Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australia Reveals R18+ Video Game Guidelines

Posted by timothy on from the john-rau-has-julian-assange-hair dept.

RagingMaxx writes "Is Australia finally ready to implement a video game rating system that allows for classification of adult games? Draft guidelines have been released by the federal government which allow 'virtually no restrictions on the treatment of themes,' and violence in games 'except where it offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety.' Last month, South Australian Attorney General John Rau said that the state was finally ready to adopt the long-proposed R18+ adult rating for games, but only if the lower MA15+ rating is eliminated and all games in the category pushed into the new, higher rating. However, this new draft has both the R18+ and MA15+ ratings available together."

40 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. Finally! by Zalchiah · · Score: 1

    I have to admit, I'm a little bit excited to see our country move forward with this. However, I will maintain a healthy level of trepidation until it actually passes.

    1. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Same.
      Even though I live in NZ and we already have an R18 rating, distributors are lazy and just send us the edited version they send to Australia.
      They did with GTA4 and Witcher 2 (that I know of).

    2. Re:Finally! by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Australian Bishops Conference have supported the draft which is a good thing.
      http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/05/australian-catholic-bishops-welcomes-the-draft-r18-guidelines/

      The ACL on the other hand are opposing it and going to fight it.
      http://australianchristianlobby.org.au/2011/05/mr-draft-r18-computer-game-guidelines-fail-families/

      I hope more Christian groups and associations speak up with their views on the R18 classification to illustrate that Jim Wallace & his followers are not the moderate Christian voice in Australia. It's so painful to see them constantly given media attention for trying to push the government to enforce their moral agenda on the country.

    3. Re:Finally! by crafty.munchkin · · Score: 1

      You got the new Mortal Kombat. Now STFU.

      --
      ... wait, what?
    4. Re:Finally! by donaldm · · Score: 2

      I have to admit, I'm a little bit excited to see our country move forward with this. However, I will maintain a healthy level of trepidation until it actually passes.

      I agree, I am not holding my breath on this until the classification passes.

      I found it rather stupid that video game classifications did not have the similar Video classifications, those being, G for "General Exhibition", PG "Parental Guidance", M, for "Mature Audiences"; and R18+ "Restricted to 18 and above". The highest Game classification is MA15+ which IMHO is stupid. For more details see here . The X18+ classification for film is interesting especially since kids can view pornography on-line.

      Basically all these classifications still don't absolve parents from policing what their child can and cannot watch although reasonable ratings do help parents make informed decisions but unfortunately many parents appear to distance themselves from parenting preferring to let Government and so called moral groups dictate that.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    5. Re:Finally! by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      The X18+ classification for film is interesting especially since kids can view pornography on-line.

      Have you so quickly forgotten the Great Filter of Australia this very same government was planning, not that long ago? Don't tempt them.

      Basically all these classifications still don't absolve parents from policing what their child can and cannot watch although reasonable ratings do help parents make informed decisions but unfortunately many parents appear to distance themselves from parenting preferring to let Government and so called moral groups dictate that.

      Indeed, and it would be interesting to see what impact this has on the retailers. You won't find the big retailers stocking R18+ movies, so will they take the R18+ games off their shelves? How about downloadable games, which would be legally accessible but practically unenforceable?

      I'm not saying an R rating for games shouldn't happen, but you can imagine just what kind of a dog-fight this is going to cause if and when it goes through.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    6. Re:Finally! by NoobixCube · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Australia IS a Christian nation. We're a Commonwealth Nation which means the Queen, the head of the Church of England is our head of state. Before each sitting of parliament, they recite The Lord's Prayer. As an atheist, I feel my views aren't fairly represented by a clearly religious organisation.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    7. Re:Finally! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      We're a Commonwealth Nation which means the Queen, the head of the Church of England is our head of state. Before each sitting of parliament, they recite The Lord's Prayer. As an atheist, I feel my views aren't fairly represented by a clearly religious organisation.

