
The revised guidelines for an R18+ rating have now been released and, as you’d expect, the language is vague and completely open to interpretation — that said, the guidelines do make extensive reference to the fact that the impact of games should be treated differently as a result of interactivity, which we find disappointing.
Ultimately, we’ll only be able to see the true validity of the new R18+ rating when it’s implemented. It’ll be interesting to see exactly how the Classification Board will apply these guidelines in the future.
The basic guidelines are as follows…
The Guidelines use the following hierarchy of impact:
• very mild - G
• mild - PG
• moderate - M
• strong - MA 15+
• high - R 18+
• very high - RC
Later the guidelines refer to which games will now be refused classification, and still cling to the argument that interactivity affects the level of impact.
Due to the interactive nature of computer games and the active repetitive involvement of the participant, as a general rule computer games may have a higher impact than similarly themed depictions of the classifiable elements in film, and therefore greater potential for harm or detriment, particularly to minors.
Interactivity may increase the impact of some content: for example, impact may be higher where interactivity enables action such as inflicting realistically depicted injuries or death or post-mortem damage, attacking civilians or engaging in sexual activity. Greater degrees of interactivity (such as first-person gameplay compared to third-person gameplay) may also increase the impact of some content.
Interactivity includes the use of incentives and rewards, technical features and competitive intensity.
Except in material restricted to adults, nudity and sexual activity must not be related to incentives or rewards.Computer games will be Refused Classification if they contain:
(i) illicit or proscribed drug use related to incentives or rewards;
(ii) interactive drug use which is detailed and realistic.
Later the guidelines go into more detail regarding the R18+ rating.
R 18+ – RESTRICTED
Impact test
The impact of material classified R 18+ should not exceed high.Note: Material classified R 18+ is legally restricted to adults. Some material classified R 18+ may be offensive to sections of the adult community.
Classifiable elements
THEMES
There are virtually no restrictions on the treatment of themes.VIOLENCE
Violence is permitted. High impact violence that is, in context, frequently gratuitous, exploitative and offensive to a reasonable adult will not be permitted.Sexual violence may be implied, if non-interactive and justified by context.
SEX
Sexual activity may be realistically simulated. The general rule is
“simulation, yes – the real thing, no”.LANGUAGE
There are virtually no restrictions on language.DRUG USE
Drug use is permitted.
Drug use related to incentives and rewards is not permitted.NUDITY
Nudity is permitted.
Ron Curry, the CEO of the iGEA was pleased at the progress of R18+, but raised some concerns about the discussion of interactivity.
“We are pleased to see this process moving forward and understand that great care has been taken to balance the concerns of those who have resisted an R18+ classification and adults who want to play video games designed specifically for mature audiences and readily available in other developed democracies,” he said.
“There will be continued debate about whether the interactivity of video games has a greater impact than other forms of media, and we will continue to refer to the lack of the evidence to support these claims,” he continued. “With that being said, we welcome the commitment from all parties involved to seek a reasonable outcome to address this longstanding issue.
“We now look forward to the Commonwealth, States and Territories implementing these guidelines in an expedient manner.”
You can look at the guidelines in their entirety here.

















yukon
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 3:56 PMthere was a study showing how pvp games increased players aggression. So maybe they can add that and ban first person shooters. mmos have also been likened to addictive poker machines, so maybe ban them too. dlc pack price gouging fuels corporate greed.
I think i like these classification guys. A few tweaks and maybe they’ll usher in a new era of 3rd person fantasy coop action games with only expansion dlc?
miniluv101
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 4:27 PMI always found it odd that while the whole GTAIV debacle was going on, and being used as a scapegoat by network television… The TV series that was being discussed by the water-cooler and receiving accolades was Underbelly. I only ever saw it once, but in that 5 minutes I was exposed to the protagonist (?) snorting mountains of cocaine off of a naked prostitute.
Its fairly typical for TV to attack any other form of media that undermines its position as the number 1 form of entertainment. As I see it he content is no different, and so the rating should be no different.
Interactivity can effect the impact I suppose. A war movie, no matter how violent will probably have a lesser body/bullet count than most war games. The violence subsides for a bit of narrative to creep in. TV/Movie narrative is linear, so harmful scenes happen once and move on, but games give players the choice to linger. I was always respectful of the GTA whores, how many times do you have to run them over before it becomes high impact? I guess you can always rewind and freeze frame a video. Should Basic Instinct have a higher rating because of slo-mo playback interactivity.
I dont get the drug vs reward restrictions though. When I was young I was always told: Drugs are Bad. Why do people take them then? BECAUSE DRUGS ARE AWESOME! We were lied to – A game should be able to depict drugs realistically – with reward and harm.
Lets hope this turns out OK. Like us. Suckled on the teat of interactivity.
Ren
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 4:29 PMAustralia. No freedom of speech. No freedom of expression. No freedom of choice.
Why does the government get to decide whether or not I, as a supposedly free citizen, plays very high impact video games?
