• Adults should not be prevented from playing R 18+ level computer games simply because they are unsuitable for minors
4) agree
According to the first principle that guides the Classification Board;
"a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want."
If we were to ignore this point or disagree to it, there would be no need for classification as everything would have to be at the lowest common denominator. My Little Ponies for everyone.
• The R 18+ classification category sends a clear, unambiguous message to parents that the game material is unsuitable for minors
5) strongly agree
R18+ has an established brand and sentiment that makes parents and prospective players take notice. This is in conflict with the mess of games clouding up the MA15+ bracket that other countries have divided into multiple categories.
• Consistent classification categories for films and computer games are easier to understand
4) agree
This a valuable goal to aim at, however education is paramount to understand the differences between active and passive entertainment.
• A new classification will supplement technological controls on minors’ access to age-inappropriate computer games
4) agree
Any clear indication of expected content allows parents and prospective players to make an informed decision prior to purchase. Technological controls are for the purpose of enforcing content separation on the same machine and are also welcomed by parents, but are ultimately only another support mechanism. The best way to control the content accessed by minors is to play alongside children or make games available only in family spaces such as the living room (of which 78% of families seem to be doing already).
• Comparable classification systems internationally have an adult rating for computer games - international parity is desirable
4) agree
We are the only country that has a classification system for games that doesn't support an adult bracket. Half of game classifications that have appeared as MA15+ in Australia have been rated higher overseas, giving a strong message that our system is not providing the service other countries are enjoying.
• Consumers access games which would be R 18+ illegally – it would be better if they were legally available with appropriate restrictions
1) strongly disagree
This is simply a poor point. Making the R18 bracket will satisfy those that ARE over 18 and accessing that content illegally, but dos nothing to plug the gap of minors accessing inappropriate games. In fact this would indicate that more work needs to be done on education and enforcement of games being refused classification, and provide adequate safety regarding R18+ games for use in the household. The legal restrictions surrounding current R18+ movies would be a firm step toward provding the level of seriousness that the community associates with accessing R18+ rated games.
• Computer games should be treated differently from films given the specific, negative effects of interactivity on players, particularly their participation in violent and aggressive content.
4) agree
As with movies, the classification system should take into account whether the participant can discern the difference between reality and the content presented. This point takes much more weight when engaged in active participation such as when playing games. Both of these categories can be brought into line under the same classification system by creating a new element to separately acknowledge how 'close' the game is to reality, or how difficult it is to discern between the game and reality. This would allow both cartoon violence to be more accurately rated as well as provide scope for involved thrillers with little to no objectionable content. It will also futureproof the rating system when 3D movies and future Virtual Reality environments become more commonplace.
• It would be difficult for parents to enforce age restrictions for computer games.
2) disagree
There are more controls in place (such as parental controls on all current consoles and operating systems) than there is with DVD viewing. Adding the level of restrictions associated with the R18+ band would make games more controllable than other forms of media.
• Minors would be more likely to be exposed to computer games that are unsuitable for them.
1) strongly disagree
At the moment there are MORE games available to minors than there are in other countries with a classification system. Adding this category will reduce the level of exposure to minors as the restrictions in place for R18+ content will bring people's perceptions of computer game content into line with other entertainment formats.
• An R 18+ for computer games would exacerbate problems associated with access to high level material in Indigenous communities and by other non English speaking people
4) agree
The classification system as a whole is built to allow parents and prospective players to make an informed decision prior to purchase. Education is needed for people unable to understand the rating system and its implications. If the R18+ system were introduced, this would allow yet another avenue to build an awareness campaign to address this issue surrounding the entire OFLC rating system.
• There is no demonstrated need to change existing restrictions.
1) strongly disagree
Other classification systems employed in different countries are able to provide more information to parents and prospective players as to the content of the game. As the gaming market matures there are more and more games being produced for niche markets. Without an adult category, the OFLC has no choice but to refuse more and more games, or have games shoehorned into the current system. If the OFLC rated games similarly to Europe, we would have had 44 games refused classification over the past year instead of 5. There would have been such an outcry that this issue would have been resolved years ago.
My additional comments:
Recent analysis of all MA15+ rated games since 2009 [1] indicate that approximately half of these games were rated for a higher age bracket in America, Europe, England and even New Zealand. This is a clear indication that other classification boards are utilising the R18+ band for current games other than those we are refusing classification. If we were to provide an R18+ classification, this would send a much clearer indication to parents and prospective players as to the content and maturity expected to play the game.
With 78% of households indicating that parents play alongside their children, I feel confident that parents have the desire and ability to monitor their children’s exposure to potential R18+ content through computer games as much as other media. A point of concern is Indigenous, Non-English speaking and immigrant families that may not understand the OFLC rating system as a whole. If the R18+ classification for games were to be implemented, the awareness and education campaign of this new classification can also double as awareness of the entire OFLC ratings surrounding adult content.
As with movies, the classification system should take into account whether the participant can discern the difference between reality and the content presented. This point takes much more weight when engaged in active participation such as when playing games. Both of these categories can be brought into line under the same classification system by creating a new element to separately acknowledge how 'close' the game is to reality, or how difficult it is to discern between the game and reality. This would allow cartoon or abstract violence to be more accurately rated as well as provide scope for engaging thrillers with little to no objectionable content. It will also futureproof the rating system when 3D movies and future Virtual Reality environments become more commonplace.
[1] Electronic Frontiers Australia: Classification board comparison
