Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Australia Reveals R18+ Video Game Guidelines

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the john-rau-has-julian-assange-hair dept.

Australia 67

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Finally! (1)

Zalchiah (914703) | more than 3 years ago | (#36257930)

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.

Re:Finally! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36258270)

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).

Re:Finally! (1)

crafty.munchkin (1220528) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259122)

You got the new Mortal Kombat. Now STFU.

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36259878)

Grow up.

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36261332)

Develop a sense of humour.

Re:Finally! (5, Informative)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 3 years ago | (#36258306)

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/ [kotaku.com.au]

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/ [australian...bby.org.au]

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.

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36258904)

Jim Wallace does have the democratic right to push the agenda of conservative christians and let him be removed from his position if he is out of touch with ACL and its members. That said unfortunately (IMHO) Australia is not a christian nation and is well over due for an 18+ rating on games.

I'm am a very casual pc gamer and either way will not affect me personally, unless we have a few columbine massacres etc...

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36259632)

AC again...
why the -1?
Who didnt like what I said? Was it untrue or unfair? Care to elaborate or just trying to get rid of mod points?

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36259686)

Gonna guess it was "unfortunately (IMHO) Australia is not a christian nation" that got you modded down. Nobody likes a theocrat, least of all the people who read slashdot. Even most of the christians that post here preface the mere mention of their faith by distancing themselves from their more intolerant brethren.

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36259828)

Yeah you are probably correct, only posting as AC because im on a different machine and dont know my username/password. Seems strange that in spite of my religious beliefs I agree we need an 18+ rating though. Maybe someone cannot appreciate that I am agreeing with them because of the mention of religion... not a great use of mod points in this particular thread...

Meh!

Re:Finally! (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36260416)

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.

Re:Finally! (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261306)

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.

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36262620)

And yet, "Before each sitting of parliament, they recite The Lord's Prayer." Go figure.

Re:Finally! (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262882)

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!

Re:Finally! (2)

donaldm (919619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259316)

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 [wikipedia.org] . 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.

Re:Finally! (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259928)

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.

Re:Finally! (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36266074)

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.

Oh no! (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 3 years ago | (#36257934)

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.

Re:Oh no! (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259930)

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

About Time.... (2)

BatGnat (1568391) | more than 3 years ago | (#36257944)

About Time....

it has been ridiculous not having one...

John Rau is an idiot (1)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 3 years ago | (#36257978)

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

Re:John Rau is an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36258186)

Why shouldn't we get rid of MA15+? It's only around so that game publishers can market violent video games to children.

Re:John Rau is an idiot (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36258272)

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

Re:John Rau is an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36258386)

Well movies also have MA15+, it makes sense to keep them the same. Mind you, having both M15+ and MA15+ ratings is confusing. They should get rid of the age reference in them.

Re:John Rau is an idiot (1)

srodden (949473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36258478)

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.

Re:John Rau is an idiot (2)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259116)

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.

Re:John Rau is an idiot (1)

srodden (949473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259170)

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.

Re:John Rau is an idiot (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259192)

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.

Re:John Rau is an idiot (1)

srodden (949473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259246)

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+.

Re:John Rau is an idiot (2)

sincewhen (640526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261162)

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.

Gory psycho can still be denied. (2)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261296)

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)

Re:Gory psycho can still be denied. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36293254)

RC = Refused Classification = "not suitable for anyone" = "illegal to sell", which is the current problem (we do not have a rating for "suitable for adults, but not children", therefore everything that is not suitable for children is refused classification and effectively banned).

R = R18+ = Restricted = "suitable for adults, but not children" = "must be 18+ and have proof of age to purchase", which is the proposal in this case, and the equivalent of the movie rating.

The discussion about "whether normal stores will carry this" is around the proposed R (18+) rating (i.e. whether stores want to carry adult-only material, deal with the overhead of ID checks, etc).

The section you quote from the draft proposal refers to material that will continue to be refused classification, and therefore not legally available anywhere, regardless of age.

Its understandable that you've confused the two due to R and RC being very similar, but since you've clearly conflated two very different concepts, to avoid further confusion I'd suggest forgetting everything you think you know about the discussion, and start again from the beginning.

Does it matter? (1)

Luke727 (547923) | more than 3 years ago | (#36258112)

We have the nefarious AO rating here in the states. None of the console makers will license a game with such a rating, so it is a de facto ban.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36258180)

haha

console makers

PCs rule.

By whos standards? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36258244)

This guideline offends my morality, decency and propriety.

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

Re:By whos standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36258430)

That's the problem. If you look at porn laws in north america, it says basically everything where person is 18 or over and has consented is ok .... As long as it meets the moral standards of the average population.

Its very much vague. Strangely, if an image is in a museum its fine. If the same image were only in Playboy .... Illegal!

Re:By whos standards? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36258670)

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

Is it? [thehill.com]

Re:By whos standards? (1)

black3d (1648913) | more than 3 years ago | (#36258700)

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.

