Can’t see the game for the pixels

In dealing with these issues the Classification Boards (previously, Office of Film and Literature Classification - OFLC) responds to the broad brush of “adult themes” in assessing gambling, sexist or prejudicial overtones. However, this means issues such as racism generally take a backseat to something like explicit violence. For example, in contrast to the PEGI 18 rating, the game SWAT: Target Liberty received an OFLC rating of M (mild coarse language and violence) with no mention of its explicitly racist overtones.

Likewise, the Grand Theft Auto series - a subject of famed OFLC controversy - has been rejected or classified MA15+ in Australia for it gratuitous violence and adult themes with little if any mention of the racist depictions of Hispanics and African Americans that requires it to have descriptor warnings in the US. In both examples, the racist stereotypes did not feature in the classification decisions.

This reality seems at odds with the Classification Board’s stated aim of “reflecting community standards” in a multicultural Australia. And while the Classification Act provides the basis for decision making, one has to question the integrity of a system that doesn’t seem able to reflect some of our basic social values.

It is an odd state of affairs that explicit depictions of violence are seemingly heeded while issues of racial prejudice are not. The irony being that prejudicial material that encourages discrimination probably requires a deeper maturity or understanding and hence an older age classification than the MA15+ these games are often given for their “mild violence”.

The level of gaming “addictability” is also an issue not addressed by any of the classification systems. The word is used to describe the compelling intensity or compulsive enjoyment of a game. It is a common phrase in gaming vernacular and often used as a marketing ploy by publishers and graded by reviewers in rating a game.

This addictiveness also reflects the growing phenomenon of internet or gaming compulsive disorder. The phenomenon lacks detailed scientific research, but as a growing social health issue, it should inform the context of policy, procedural process and individual consent decisions.

“Gaming addiction” is an aspect to gaming that should not be overlooked in this public policy debate. The Classification Board should be assisting individuals’ and parents’ decision making. If further academic research is required then this should also inform policy decisions not limit them. If the gaming industry sees fit to use it in a commercialism of the media then public policy should necessarily be responding to it not ignoring it.

Unfortunately, while governments need to limit policy development and consultation frameworks, in this instance the lack of depth to the issues will result in short-sighted policy decisions. The opportunity to impact on classification policy should not be passed by government or the wider community.

In many respects gamers and the industry are correct in asserting that the lack of an adult rating for gaming reflects a simplistic understanding of the media. However, this depth of understanding has not exactly been explained either.

While the terms of the public consultation on gaming classification focuses on the inclusion of an R18+ rating, we should not be stopping there. It is clear more detail thought and policy is required to cover the fast evolving gaming media.

The only adequate outcome of the consultation, a result that should please both sides of the debate, is a more thorough and appropriate classification system. One that will take more time, but expands on the policy and doesn’t just stick with the status quo.