I come onto this site in the aftermath of the election to see how outraged the members on this site are and to say the least i was amused by it all. Today i come back on to see peoples opinions on the new AG for SA, John Rau. I recall posting a comment arguing that gamers are wasting their time and energy focusing on one topic of an R18+ rating rather than more pressing matters that would affect the wider community rather than a small portion of society. Now don't get me wrong, now and than i have gamed and most of my friends are gamers themselves but it worries me when a lot of anger and hatred is being directed to one man, Michael Atkinson. Its not enough for you people that in2008,Atkinsonintroduced legislation aimed at increasing the rights of victims of crime which would greatly affect the community positively.

But No

Because Gamers weren't allowed to have an R18+ rating which would open the door for Game Developers to make games that borderline on Pornography gamers start a campaign of hate and bias towards Michael Atkinson and the Labor Party., I say pornography not in the sense of Strong Sexual activity being portrayed, I say it in the sense that it could be considered pornographic in its glorification of violence, suicide and other adult themes. Now again, don't get me wrong; i am not assuming that all R18+ games would incorporate these themes to an extent of which i described, i am just suggesting that such a classification would ultimately make it much easier for games of this nature to be passed for classification. Such games could damage those with mental illnesses, it could damage children and it could in turn damage society.

Now i have heard an argument against what i just said, that an R18+ classification would protect these people. But i ask you, would it? Would it really protect them? If an MA15+ rating suggests that the customer must be either accompanied by a parent or Guardian or that they must be over 15 years of age. Than surely children must be protected from games of these nature?

Hardly,

When i used to play Modern Warfare 2 i came across many minors who openly would talk about the 'No Russian' mission and talk about it in a way which would make it sound glorified.The virtual massacre of hundreds at an airport is considered at a standard to pass this classification, what would make you suggest that if Parents would purchase a game of such nature in content that they wouldn't think twice before buying their child that one game they've been dying to get?

Where is the line drawn? Sure, when an MA15+ red colour code was introduced, parents were actually more aprehensive to buy these games for them but this trend stopped; nowadays seeing a minor playing an MA15+ game on Xbox Live is as common as ever. Initially an R18+ rating would have a positive effect on informed choices but than the trend would stop, just like the colour codes.

Now i do understand that these views may be seen to most gamers as 'ignorant' or 'conservative' and usually i am for civil liberties when it comes to the right to access uncensored media but i believe that Video Games fall under a different category that needs to be assessed to how it can impact when you assume the role of an Avatar or Character within in a game and when you are accountable for what goes on, wether it be in an FPS, Racing Game, Sports, RTS, RPG ect it does need to be taken account for the potential damage it can cause.

Hopefully these opinions of mine will be understood (not to say that my intention is to force people to embrace them) and hopefully people will understand how hypocritical it is when I am CENSORED by GAMERS who are AGAINST CENSORING VIDEO GAMES for voicing an opinion.

"Voice your opinion, Start a Blog"

Or as i see it, "Voice your opinion (as long as it is bias towards what we would want you to believe on this site), Start a Blog