Re:By whos standards? (3, Interesting)

snookums (48954) | more than 3 years ago | (#36258616)

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.

Re:By whos standards? (1)

black3d (1648913) | more than 3 years ago | (#36258652)

"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.

Re:By whos standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36259456)

Just because every other country does it that way.. Does not make it a good idea.

Sounds like they could use it to 'ban' anything for any reason at all.
Including not being paid a bribe by the game company. Oh wait. political contribution. thats the pc term for bribe. gotta be pc.

It's a bullshit nothing rule and your politicians are wasting everyones time. again.

Gamers are golfers (1)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 3 years ago | (#36258352)

Most gamers are off-season golfers, right? And golf is usually an older person's activity. Can't see why they need to bother with ratings at all.

CL (-1, Offtopic)

jelish (2074324) | more than 3 years ago | (#36258380)

The Christian Louboutin Heels [christian-...n-heels.us] can help you become sexy and elegant. It is especially suitable for the women who wear the christian louboutin evening [christian-...n-heels.us] shoes at the first time. These christian louboutin pumps [christian-...n-heels.us] combine top quality, reasonable price and fashional design, which is your best choice!Welcome to our christian louboutin store [christian-...n-heels.us] !

How about PG18+? (2)

bronney (638318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36258752)

Huh? Yay? Nay?

Re:How about PG18+? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36258778)

Because anyone 18+ should not need Parental Guidance.

Re:How about PG18+? (1)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259140)

Because anyone 18+ should not need Parental Guidance.

Exactly. There are nanny-state laws for that.

Re:How about PG18+? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36262106)

Because anyone 18+ should not need Parental Guidance.

Okay, but what if your parents are under 18 and that's not enough to give guidance on some games? Surely we need a label for that. And maybe a GPG for where guidance should be sought from grandparents (I doubt we'd need an additional GPG18+ requirement though - maybe GPG35+)?

Re:How about PG18+? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36258984)

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.

DNF (4, Funny)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | more than 3 years ago | (#36258934)

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

Re:DNF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36259328)

please don't jinx DNF. I have been waiting for that for over a decade. Instead of laughing something off as "suuuure that's happen the same day Duke Nukem forever is released" to "that will happen the day Australia gets an R18+ for games". The guidelines are just draft and it only takes one AG to scuttle the plans.

Re:DNF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36260794)

It's actually already been classified as MA, surprisingly.

They're the same? (2)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259052)

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.

Re:They're the same? (1)

unreadepitaph (1537383) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259816)

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.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36265666)

except where it offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety

So... maybe they'll allow some of that. Which is pretty much the situation we have now.

except where it offends against the standards of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36259058)

Who's standards? My standards are pretty fucken low.

More Violence (0, Troll)

taucross (1330311) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259278)

I for one welcome this. If there was anything missing from video games, it was violence. Whatever sucks about gaming now can be fixed with more violence. Sometimes when I look at the news I think that there's not enough violence, so I'm glad that video games in Australia can now fill that gap. For violence, I mean.

Re:More Violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36259382)

I think it's ridiculous that they block (which they deem) high levels of violence or realistic violence. They allow all sorts of horror and gore movies doing things that you'd have nightmares of, but we're not allowed to play games where we can rip out some guys guts or lodge a knife into him and see the blood spew out?

Re:More Violence (1)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259496)

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).

Re:More Violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36259510)

You misunderstand. Violence was never what they censored. The most graphically horrendous violent titles pass MA15. The most crude sex passes MA15.

Its when there were adult themes that actually gave context and meaning to violence or sex was when it became an issue.

Australia absolutely is (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259626)

John Rau, however, is not.

Now that is weasel word if I know it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36259872)

"except where it offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety"

And guess what ? That means they can decide at any arbitrary time that game xyz do not match those "standard" and ban it arbitrarly. After all those standard are not really described point by point in the law, so any classification group can make up any bullshit reason why it does not match the foggy "standard" of "morality" (is there even enough scare quote in that sentence?). So my best guess if they really want to push an agenda very hard, they can declare all game they subjectively don't like against the "standard" and have the standard a moving target enough so that 18+ is a joke.

Re:Now that is weasel word if I know it (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36259942)

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).

abolish the classification board (2)

timbo234 (833667) | more than 3 years ago | (#36260124)

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.

"morality, decency and propriety" (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36260670)

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).

Re:"morality, decency and propriety" (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261658)

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.

Re:"morality, decency and propriety" (1)

lucian1900 (1698922) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263092)

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.

Re:"morality, decency and propriety" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36293342)

ignoring the video games oddity for a moment, my broad understanding of the difference between american and australian ratings is that the australian rating systems are much less restrictive on sex in itself, but very restrictive when sex and violence are combined.

i get the sense that consensual sex is considered much worse than murder/violence in america, but that's not the case in australia.

i also get the sense that canadian restrictions are more similar to our australian ones than they are to the american ones

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?