mart is going to happen anyway, but they’re not going to change the laws to allow people’s bad behaviour. Although people are trying to compare movies and games, the research has shown the impact is much more with video games.

You said:

"This drastic censorship ends up leading to the same sort of issues that banning a game has with people downloading and importing the un-edited versions of the game.
How is that fair just because our interests are different to yours?"

My response:

Those who wish to access stuff that is restricted or unclassified are going to be disappointed and maybe consider it ‘unfair.’ People who want “rapelay” may argue that it is unfair that they can’t access it. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Currently the line is drawn at M15+ which therefore sets a standard of not allowing violent sexually explicit games into the country (even if some will effectively ‘steal’ these from overseas anyway).

You said:

"This is an argument for an R rating because it is showing how unfair the current ratings system is on the people actually interested in the media and how just tightening the belt on MA15+ rated games isn’t really a good option"

My response:

Daniel, do you agree that we’re arguing about where the line should be drawn? So far I think my argument for M15+ and fixing up the guidelines for that category is a valid one.

You said:

"I say you’re ignorant because you don’t realize that these games you’re all so afraid of are already here being played by 15yr olds and people even younger coz of confused parents. There are maybe 1 or 2 games each year that are banned outright and that’s it. That is hardly a flood. That’s a bit like saying “there was a 10 car pile up on the free way today” where as it was really only just a single car giving another a fender bender. It’s just drastic over exaggeration. These banned games usually have such a low amount of hype around them anyway that not that many people would have bought them even if they made it into our country. In other words, the kids would probably want them more BECAUSE they were banned. If they weren’t banned then they would just ignore them."

My response:

I’m not denying that some young people are downloading games. It’s common practice now to get everything off the net, but I’m not convinced that the prevalence of people stealing is reason enough to change community standards.

What do you mean by “confused parents.” I understand your argument that parents are buying games that are M15+ perhaps assuming they are suitable, not realizing they are adult rated overseas, but again, isn’t that a good reason to challenge the rating system for M15+?

You said:

"I don’t see how it will increase demand for these games. The demand for games is built up long before a game is given its rating. Halo 2 was being hyped up for an entire year before it came out. A game is only given its rating a month or so away from release so an R rating being introduced will have very little effect on the demand for a game. And is acceptance really such a bad thing. People have accepted R18+ movies, why should games be any different?"

My response:

That is interesting Daniel about the hype about games in the lead up to a release, I assume you mean on the net and gaming community sites? Or do you mean mainstream magazines (because the rating is not given until just before release?)

The reason I say it will increase demand for games is because of the advertising that will go along with it. Those who aren’t tuned into the gaming ‘culture’ if that makes sense, but who walk into EB games, including young children will be exposed to advertising. Advertising always leads to more interest, that’s why companies advertise.

You said:

"I say the research is not extensive enough because for it to be a true test, you would have to sit multiple children from a young age in front of a tv with nothing but violent videogames as their only form of entertainment while you use multiple other children as a control tests, subjecting them to normal, non-violent entertainment. The test would have to be carried out over many years until the children reached an adult age at which point some sort of personality test would be used to measure how violent the children are. That sort of test goes against so many morals though that it will never actually be done in real life.

However, with that meta-analysis, I saw a video of the man who conducted the analysis explaining his findings. He himself said that the ones who were more likely to be affected by the violence were the ones who had some sort of other contributing factor like abusive parents or a mental disorder. In other words, normal people are generally unaffected by the violence in video games. And I know what you’re thinking “but then we shouldn’t have these games in the country anyway so that this very small minority will be protected” but under that way of thinking, you may as well ban all R rated movies as well. They are just as damaging to vulnerable minds as games can be."

My response:

Firstly, I think part of his research shows that R rated movies aren't as damaging to young people (as bad as that is, to be showing a R rated movie to a child is totally unacceptable) but i believe kids are more likely to want to play an r rated game, than watch an r rated movie.

You said:

"I’ve been playing violent video games all my life and I wouldn’t hurt a fly. None of my gamer friends are violent either. The stereotype for gamers is an anti social nerd who runs from a fight any chance they get. How would that stereotype have been created if we were all a bunch of ruthless thugs looking for a fight? “Violent video games create violent people” is just a myth."

My response:

Daniel, there is some research that just can’t be done in that way because it is unethical. For example, I wouldn’t get approval to conduct a test like “will children’s exposure to hardcore pornography lead to them sexually assaulting their peers” by putting a bunch of kids in front of hardcore porn. It’s unethical for obvious reasons.

The test that you have suggested would need to be done, is similarly unethical.

However research can be done in different ways to avoid these ethical issues. You might look at aggressive kids and record how much time they have spent playing video games over the last year and compare that to kids who aren't aggressive. That might be one way.

So as I understand it, this man has performed a meta-analysis. If he has done his research properly he would have included research that does and doesn’t support his thesis, then you examine them for possible methodological flaws and other possible interpretations of the data.

And what you mentioned Daniel is also important – where he acknowledges that the children who are at risk from video games also come from dysfunctional backgrounds. Obviously not all who play violent video games are going to be affected to the same degree. At no stage did he say “you will become a violent thug if you play games.” What he is saying is that there is strong correlation between violent video games and subsequent aggression, all things considered.

Daniel, I know i haven't addressed everything, but I'm going to have to come back to this tomorrow! Thanks so much for your comment about me being a "worthy opponent." I also appreciate reading your arguments. It is nice to have a discussion with someone who disagrees yet can engage meaningfully and respectfully.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page