In the article Aktinson describes older children as being from the ages 18-30... wtf... how old is Aktinson, like 85?

so let me get this straight, he's saying that having a rating system intended to protect kids from this kinda material will actually enable easier access to it?

its not complicated.

if the game can't be sold in australia its harder to get.

"From a sales POV I don't see how games should be any different from cigarettes. The only problem I see there is education and training (=cost) and no doubt a govt dept to look after it (like liquor and smokes)."

No, he implies its impossible to regulate who plays games once they are bought. unlike movies (at the cinemas)

"In cinemas, the age of moviegoers can be regulated, and at the video store people must provide ID to hire R18+ videos. Once electronic games are in the home, access to them cannot be policed and the games are easily accessible to children... ...This means games belonging to older children or parents can easily make their way into the hands of those under 18.

No. no matter how much you want a video game to condition someone against real life violence and death, it's not going to happen. (as far as I read in the psyc studies)

For instance, if a person's been playing CS 24/7 for most of his life, if he's holding a dead and mutilated child in a warzone, he's going to be as much affected by it as a non-gamer.

The present experiment demonstrates that violent video
game exposure can cause desensitization to real-life vio-
lence. In this experiment, violent game players were less
physiologically aroused by real-life violence than were non-
violent game players. It appears that individuals who play
violent video games habituate or “get used to” all the vio-
lence and eventually become physiologically numb to it.

The effect of video game violence on physiological
desensitization to real-life violence
Nicholas L. Carnagey a,¤, Craig A. Anderson b, Brad J. Bushman c
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (2007) 489–496

The purpose of the present study was to examine relationships among violence exposure in the
media and in real-life and desensitization as reflected in empathy and attitudes toward violence.
As anticipated, exposure to video game violence was associated with lower empathy and stronger
proviolence attitudes. This finding provides further support for concern about children’s exposure
to video game violence, particularly if granted that lower empathy and stronger proviolence
attitudes indicate desensitization to violence. In violent video games empathy is not adaptive,
moral evaluation is often non-existent, but proviolence attitudes and behaviors are repeatedly
rewarded. Even if children with pre-existing lower empathy and stronger proviolence attitudes are
simply drawn to violent video games, this exposure is unlikely to improve empathy or decrease
proviolence attitudes.

Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies,
and the internet: is there desensitization?
Jeanne B. Funk*, Heidi Bechtoldt Baldacci, Tracie Pasold, Jennifer Baumgardner
Department of Psychology, The University of Toledo, 2801 West Bancroft, Toledo, OH, USA
Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 23–39

Two studies examined violent video game effects on aggression-related variables. Study 1 found that real-life
violent video game play was positively related to aggressive behavior and delinquency. The relation was
stronger for individuals who are characteristically aggressive and for men. Academic achievement was
negatively related to overall amount of time spent playing video games. In Study 2, laboratory exposure to a
graphically violent video game increased aggressive thoughts and behavior. In both studies, men had a more
hostile view of the world than did women. The results from both studies are consistent with the General
Affective Aggression Model, which predicts that exposure to violent video games will increase aggressive
behavior in both the short term (e.g., laboratory aggression) and the long term (e.g., delinquency).

... Violent video games provide a forum for learning and practicing
aggressive solutions to conflict situations. The effect of violent
video games appears to be cognitive in nature. In the short term,
playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by
priming aggressive thoughts. Longer-term effects are likely to be
longer lasting as well, as the player learns and practices new
aggression-related scripts that become more and more accessible
for use when real-life conflict situations arise... the active
nature of the learning environment of the video game
suggests that this medium is potentially more dangerous than the
more heavily investigated TV and movie media. With the recent
trend toward greater realism and more graphic violence in video
games and the rising popularity of these games, consumers of
violent video games (and parents of consumers) should be aware
of these potential risks.

Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in
the Laboratory and in Life
Craig A. Anderson Karen E. Dill
Lenoir-Rhyne College
University of Missouri----Columbia

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
2000, Vol. 78, No. 4, 772-790

Phooks aren't you still in school?

Study 1 found that real-life violent video game play was positively related to aggressive behavior and delinquency.

Another problem that hasn't been discussed is the fact that a lot of the people selling video games are under 18 themselves.

I'm assuming that they wouldn't be permitted to sell or have access to R-rated gear which would be a bit of a pain in the arse for retailers. Would the R-games end up in the smokes cabinet at BigW? Would we be OK with an R-rating if it meant paying more for games to cover the associated costs of securing & stocking the restricted titles?

The current system caps out at the age kids can start work which avoids this issue.

The argument really comes down to this, should adults be prevented from having R18+ game content to protect children. Any other argument is missing the point.

Regardless of how right he may or may not be about the dangers, he fucked up when he tried to use movie ratings to defend his point of view.

Which is why I was pointing out the biggest flaw in his argument, the R18+ content he wants to keep out of reach of children, is already well within their reach and is sitting on store shelves brandishing an MA15+ sticker. By not having that rating, its in fact much easier for children to get access to the content he is trying to protect them from.

Prohibition doesn't work. eg. US and alcohol actually made gangs like mafia much more powerful then would otherwise have been.

The fact that he acknowledges movie ratings as being ok, then proceeds to point out a condition that is exactly the same for games is clearly a contradiction and an error in judgment that calls into question the validity of the rest of his opinion.

It still worked. If its harder to do and its punishable by law if you do, then far less people are going to do it. It still being available on the black market isn't the same as it being openly and legally available. Do you understand the difference?

The argument really comes down to this, should adults be prevented from having R18+ game content to protect children. Any other argument is missing the point.

You just don't get it Obes. Why do I need to prove anything?

You can't argue on one hand that games have more effect on children than movies in terms of interaction, but then say that the ma15+ rating given to saving private ryan justifies the same rating for gory video-game shooters.