Speaking to Radio National, Atkinson was asked for his views on the recently released game, described by interviewer Peter Mares as “violent and bloody and graphic and confronting.”

“I’ll be appealing against that classification, I think it’s wrong,” said Atkinson.

We have approached Activision for comment regarding the proposed appeal, but they have yet to respond.

The Member for Croydon, who will be challenged for his seat at the March 2010 state election by Australia’s first gamer rights party, went on to admit he had no faith in the Classification Board to do its job properly.

“It doesn’t surprise me. The Classification Board in Australia does everything to try to get games in under the radar. But just because the system is not being applied properly, it does not mean that the principles of the system are wrong.

“What I want the Classification Board to do is to apply the guidelines properly. What I don’t want is the extremely violent, sexually depraved, drug use games in Australia at all. At the cinema, we can stop people under 18 going in to see R18+ rated movies. We can’t stop these games that are extremely violent and depraved from getting into the home or getting into the hands of children.”

Atkinson raised the example of “the Japanese game Rape Play where one scores points for raping a mother and daughter.” Mares noted that this game is not available anywhere outside of Japan, even in countries that do have an R18+ rating. But Atkinson suggested that “Rape Play” (sic) would be released in Australia.

“Well, I wouldn’t put it past the Classification Board to make that an R rated game, frankly, on their previous form,” he replied.

Atkinson also described an unnamed game in which “the player straps explosives to himself and blows himself up in a market and scores points for how many people he kills.” (Anyone know what game he’s talking about? I honestly have no idea.)

When it was suggested to Atkinson that, as Attorney-General, he would be responsible for drawing up the guidelines for an R18+ rating if it were introduced, and thus he would be able to ensure that such “extremely violent, sexually depraved, drug use games” would still be refused classification, he once again reiterated his lack of faith in the Board.

“I have no trust in the Classification Board to apply the guidelines sincerely and correctly,” he said. “And thus to draw up such guidelines would be to do so in sure and certain knowledge that they would be stretched and then broken.”

Finally, Mares asked the minister whether he knew the status of the Commonwealth discussion paper on video game classification, originally scheduled to be released to the public in April this year. Mr Atkison denied any knowledge of why it has not yet been issued.

In the second half of the segment, Mares spoke with Gamers 4 Croydon founder David Doe. Hit the link below to listen to the full interview.

Does Australia need an R18+ rating for computer games? [Radio National, via Screen Play]

In other words, it’s China Crackdown time, which is also known as “Tuesday” to the rest of the world. The country’s already swatted World of Warcraft (or one of its expansions, anyway), and more than 200 online games were smashed as part of a national birthday celebration back in October. This time, the country’s Ministry of Culture wants a content cleanup to make sure the games properly support approved political and cultural themes.

The ministry’s memo said violent games “have adversely influenced consumers and especially the physical and mental health of minors.” It also ordered game companies to knock off the killin’, both of humans and nonhumans. In particular they want them to refrain from “low-brow cultural content that is having a negative effect on the healthy development of the industry.”

Low-brow content that retards game development? Such as those fake Donkey Kong machines y’all sent us a while back?

China in Violent Content Crackdown [Develop]

The study, “Playing By the Rules” was undertaken by Pro Juventute, a Swiss children’s rights group, and Track Impunity Always (TRIAL), which is concerned with international criminal justice. Their report provides a legal analysis of the conduct enabled by the games.

Rather than play the games themselves, the two groups sent expert observers to watch serious gamers play through and then note the egregious acts they saw. Here’s what they had to say about Battlefield: Bad Company.

In the scenes, there seems to be no assessment of proportionality in the attacks realised in civilian areas and we do not know whether precautionary measures were taken to minimize civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects. However, in a real life situation, one is often confronted with similar circumstances: regular armed forces and irregular armed groups are very unlikely to give any information about the planning of the preparation of military operations to international organisations or human rights bodies. Without such information, it is difficult to establish that a military operation was not proportional, in particular whether the attacker took all the precautionary measures necessary to avoid, and in any event to minimize incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.”

