I’m pretty sure people have heard of Muchael Atkinson before. He’s that idiot with that stupid grin on his face:
Ewwww
Yes, that’s the guy.
Recently, gaming news site GameSpot wanted an interview with Atkinson but didn’t get one. Instead, they got a written essay-like response, not directly answering their questions, but arguing why he doesn’t want the R18+ rating for computer games.
So, first paragraph:
I don’t support the introduction of an R18+ rating for electronic games, chiefly because it will greatly increase the risk of children and vulnerable adults being exposed to damaging images and messages.
Fair enough. Seems logical enough at first.
He goes on to say how the R18+ is bad because:
- Gaming is more interactive (which I agree), therefore, more violence, sex, gore etc. which will be allowed in the R18+ rating will affect kids greatly (which I disagree to). Keeping the highest rating at MA15+ will force developers to edit the levels of such things.
- He believes gamers can find “better” alternatives; that entertainment containing the “bad stuff” is not necessary in entertainment.
- To paraphrase: “It’s like we’re banning ALL games… duh! Only some!”
- It affects children and vulnerable people (read: people with mental disabilities).
- Once that R18+ game gets into the house, parents won’t be able to control their kids in what they play and what they don’t play.
- Society is already violent enough! Like we need anymore violence.
- I’m getting support letters on not allowing the R18+ rating, so it’s okay to ignore what the opposition has to say.
- His eldest son is getting sucked into games, and Atkinson hates it.
I hope Atkinson realises that the R18+ rating is going to come… just so you know.
Some points from me: I don’t like how Atkinson is going about this. He makes games look evil, as if the majority of games are ultra-violent and the like, and an R18+ rating will only make it worse. So he thinks the way to solve this is by banning. I’m not sure about other people, but to me, banning is a form of censorship. Even if the game gets released under the MA15+ rating, will that make it better? No. Everything that Atkinson hates in the games will still be there. Just at a lower level. But with the same amount of influence. It’s like catching a cold. You could sit next to someone who’s recovering or right in the middle of one. If you breath enough of the virus (is the cold a virus?), you will still infect yourself with it, regardless.
When I read the paragraph about his 22 year old son playing games, I figured that that’s where most most of the his argument comes from: his own personal experiences within a very limited range. What’s a bet he hasn’t even directly talked to gamers who play these ultra-violent games that he so condemns? Oh, and he also mentions that his son becomes physically and emotionally obsessed with them. I can get the emotional side of them, but the physical part of it? What does your son do with those game cases?!
Much of these arguments and Atkinson himself reminds me of those far-right Christians who think that abstinence is the only way to go. That it’s better to spread lies than the actual truth, and from that way, scare them into not having sex.
Bottom line: When the hardcore games make their way home in whichever way, it is up to the parent to educate their child(ren) on things like violence and sex, and it’s the parents’ responsibility to make sure their kids aren’t playing those games. Not Atkinson’s. What Atkinson can do however, is to educate parents on each rating, and what is suitable for their children, so parents can make informed decisions on what games to buy their kids when they’re hammering for it.
Posted by Wendy Voltaire 
Posted by Wendy Voltaire 
Posted by Wendy Voltaire 
