You Know, reading it i was thinking wow, he’s actually written something well thought out and some of his arguments are almost valid. but then he goes and ends it like that! he just owns himself by doing so. he’s spent 6 pages arguing his case, and then he pretty much says, well it doesn;t matter in the big scheme of things – THEN WHY OPPOSE IT?!?!?!?! – I hope gamers4croydon” get in, i really, really do.

I could be easily led to believe that an entire PR or “political spin” department could have been put to work to produce Atkinson’s letter. It’s not often that a journalist would provide such a large amount of unneeded material to try and backup their argument, but perhaps our politicians are still coming to grips with concepts such as “subtlety” or “killing the pig”, or perhaps Atkinson believes most of his constituents are intellectually handicapped or easily lead.

The other argument about the Wii being successful and lacking violent games (umm … i don’t have kids but if i did, they wouldn’t be playing House of the Dead – Overkill or MadWorld … even if they are wholesome family entertainment ). But the argument is a fallacy – Holden Commodores are selling great, lets ban Ford Falcons (or vice versa). The argument is wrong on several levels – 1) the Wii is made by Nintendo and primarily Nintendo titles are what sell, so there is an issue of competition which means the logic is flawed. 2) there are different markets… video games have come along enough that they can sustain not just kids but also adults, and as of late “casual gamers”, which personally i don’t think have a voice in this as yet, but we will see. Wii’s sell because they are a) a gimmick and b) socially acceptable – people play party games. It is a market neither the PS3 or Xbox360 has been addressing. Also, YES there are less violent games out for the Wii, so parents are probably more comfortable buying them (for their children OR their family), but that does not negate that others don’t want to play heavier games.

Ah yes and Rapelay. There is no reason to not refuse classification to games that deal with rape. That doesn’t mean games that involve sex (consentual OR otherwise) as part of their game should be. Rapelay is about arranging a rape, not about finding the rapist. It is a question of subject matter. I even buy the argument that dates back to the American Congress hearings into video game violence that the interactive nature heightens the impact, but we are not saying allow the market to be flooded with rape simulators but allow games to depict adult issues to adult gamers. I’d probably add that giving rapelay free publicity isn’t the best strategy.

Most excessively violent games, or which are just shameful to play are … poor. I personally can not think of a single game that was (to myself) cringeworthy that i would enjoy playing. Postal 2 (i don’t recall if it was released, censored or just not officially available in Australia) was utter crap, just like Postal before it. It was amusing in a sick way, but it isn’t something i would have spent money on after having played it, and deleted it fairly quickly after. Fallout3 though was very violent (and personally i think MA 15+ is too generous a rating, R18+ is probably more sensible, but hey, maybe a 21+ would be in order?) but the nature of the game is not that it is about killing, it is about survival. Postal on the other hand is about killing. I am not an expert but the way it is dressed up does make a difference. Fallout3 was refused classification NOT for the violence, but the names of drugs. Ok, i don’t disagree that fictitious names are preferable, but the message of “take drugs to be stronger, faster, whatever(er)” is still there and available to 15+ minors. Shooting people in the face for the sake of survival is fine, but the name on the drug’s label – that’s where we draw the line. Seriously?

I’m not an expert, and not a particularly conservative person (in fact I think i’m rather progressive) but in my book Fallout3 should have been rejected for violence. Mass Effect having intercourse in it, with a less bloody outlook was probably sensible for 15 year olds (ignoring the racist layer where killing aliens is ok). Grand Theft Auto, although less violent (than Fallout3 though heavier than Mass Effect) probably should not have been censored but instead released as R18+. BUT none of this matters anyway: PARENTS are letting their kids play games, because games are for kids, so what could that rating possibly mean. Oh and then the outrage – “i didn’t read the label, but the government shouldn’t have let them release this game in Australia”. Erm yes, it sure does suck how you have to do parenting yourself.

I want to see an adult rating system, possibly going higher than just 18+ to 21+ (which is in line with current discussions about alcohol), and in fact we need it. I know Doom was extremely realistic, but what we have today … yeah… we need our rating system to grow up. But Mr Atkinson: you are not protecting the children, you are angering adults. If anything we need to make MA 15+ stricter, but with the Australian demographic of gamers, that means we need an adult level AND that doesn’t mean we allow purely sexual, in particularly unconsensual, games.

The students knew it was a mock fight and they were probably happy to talk amongst themselves instead of watching the fight/providing assistance as it got them out of class time.

We’re in the 21st century and need to embrace all the new technology / media that is coming into mainstream society, especially in the rapidly growing gaming industry.