Michael Atkinson Responds
A couple of weeks ago Michael Atkinson had a lengthy discussion on some comments posted on gaming blog, Kotaku. For the first time he made some very in-depth public remarks about his position. Now that the heat had died down and Mr Atkinson has moved on, I think it's important we examine what's been said to get a better understanding of his position.
Key Points
Feedback from gamers that Mr Atkinson has received has been abusive and anonymous
Below is an except from a letter he sent to Kotaku regarding the site's comments.
"EzyLee opened the batting for those advocating an R18+ classification for games by deriding my appearance. JW says I am "a dirty smiling twit." Juggernautz says "You are an ignorant coward." Ben says I am "a bully protected by the law." Allure Media and Kotaku moderator David Wildgoose think this is an appropriate tone for the debate and so it continues. At 8.09 p.m. Shawn says "What is it with all these threats to his life. Does he really think ppl (people) give a damn about him." Dateman at 8.59 p.m. says: "So when are they going to patch GTA (Grand Theft Auto) so Atkinson is a pedestrian? (i.e. run him down with a vehicle and kill him)". Are none of the advocates of an R18+ classification for games - including the two Attorneys-General - worried about death threats and the kind of anonymous cyber-rage in which their comrades are engaging? If you are, why don't you say so? Why is the site's moderator letting this kind of thing through?"
Mr Atkinson has agreed to an R18+ discussion paper, but there is friction over its content.
"I agreed to the discussion paper last year. I want the discussion paper to include depictions of actual games, including the types of games that are currently above the MA15+ rating. I intend to take my version of the paper to other ministers at the next Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) in Canberra in April so they can decide whether it will be released. I hope Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls doesn't stop the discussion paper's being released in April."
Mr Atkinson agrees that there are complexities involved with the demographics of gamers. Moreover he states that sophisticated games don't require extreme violence or sexual defilement.
"I may be labouring the point, Terry, but, Yes, I know adults play computer games and have said so many times. Why must you put words in my mouth that I have not uttered? Indeed, a generation has now grown up with computer games and I realise how complicated they can be because I have four children playing them in my household. Terry claims: "Those mature adults are not, I might add, playing simplistic arcade-style shoot-em-ups. Mr Atkinson is erroneous if he thinks so." Again, Terry has just made this up and verballed me. I have not thought or said any such thing. It is not surprising that those who enjoyed gaming as children go on playing into adult life and, indeed, play electronic games with their own children (as I do). Added to this, games grow ever more sophisticated, challenging and entertaining, and accordingly more attractive to adult players. There are many, many games that are strategic and challenging without requiring extreme violence or sexual defilement."
Mr Atkinson is concerned that R18+ will make violent games more accessible to children, rather than less.
"To my mind, a child being able to watch ultra-violence and sexual defilement in a movie is damaging to the child, but a child participating in ultra-violence or sexual defilement, or both, in a computer game is worse. Moreover, playing a game with on-screen violence makes violence part of their everyday lives and what is especially concerning is that this is the gamer's recreation."
Commentary
First of all, I think it's fantastic the Mr Atkinson took the time to address the issue so thoroughly. It's clear he's quite engaged and willing to openly discuss the topic. His points are not unfounded and gamers who continue to insult him are only serving to cement his poor image of us. Which brings me onto the first point; the majority of gamers are not represented by the comments posted in poorly moderated blog comments. People in anonymous communities tend to say the first thing that comes into their head. User comments are not the place for genuine discourse on the topic. This is why we really need to see the discussion paper out in the open so that there can be some reasonable feedback provided to the Standing Commission of Attorney Generals.
Secondly, I largely agree with Mr Atkinson's points. I do believe that violent games have more impact on children, if due to the larger percentage time that is spent on them. However, I disagree that an R18+ rating will make these violent games more accessible. As Mr Atkinson states, very few games are actually banned from Australia. When you compare the games classifications in Australia to other countries, it's clear that the Classification Board is stretching the MA15+ rating beyond reasonable measure. When games get past the RC classification and into the MA15+ rating, it's because they've had some minor technical change (like Morphine use removed in Fallout 3) not to remove the excess violence. These games deserve to be classified in the R18+ rating. If it existed the Classification Board would not be squeezing games into the lower ratings. This has been the key point we're trying to address in EveryonePlays and I believe it should be the platform that we continue to push on when the R18+ discussion paper is released.
