Dear Michael,

I write this letter to address your recent comments regarding the lack of an R18 certificate in Australia, particularly in regards to the following excerpt;

"It certainly does restrict choice to a small degree, but that is the price of keeping this material from children and vulnerable adults. In my view, the small sacrifice is worth it,"

‘Restricts choice to a small degree’. Interesting. What is your definition of small? I ask because the Classification Board has this year refused classification on four games, Risen, Necrovision, Sexy Poker, and Left 4 Dead 2. In a single year, the Classification Board has refused classification to twice as many games as the British Board of Film Classification has in the 23 years since it first rated a video game. This appears to be a huge disparity between two similar countries, and I wonder if you would have any comment to make on that?

As far as keeping such material from children goes, well isn’t that the point of a ratings board certifying products in the first place? It decides the suitability of a film or game for children of various ages, up to the point of it being adults only. Indeed, the National Classification code includes the line: “adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want”

So why are you denying adults the opportunity to play a video game, simply on the grounds that children might get hold of it? Children might get hold of R18 films, alcohol and pornography, but all of these are offered for sale in Australia. In fact, the guideline for an R18 film reads: “Films (except RC films and X 18+ films) that are unsuitable for a minor to see.” There is then an X18+ certificate above that before a film will be Refused Classification.

Given that the descriptors for G, PG, M and MA15+ are identical for films and video games, why then the jump straight to RC for video games? Why do they not get the same treatment as film, which enjoys a further two ratings?

Finally, onto the comment about: "People are participating and 'acting-out' violence and criminal behaviour when they are playing a videogame." I feel that it’s best to let David Cooke, Director of the BBFC answer this, with his comments on the report commissioned by the BBFC in 2007:

“The element of interactivity in games carries some weight when we are considering a video game. We were particularly interested to see that this research suggests that, far from having a potentially negative impact on the reaction of the player, the very fact that they have to interact with the game seems to keep them more firmly rooted in reality. People who do not play games raise concerns about their engrossing nature, assuming that players are also emotionally engrossed. This research suggests the opposite; a range of factors seems to make them less emotionally involving than film or television. The adversaries which players have to eliminate have no personality and so are not real and their destruction is therefore not real, regardless of how violent that destruction might be.”

You can read the full report here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/pub/Policy%20and%20Research/BBFC%20Video...

I’m not sure how, given the weight of evidence, you can stand by the inconsistencies in the Australian approach to classifying film and video games. I call on you to stand aside, and allow for a debate on the classification system, a debate which you have so far stifled.

If your points are more valid than mine, then in a public debate your argument will win out. That which grows in the shadows, but withers in the light of day does not belong on the vine. If your argument is as strong as you believe sir, then present it in a public debate.

Yours,

Alex Walker