They’re not far behind Iran that throws filmmakers in jail. Give it a decade and watch the Christian Taliban of Australia’s claws sink deeper into our politics.
SRG
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 11:06 PMWhy does the government do it? Because people are pussies and let them. When the populace was disarmed due to fearmongering, the government took away the best chance the population had to keep the government in line with the wishes of the public.
I’d say vote from the rooftops one bullet at a time, but the retards out there gave ‘em up. Whoops.
warcroft
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 5:13 PMSEX
“simulation, yes – the real thing, no”.
Isnt all video game sex simulated?
bjg
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 5:25 PM“very high – RC” rare collectible?:)
Sam Timmins
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 6:19 PM”NUDITY
Nudity is permitted.”
Uh, with this loophole, it won’t be long before we see naked erections in gaming. WIN for the ladies and bi/gay guy gamers!
(Seriously, this is VERY loosely defined.)
blaze0041
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 7:06 PMIs a man not entitled to play a video game made for adults?
“No”, says the man in the Classification Board, “we cannot allow games that exceed our guidelines”
“No”, says the man in the A-G’s office, “we must all agree before the guidelines can be changed”
“No”, says the Catholic extremist, “it will turn you into a criminal”
“No”, says the plebeians, “we cannot protect our children otherwise”
(Does that sum up our situation?)
WiseHacker
Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 7:35 AMI rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible!
I chose…RESPONSIBILITY.
The world where the child is rightly disiplined. Where the adult is make to accept the consequences of his action. Where the parents actively parent their children.
Jake
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 8:53 PMVideo games bear more impact than movies: true.
A horror game is scarrier than a horror movie.
However… There are NO banned movies. There is nothing which the government has deem far too graphic for depiction in a movie. Is the difference in the impact of a video game vs a movie enough to have the game cross the line?
Underworld
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 10:46 PMThis really is a joke. This has not improved anything IMO. All we’ll see is most MA games being moved up to R. With ones that were previously banned, still being refused. That’s it!
And the guidelines still say its recommended that people under 15 be accompanied by an adult when playing a PG game. And that M is recommended only for people over 15. WTF.
So they think a 14 year old is only capable of playing a G game by themselves? Really? These are the people that are deciding what’s acceptable?
All just a bunch of crap. Nothing will change and you’re naive to think otherwise.
SRG
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 11:04 PMAny adult who is reasonable cannot be offended by a game, so nothing should ever be banned based on violence. Anyone offended is, by definition, unreasonable.
Merus
Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 12:33 AMOkay, let’s examine this carefully: we wanted the impact standards to be identical for films and games, we wanted interactivity to not have any impact on ratings, and we wanted restrictions on drug use and criminal activity to be removed.
We got the big one: the current guidelines for films match these ones for games. The same language is used for games is it is for films, including the ‘reasonable adult’ clause, which is generally understood to mean the Classification Board. I have no reason to believe the Classification Board has any interest in banning things willy-nilly considering the amount of stuff they’ve let under the bar.
The second we didn’t get, but it’s not as bad as it seems: the current rules says that impact may be greater if a scene ‘encourages interactivity’. These new rules take pains to point out that it’s the repetitive nature of games that matter, as well as how much players see. This might be interpreted as ‘take into account how often gibs happen and that players have control of the camera’ which I think I can live with; the current rules do say that the placement of the camera in films matters.
The litmus test would be something like Fahrenheit, where there’s one sequence in the game where the PC has sex and you move the stick, but it’s one non-repeatable sequence. If that’s considered the same impact as a cutscene of the sequence then we are golden.
The other two provisions we’re not going to get. They also apply to film, anyway; we’re simply going to have to be vigilant when someone tries to claim that a video game is providing ‘detailed’ instructions on a criminal act, which frankly we should do anyway. (Besides, it’s mostly a political stick; if GTA Chinatown Wars’ drug dealing minigame wasn’t sufficiently detailed for the Board, it’s unlikely to crop up a lot.)
Honestly, this is acceptable. We got the big one: an R18+ that’s not just a rebranded MA15+.
SRG
Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 10:11 AMIt’s still censorship, it’s still unacceptable. It’s simply a less revolting form of censorship.
Merus
Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 12:34 PMThat is a fight you’re not going to win – basically every media market, including America, has de facto censorship. Besides, I think a little disincentive for gratuitousness is worthwhile; creators should be using violence and sex intelligently to serve the story, instead of to get attention. Movies and games should make money because they’re good, not because they’re titillating.
As I said, far as I can tell these guidelines should reduce the amount of games banned to just ones we can fight for. We probably could have argued against Getting Up – it was by no means ‘detailed’.
Merus
Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 12:38 AMHere are the current Guidelines, compare and contrast: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2008C00126/Html/Text
Reoh
Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 2:06 PMSo…
Basically they squeeze some of MA into R, and nothing changes. We’re still bearing down legally on scientifically disproven assumptions and the wording is almost verbatim what it was before.
Smythe
Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 4:37 PMI say they put games up for vote by a comity of “Reasonable adults” to give it a rating, this gives a non-biased rating for the game and is more fair for everyone.