Game classification review

March 21, 2005

Here we have another call for an R-rating on computer games. It just makes sense. Given the amount of press that the issue gets from both the tech-publications and the mainstream press, I can’t believe something hasn’t been done yet.

The main problem, I think, is the lack of understanding from those who can make the decision:

While she has not yet seen or played Narc, Electronic Frontiers Australia executive director Irene Graham said those types of games are the reason video game classification laws should be mirror laws of film and other media. “There is a desperate need for an R (restricted) classification for computer games in Australia,” she said.

The operative phrase here is While she has not yet seen or played. This is even from someone supporting the decision, let alone those wanting to keep banning games from sale. The marketing spiel doesn’t help the cause either. From the trigger article earlier today:
A spokesman for Sony defended the game, saying it was “a classic good-versus-evil game” that showed the destructive power of drugs.

Bullshit. Just admit that the game contains strong drug references and join the push for a higher rating. Nobody defends FPS games on the basis of their self-defence properties (except maybe America’s Army) or porn on it’s anatomy education merits.

The people with the ability to change things need to realise that the growing market is for older gamers, who demand games at their level, not just the next Mario game. We will continue to have games banned (and subsequentially pirated, another story) as long as this continues.
It is that simple.

Posted in General