• Welcome to the Fable Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Fable series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Revised laws regarding the game rating restrictions in Australia.

Kahindes

Active Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
53
Reaction score
5
Points
25
I know that this is VERY long, but please bare with me. I am really sorry about the length. Sorry.

Whether people know this or not, Australian officials are currently revising the ratings and overall content of all video games. I am an Australian if you haven't already guessed, and I know that there might not too many Australians on this forum, regardless it would good to hear their opinions and anyone else that might have a view on this. The reason that I felt that I had to post something was not simply because of this event happening. I would like to know what views people have about this. I just felt a little defensive about the assumptions and seemingly biased views that a lot of people had towards the gaming community when it was being discussed on the news. But anyway, regardless of what I think, it would be nice to know what other people think.

We are one of the only developed countries in the world that do NOT have an Adult rating for adult content in games. Instead MA+15 is the highest restrictions that we are allowed on games in Australia. They are going to be discussing soon at the possibility of having an R+18 rating in Australia, in hopes to protect the minds of younger children by making them unable to purchase such games without ID. Many people have many different views on this and there was a discussion on a news show here that argued the benefits and the negatives of having such a rating system and laws.

There was a small discussion on a popular news show here in Australia discussing this issue. A representative from a Christian community was arguing that if the rating system was allowed to change then more and more violent games from America would corrupt the children even more. Even going as far to say that a ban on all these games in general was the better way to handle this situation.

Another representative, from a gamers perspective, argued that the ratings they have now was letting 15 year olds play games that were intended for Adults. This, in the first place, he felt was what was doing the damage. And that their laws were allowing Adult games to be sold to the underaged since the restriction only restricts those who are under 15, not quite yet Adults. Those that age and above are exposed to Adult Content games, rated as such in other countries. He also went on to suggest that he thinks that people STILL have that misconception that games are meant only for children.

To prove his point about this misconception, he offered the accurate statistic: that, on average, most of the gamers in the world were roughly in their thirties, well above the mature age for such games. This lead to another point about the gaming industry itself. His point also said that restricting these games in general, as the opposing representative suggested, would cripple the industry and not to mention take away our right to play the games that were intended for Adults in the first place. That Adults were the main consumers, therefore the games should be catered to their interests and they should not have to be forced to play games that - he thought - would simply patronize us. As adults are the people these games are actually intended for, the age of the gamers becoming a relevant statistic when these producers make these games.

One issue arose where the Christian representative brought statistics that these games raised the amount of aggression and violence in young people. That these games are just enablers to a greater problem in the young community. Saying that most teenagers have been effected by these games.

All of a sudden it seemed apparent that the Christian representative and the news team wasn't even listening to the whole conversation in which the Gamer Representative argued that "That the main majority of people that play games are over 30", "These games were meant for adults", "If the rating increases, then underage children won't be able to buy them". No, he just speaks of danger of your children and the way that they live and everyone on the news team seems to nod. They begin talking about how they never found the games relatable. Basically, they had already made their decision. Then they close the story with the conflicting question that leaves the gaming community in a bad light once more: Should video games get a higher rating and let even more violent and traumatizing games come into our community? Or would it be better to restrict these games all together and lead a safer and healthier community?

I don't know, it might be just me, or does it seem like they weren't really paying attention to what the Gamer Representative had to say about this? All these facts and accurate statistics, and yet at the end they seemed to show these games and the people that play them in a bad light. Non of them seemed to care that games like this would be practically harmless if there was a rating protecting children from buying them. And yet they still said near the end that " there are statistics that these games raised the amount of aggression and violence in young people." Well if he was listening then he would have known that with this new law, they won't have access to it. That this new law that he is opposing will actually negate his statistics.

For some reason I felt that there are many communities that didn't quite....understand. I believe that they were making assumptions and decisions around the gaming community based solely on their own personal opinion and for the most part seem a little ignorant on the facts. I know that this new law doesn't change anything really, and I'd be naive and ignorant to say that it would solve all the problems that these people have with games. But surely once the Government and Gaming Companies bring in a new law and stop young people from purchasing these games at all -that are meant to be R+18 in the first place - the reasons and conditions on how the young ones now get these games are now under the responsibility of the parent or adult that bought them for them, right?

I mean if these kids are still getting these games after this law comes in, then it's not the responsibility of the Government or the Gaming Induustries anymore. It's the Adults that buy it and let the kids play, or the Adult that actually buys it for them, or the parent that buys it for them as a gift, or even the kids themselves through whatever means that they can get their hands on it.

Okay, I've had my rant. Really sorry buy the way. Wow, this thing is really long, really sorry. Would be grateful to hear that someone else has an opinion on this rather then just my overreacting. If you don't understand something that I have said or even what the hell I am going on about, you can tell me. I often miss the finer point of things in my rants. Hear from some of you soon....maybe. Bye. :blush:
 

Arseface

Look at me still talking when theres science to do
Premium
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,471
Reaction score
813
Points
315
Gay woman: Julia, why can't I ask the woman I love to marry me?