      Get over yourself mate, the Aussie parliment is not a religious organisation, we have an openly Athiest PM and nobody gives a flying fuck, including the Queen.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Finally! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I'm in my 50's and have been an Athiest since childhood, on a recent holiday to the UK I enjoyed attending a church service at Westminster Abbey with my religious partner. Go figure!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:Finally! by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Basically all these classifications still don't absolve parents from policing what their child can and cannot watch although reasonable ratings do help parents make informed decisions but unfortunately many parents appear to distance themselves from parenting preferring to let Government and so called moral groups dictate that.

      I'm not a parent, but I was a kid, and there's only so much you can do to prevent your kid from seeing things you don't want them to see.

      I say this not to endorse censorship (I'm completely against it), but to say I understand they parents concerns. However, tough luck. I value freedom more than some naive notion that you can shield your child from the realities of the world. Best just to teach them how to deal with it.

  2. Oh no! by WiiVault · · Score: 1

    What will the US and European game exporting juggernauts of industry and the source of our last remaining exports do now!? War with Australia is the only way forward! Why couldn't you guys just let it be? ... oh well just gotta find my flak jacket now brb.

    1. Re:Oh no! by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      They'll charge half the price of a retail box here? Like they already do?

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
  3. About Time.... by BatGnat · · Score: 2

    About Time....

    it has been ridiculous not having one...

  4. John Rau is an idiot by Sparx139 · · Score: 1

    Really, why should we get rid of MA15+? The end result would be that we get a few extra games and other than that the system is the same - just that what was formerly restricted (at least in theory) to 15 year olds would be restricted to 18 year olds instead.

    I can't really say it surprises me though. This was covered in the news a while ago, and they were pushing it on the "think of the children" front - boosting everything with violence up into R18+ to supposedly keep it out of the hands of minors

    --
    Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    1. Re:John Rau is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey! I played violent video games as a child, and now I'm a virg-- regular Slashdot dweller, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:John Rau is an idiot by srodden · · Score: 1

      We shouldn't get rid of MA15+ because there is a big difference between Finding Nemo, World of Warcraft, Medal of Honour and Grand Theft Auto. There are some things I would be happy for my adult son to play that I'm not happy for my mid-teens son to play. Violence is not the only adult theme that is covered by the rating.

      Remember these are advisory ratings. Not physical barriers. There will always be kids that are outside the bell curve and it's up to the parents to decide if their child is or is not ready for something. Having 3 categories instead of 2, or 4 instead of 3, is not going to place an unreasonable burden on the board that makes these assessments and it gives parents better information on which to make their decisions.

      --
      Why can't we let people believe whatever they like? It's not like a little religion has ever hurt anyone.
    3. Re:John Rau is an idiot by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

      Remember these are advisory ratings. Not physical barriers.

      No They aren't. G, PG, M are advisory rating, MA15+ is legally enforcable rating. MA15+ was only introduced because some uptight people wanted to have an enforcable M type rating rather than the advisory type one we had. MA15+ was a late addition to the ratings to further restrict them.

    4. Re:John Rau is an idiot by srodden · · Score: 1

      Legally enforcable does not mean enforced. My comparison with a physical barrier is that there is nothing stopping a parent from letting their child view the content if they feel their child is ready. Similarly there's nothing stopping them from not allowing them access to an MA15+ even if they are over 15. After all, the Mature Adult 15+ rating has a subjective quality that someone needs to assess when deciding whether an individual is ready. In some circumstances it may be that a parent violates the letter of the law. That happens all the time in many areas of life.

      --
      Why can't we let people believe whatever they like? It's not like a little religion has ever hurt anyone.
    5. Re:John Rau is an idiot by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      The same can be said of R18+ or X. It is rarely if ever enforced, but illegal none the less to show to minors, in theory you can be prosecuted for selling or exhibiting MA15+ or above to anyone under 15. What you are describing is what we had before MA15+ was introduced where it was only M and parents were supposed to decide, I agree with you that parents should make those decisions but that certainly is not supported by an MA15+ rating.

