Why am I not allowed to play violent videogames?
Written by Ben Salter
Hot off the heals of Left 4 Dead 2 being refused classification, and effectively banned, in Australia yesterday I am left wondering why am I not allowed to play these games? This is not a new thought, nor is it one that’ll be resolved in the near future.
The R18+ rating for videogames debate is going only going to grow stronger as more and more games are not allowed to be sold in Australia, as they are deemed inappropriate for 15-year-olds. We’re meant to be living in a free nation, and yet as an adult I cannot chose what games to play. I can waste away on alcohol; I can gamble away my life savings, I can watch terribly graphic movies, and yet I cannot play in a virtual world, a world made up of rendered, not human as they are in movies, characters.
I can watch a crazed murderer take to an innocent victim with a chainsaw in a film but cannot do this in real life (every since Resident Evil 4 there's been something about chainsaws in games with me). In the middle of that, should I be allowed to control a virtual character doing it in a videogame? That seems to be what we, and the non-gaming government, cannot decide on. I can kill characters in games, even those controlled by other people, with guns and relatively known weapons, but the minute that turns to "high impact violence” it is instantly not allowed in this country. What’s the difference? I’ve still killed them, and I can watch this type of graphic violence in a film (which is a lot more graphic when it happens with real people).
15-year-olds can watch films like Saw. Should they
be allowed to play violent games like Left 4 Dead 2?What annoys me more is that a lot of this so called ‘high impact violence’ is fine in films that 15-year-olds are allowed to see. Many of the Saw movies are MA15+, and I’m sure they have a lot more “frenetic and unrelenting violence” than Left 4 Dead 2. Real people portray this violence; surely one could argue that it’s much worse than a graphic character doing the same thing (or in many cases something that isn’t as bad)? Interactivity is what they’ll say, but I can yell at my TV demanding a screwdriver to that face. I would still have the same motive even if I didn’t have the same control. The Internet, and web 2.0, is full of interactivity. We can jump onto forums and discuss our favourite parts of graphic movies and send messages to the creators telling them what we’d love to see in sequels; this too is a form of interactivity.
This leaves me thinking, surely there’s more to it than the interactive argument, and there’s no way you’ll convince me violence in a game is too realistic, especially when compared to a film. Is it because gaming stereotypes still exist? While we know the days of being labelled the school nerd for playing Tetris are over (because everyone in school now plays Tetris is the crazy sales are anything to go by), does the government? Must we all suffer because one guy in America plays Doom then goes on a shooting rampage at his school?
Our culture, in general, has a violent mindset for entertainment purposes. The highest rating shows on TV involve criminal violence, shows such as CSI and 24 have a massive supporter base, and yet we haven’t seen an influx in the amount of people getting their knee caps shot to make them talk. However, if I did that in a game would I be more likely to in real life? Research and common sense points to no, but that hasn’t changed anything.
We have an increasingly violent entertainment culture
in other mediums. Why aren't gamers
offered the same luxury? I want to play violent games like left 4 Dead 2, but I am not a violent person. They haven’t made me more violent and I’m by no means addicted. While I like them I also like the more family friendly titles. Recently I’ve been playing LittleBigPlanet and Scribblenauts, which are fun for the whole family. Similarly I like violent movies like Saw, but at the same time I also enjoy light-hearted films like Up. I’m not going to turn into a maladjusted teenager from playing these games. I’m not going to end up sitting in my room being anti-social playing them 24/7 (although the whole games, and the Internet, being antisocial thing really annoys me. We play with friends online, we chat online, it’s a new form of being social that we fit into our busy lives. Not that it should take over going out on weekends, but that’s an argument for another time). I doubt the people in their 20s and 30s who want to play these are going to suffer from these either.
The average gamer in 30. That stat is thrown around all the time, and so it should be. To be honest, we don’t care if the OFLC says a game is not suitable for a 15-year-old, especially those of us who have celebrated our 18th birthday (or can grow an epic beard, I never could in my underage days). Yes, I could argue all day that these younglings are allowed to view films that are far more violent than the videogames we want to play, but I know - the whole interactivity thing. So I’ll give up on that and go back to the R18+ rating for videogames. It always comes back to this. Every time a game is banned it gets brought up; we feel one step closer to getting the rating introduced, then someone comes along and crushes us back down to where we were (not mentioning any names *cough* Michael Atkinson *cough*). Fortunately Left 4 Dead has a massive Australian following, so we may be in with our best chance yet of pushing the case for an R18+ rating for games further than it’s ever gone before.
Movies are for all ages, including adults; games are for all ages, including adults. It looks clear-cut to us; hopefully the powers to be see it that way as well sooner rather than later. I don’t expect them to agree with me that some of these games (some, by no means all) may be acceptable for 15-year-olds if some MA15+ movies are, but I do hope they realise that we need laws that allow an adult medium to accommodate adults.
Tags:
4
Dead
games
ICC
Left
MA15+
OFLC
R18+
Rating
Saw
Violent