Comments on: Michael Atkinson Explains

By: Anthony

Anthony — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:18:58 +0000

Finally, I find a site that states their arguements properly in a way that makes logical sense (at least for the most part) – It’s hard to see how Atkinson’s kids playing games is relevant to his or your arguements. The problem is that most people just complain that they dont get the games they want, rather than argue against the policy. People, you will not get what you want by saying “its not fair, give me the game”.

Also, I have to disagree with the point:
“It keeps the extreme material off the shelves: …and instead puts it onto the internet, where, due to the publicity surrounding its ban, it is immediately, and illegally, downloaded by thousands of people, most of whom are far too young to be seeing it.”
You say the cause is the publicity…from who? Sites like these I believe. I just think you shot yourself in the foot there. I do not believe that making the R18+ will change this in the slightest.

Evan – Yes, parents do treat movies and tv different to games. Are you really that unobservant?

Clare – Don’t blame drug and alcohol problems on lack of gaming. You cannot say gaming stops the taking of drugs, or banning a couple of games a year will make drug problems worse. I mean seriously, I know people who take drugs only when they play video games as a social thing.

The most important reason to bring the R18+ rating in is to move all of the currently innappropriate games in the MA15+ and make them unobtainable for those who are under 18. Then you can put all the banned games in there with it. Its a win-win. If you demonstrate that, he really has no legs to stand on. But everyone keeps on with the “its not fair” which comes across as immature and selfish.

I personally think he is trying to cover the arses of idiot parents that don’t take enough notice or care about what games their kids play. Bring on the R18+ rating for the good of the community at large, not for the gamers who want their violent games. Love it or hate it, that’s my two cents.

By: clare

clare — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:37:55 +0000

Ah thank goodness for importing Silent Hill and dark sector, these are unedited. Banning games does not stop people getting the games, it just involes other means of purchasing the game. Michael is just wasting tax payers money.

another point i would like to make, people become addicted to games because of other problems, they use video games for away of escape. If there was not video games then there would be more people on drugs. More drugs = more violence. It does not take a dummy to realise this. However it is obvious Michael is dummer than your average dummy.

By: Evan

Evan — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:42:37 +0000

“Once electronic games are in the home, access to them cannot be policed and the games are easily accessible to children” – if an R18+ category was introduced (just like movies) so that a licence has to be shown to hire them, how is that these movies can be policed in the home but games can’t. Are the parents responsible and careful with movies but suddenly become inept when it comes to games? His reasoning makes no sense at all!

In fact, by parents using parental controls or passwords on consoles and computers there’s greater control possible than with movies.

By: R18+ Games Australia » Blog Archive » R18+ Rally in Adelaide

R18+ Games Australia » Blog Archive » R18+ Rally in Adelaide — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:32:54 +0000

[...] As you all know, Adelaide is the home of the South Australian Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson, chief opponent of an R18+ rating for games in [...]

By: alex

alex — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:57:47 +0000

This makes me -so- fuckin mad…….

This guy is such a .. rrr..

GNNARRRGGGHH…

*head asplodes*