    6. Re:John Rau is an idiot by srodden · · Score: 1

      I had forgotten that there was an M as well as an MA15+. So long as the M stays, I too see no need for an MA15+.

      --
      Why can't we let people believe whatever they like? It's not like a little religion has ever hurt anyone.
    7. Re:John Rau is an idiot by sincewhen · · Score: 2

      But this will turn out to be another example of unintended consequences.

      16 year old who has been playing Call of Battle 1 & 2, rated 15+ will now have to beg parents to buy Call of Battle 3 which is rated R18+ even though the content is the same.
      Parents will realise 18+ rating is to be ignored, and when Gory Psycho Killer comes out 18+ will also buy it for him, even though the warning of "strong adult themes" should be heeded in this case.

      So I would argue that, not having a MA15+ category will actually undermine the ratings system altogether and expose minors to games they shouldn't have.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
  5. By whos standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This guideline offends my morality, decency and propriety.

    With vauge crap like that why even have a rule...

    1. Re:By whos standards? by snookums · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This guideline offends my morality, decency and propriety.

      With vauge crap like that why even have a rule...

      Basically it's worded like this to bring it in line with the laws applying to other media. Bear in mind that government censorship of non-political speech is constitutionally legal in Australia, and applied to all commercially distributed media and some personal imports.

      Wording the law like this is actually a good idea (if we have to have censorship at all), because it allows for the fluctuating standards of society. For example, the film Last Tango in Paris was originally "banned" (refused classification) in Australia because depicting two strangers having a sexual relationship without knowing each other's names or having any other social connection was considered morally reprehensible (this despite the fact that the film doesn't condone or glorify this in any way). In the 90s, the film was finally classified and distributed for public screening because the original arguments no longer represented the majority view of morality in Australian society.

      --
      Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
    2. Re:By whos standards? by black3d · · Score: 1

      "Vauge [sic] crap" like that is how almost every country words their determination. Laws don't go through and explicitely list every act that is prohibited, in detail, so as to make an ultimate, initial determination. They instead list broad categories that are excluded (eg, bestiality) and always leave a clause for morally objectionable material - a determination of which can be made on a case by case basis.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    3. Re:By whos standards? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Strangely, if an image is in a museum its fine.

      Is it?

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    4. Re:By whos standards? by black3d · · Score: 1

      That's because context largely determines interpretation. I presume you're speaking of, for instance, a painting or photograph of a nude underage female.

      In the context of the museum, it's likely a study of form, or a treatise on innocence, or another theme in the context of the rest of the picture, etc. People are naked in default mode, so aside from the cries of some "think of the children" ignoramii, acknowledgement and examinaton of different aspects of this for studial purposes isn't socially morally objectionable.

      Men's entertainment magazines, eg Playboy as you mentioned, are almost exclusively designed for erotic titillation - at least the segments involving semi-clothed or naked females. As such, images of a nude underage female for the purpose of arousement IS socially morally objectionable. By today's standards, anyhow.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
  6. How about PG18+? by bronney · · Score: 2

    Huh? Yay? Nay?

    1. Re:How about PG18+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bout freakin' time too. Why should consenting intelligent adults have descisions about what games are banned from release in Australia and what they can and can't play made for them by a nanny government. Obviously the rest of the world can make that descision for themselves. Not having the rating and banning the games instead is like hiding your head in the sand. Even kids can still download or buy the banned games from overseas. at least parents can now be made aware of the titles that are rated unsuitable for children to play, and hence not buy/confiscate from their children and adults can make the descision to play them for themselves.

    2. Re:How about PG18+? by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      Because anyone 18+ should not need Parental Guidance.

      Exactly. There are nanny-state laws for that.

  7. DNF by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ah, it all becomes clear. The Duke Nukem Forever release has just been waiting until Australia gets an R18+ rating!

  8. They're the same? by HalAtWork · · Score: 2

    It sounds like MA15+ and R18+ are pretty much the same, they're just trying to raise the age bracket under the guise of being more permissive. The language used makes it seem like they can actually be more restrictive.