Julia Gillard (horrible droning voice): ... Marriage is between a man and a woman, and we're not going to change that.

With her as our Prime Minister, I'm surprised our government even knows what a video game is.

EDIT: And you aren't allowed to be Australian. I'm the only Australian allowed on these forums.
 

Tsuyu

is wearing Queen's lace panties.
Town Guard
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
9,639
Reaction score
1,896
Points
365
Age
34
I invite you all to Sweden, where the ratings are nothing but guidelines rater than "law". But I digress, you'd probably find it too cold...
 

Arseface

Look at me still talking when theres science to do
Premium
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,471
Reaction score
813
Points
315
I like cold, and in Sweden my birthday is in the Summer. Yay for Sweden!
 

D3m190d

Your Future Emperor
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,956
Reaction score
461
Points
275
Age
31
but please bare with me.
Sure ;). Or did you mean 'bear with me'? =|

Seriously though, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Also, I think that people always will have a certain opinion about something, before even being in contact with it; That may be why the news team gave more attention to the Christian Representative, rather than the Gaming one. Still though, ignoring what he said all together seems totally unfair. Yeah, I can live with the fact that somebody might do that, but a news team should take all the factors of an event into their story, right? And their opinions shouldn't play a role in that, too.
So yeah, I have nothing special to add, other than saying you're right.
 

cheezMcNASTY

Edible in some countries
Premium
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
5,326
Reaction score
1,396
Points
315
sounds very biased to me. was this a talk show or a news program?

There was a small discussion on a popular news show


the difference being that when a news program is that openly biased, it's a problem. a talk show is usually only followed by people who agree with its views in the first place and isn't held to the same standard.
 

HobbeBrain

It's getting better, man!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
2,751
Reaction score
689
Points
285
Age
27
I invite you all to Sweden, where the ratings are nothing but guidelines rater than "law"

That's what it's like for prett much every country. It is worth noting that a large portion of the members here are under 16, Fable being a 16+ game...
 

Arseface

Look at me still talking when theres science to do
Premium
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,471
Reaction score
813
Points
315
Was the program the 7PM Project?
 

Kahindes

Active Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
53
Reaction score
5
Points
25
Was the program the 7PM Project?

Embarrasing to say, but I'm actually not sure. A friend was the one that told me that it was on. Could have very well been though. I don't watch a whole lot of TV, and even if I do, usually it's not Channel Ten. I swear that last time I saw a little of the 7pm project there was a brown haired woman and not a blonde, but not sure. My friend and I had a discussion about all this afterwards, he didn't seem to like this abrupt end to a argument that could have been in our favor.

Sure ;). Or did you mean 'bear with me'? =|

Seriously though, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Also, I think that people always will have a certain opinion about something, before even being in contact with it; That may be why the news team gave more attention to the Christian Representative, rather than the Gaming one. Still though, ignoring what he said all together seems totally unfair. Yeah, I can live with the fact that somebody might do that, but a news team should take all the factors of an event into their story, right? And their opinions shouldn't play a role in that, too.
So yeah, I have nothing special to add, other than saying you're right.

Thanks for agreeing with me. I just thought that they played more on opinion then fact, and no one really discussed any of the points made by either of the people that was used to represent the different sides really. Both said their bit and I guess that was enough. But still thought that the topic could have been a little more explored, or discussed. I would have been happier to see a better conclusion to these thoughts.

Still though the program seemed a little short, I'm sure that if better arguments could have been made then they would have surely done so.
 

Arseface

Look at me still talking when theres science to do
Premium
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,471
Reaction score
813
Points
315
Embarrasing to say, but I'm actually not sure. A friend was the one that told me that it was on. Could have very well been though. I don't watch a whole lot of TV, and even if I do, usually it's not Channel Ten. I swear that last time I saw a little of the 7pm project there was a brown haired woman and not a blonde, but not sure. My friend and I had a discussion about all this afterwards, he didn't seem to like this abrupt end to a argument that could have been in our favor.

The panelists change a lot, especially recently. But that is the kind of thing they do. It is important to point out, however, that it is not a legitemate news show. They just discuss their opinions on current affairs.
 

Kahindes

Active Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
53
Reaction score
5
Points
25
The panelists change a lot, especially recently. But that is the kind of thing they do. It is important to point out, however, that it is not a legitemate news show. They just discuss their opinions on current affairs.

Okay good. Well in a way that is kind of a good thing. I can picture people taking them and their responses more seriously if it were a a legitimate news show. Still though a lot of people that didn't have much of an opinion about this topic before would see that show and probably get a negative vibe simply on what was said and what they were saying. Overall though I guess it doesn't matter now anyway. Just as long as I am not banned from playing my type of video game, all is well.
 
Top