    --
    Twinstiq, game news
    1. Re:They're the same? by unreadepitaph · · Score: 1

      If you read/compare the guidelines they're completely different.

      No restriction on themes
      Things that are completely permitted: Language, Drug Use, Nudity
      Sex can now be simulated.

      What I am interested in is that RC doesn't seem to have changed and would allow the classification board to block content on the same merits they used to.

      --
      My internetting is no good.
  9. Re:More Violence by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 1

    In all seriousness yes, we need some more violent games here. Letting off steam by playing some Mortal Kombat would be great.

    Unfortunately we can't do that here in Australia as that game, along with many others has been banned by censors who have played the game and determined that anyone who plays it will become insane (I guess they might have a point in a way).

  10. Australia absolutely is by drsmithy · · Score: 1

    John Rau, however, is not.

  11. Re:Now that is weasel word if I know it by dakameleon · · Score: 1

    That's usually put to a "reasonable person" test if it needs to be challenged in a court - if a "reasonable person" pulled off the street would consider it objectionable on those grounds, it would remain banned. Arbitrary banning would get a lot harder - the reasonable person test has generally been... reasonable (sorry).

    --
    Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
  12. abolish the classification board by timbo234 · · Score: 2

    The real solution to this is to simply abolish the classification board on it's current form. Instead replace it with a voluntary games classification system run by industry, with regular audits by a government body to ensure industry is complying by it's own rules.

    Oh and keep it at the federal level, I'm sick of some dickhead ex-lawyer hicks at the state level blocking everything that doesn't agree with their mates in the Christian lobby.

    --
    Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
  13. "morality, decency and propriety" by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    So... murder is accepted by the general populace to be moral and decent now? Really, how much worse can you get than murder and destruction? I don't understand the point of that little exception (especially since they're just games anyway).

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    1. Re:"morality, decency and propriety" by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Obviously there's a big gap between reality and fantasy. And even in fantasy there's a good gap between the "I'm seeing a drama about a person being killed" as opposed to "I'm playing an FPS and just shot two guys".To murder is not the same as watching a murder which is not the same as pretending to murder someone.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:"morality, decency and propriety" by lucian1900 · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why murder is generally fine for American/Australian/Canadian audiences, but rape is somehow not.

      Even consensual sex is considered much, much worse than murder. Suggesting polygamy or drugs? That's even worse! I find that very disturbing.

  14. Gory psycho can still be denied. by leuk_he · · Score: 2

    Parents will realise 18+ rating is to be ignored, and when Gory Psycho Killer comes out 18+ will also buy it for him, even

    However the draft poposal states

    Computer games will be refused classification if they include or contain any of the following:

    CRIME OR VIOLENCE
    Detailed instruction or promotion in matters of crime or violence.

    The promotion or provision of instruction in paedophile activity.

    Descriptions or depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive
    descriptions or depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 years.

    Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:

    (i) violence with a very high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent,
    prolonged or detailed;
    (ii) cruelty or real violence which are very detailed or which have a high impact;
    (iii) sexual violence.

    Sexual violence related to incentives and rewards.

    SEX
    Depictions of practices such as bestiality.

    Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:

    (i) activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent;
    (ii) incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent.

    DRUG USE
    Detailed instruction in the use of proscribed drugs.

    Material promoting or encouraging proscribed drug use.
    As a general rule, computer games will also be Refused Classification if they contain:
    (i) drug use related to incentives or rewards;
    (ii) interactive drug use which is detailed and realistic.

    Mafia games, drugg runner games, and rape games might not get a RC status, which will be be the ultimate "must have" label for those people searching the limits,

    If i read this, SAW 3D, the movie might be allowed, but SAW 3d the game might be RC (and RC means normal stores will not carry this. ). (disclaimer, i did not see saw, but i suppose it scores very high on the violence with high impact )

    =====================

    Does this reflect austrlian morality as in normal socialty? (can you show a tit, on a beach, do people use drugs or are those people considerd to be in prison)