In addition to the extensive destruction, some of the scenes portray the members of “Bad Company” taking gold and “treasures” found in the civilian houses they have just destroyed. Upon obtaining them, the players get points. These actions amount to pillage, which is strictly prohibited under IHL and thus have also been labelled as “strong”. This illegal action is confirmed in one of the scenes where you can hear a member saying that “Pillaging is an old war tradition.” Pillage is considered as a war crime both in international and non- international armed conflicts.

I’m thinking that asking the goons of Bad Company to take precautionary measures for anything would be a little like talking to a cardboard box. It’s also amusing to me that a basic, nonviolent scavenging mechanic rates a “strong” violation of international law (which it would be, if it occurred in real life) and is called out as a war crime.

Anyway, the study had a number of recommendations. Among them is a call for clearly defined rules of engagement.

It would be very useful if developers would incorporate more specific rules on how to conduct an operation in their games, in terms of the weapons allowed, the behaviour allowed, the military targets sought, the degree of collateral damage permitted, etc. The message of the scenes should never be that everything is allowed, or that it is up to the player to decide what is right and what is wrong. In real life, this is not the way it works.

If you want to dive into more killjoy gasbaggery about Modern Warfare, World at War and – Jesus, True Crime Streets of L.A. is in here? Who did they find to play that? Anyway, you can grab your copy of the report here [pdf.]

Fighting Fair: International Humanitarian Law As Applied to Games [Game Politics]

The Guardian goes on to report that the campaign will run for six weeks, using games like Modern Warfare 2, Assassin’s Creed II and Left 4 Dead 2 to gauge players’ skills in quick-thinking, problem solving and team work.

In which case, they really don’t want me. When I’m not leaving my teammates to die in Left 4 Dead 2, I’m busy getting lost in aeroplane fuselages in Modern Warfare 2 until somebody’s good enough to come knife me. And I haven’t even bought Assassin’s Creed II yet. Oh, and I’m American.

Here’s what the British government has to say of its campaign:

“As well as tackling ‘traditional threats’ GCHQ’s work is also about helping government departments, such as the Ministry of Defence, to protect their information and communication systems,” said a GCHQ spokeswoman.

“This means we can offer excellent training and careers for people with specialist technical skills. However, the fact remains that many potential candidates remain unaware of GCHQ and what we do. Using video on Xbox LIVE helps carry our message to the right people in a creative and innovative manner,” she added.

Government intelligence organisation targets recruits with Xbox Live ads [The Guardian]

Thanks for the tip, Josh!

We can see where they’re coming from; something akin to “No Russian” for the domestic violence scene. Make you do something horrible to better confront the horror. But the execution? It’s a flash game. Where you do nothing but smack a woman around. Comes across a little tasteless.

As such, it’s hard to recommend “Hit the Bitch” over the genre’s existing powerhouse.

Anti-Violence Flash Game Lets Users Beat Woman [GamePolitics]
[Hit The Bitch]

Note: at time of publishing, the website has been blocked for IP addresses outside Denmark.

We are of course talking about America’s Army, the free-to-play shooter that’s been drumming up interest in the US armed forces for nigh on seven years now.

According to a statement issued by MIT as part of a 2008 report – which is now being presented to the US Congress by the Army – “30 percent of all Americans age 16 to 24 had a more positive impression of the Army because of the game and, even more amazingly, the game had more impact on recruits than all other forms of Army advertising combined”.

Not a bad investment, then! That is, if you mean “bad” in terms of effectiveness vs money spent. If you mean “bad” in terms of “you shouldn’t recruit soldiers through a video game”, that’s another topic for another day.

America’s Army Extremely Effective Recruitment Tool [GamePolitics]

And by views, they mean his “contradiction-filled, strawman-posing, condescending piece of correspondence.”

The full rebuttal can be read on the Gamers 4 Croydon website, but here’s the concluding paragraph:

What Mr Atkinson’s letter demonstrates is little more than that he has a prejudice against violent video games. Much of the ‘evidence’ he provides to support his claim is dubious or patently false, and it shows a much greater interest in distracting people with emotive arguments than thoughtful consideration of available information. While he is of course entitled to dislike violence in video games (and any other media for that matter), his personal distaste is not sufficient reason to curtail the rights of responsible adults, expose minors to adult content, and ignore the opinions of an overwhelming majority of Australians.

He is, after all, supposed to be a representative.

Oh, and remember you can donate to Gamers 4 Croydon on their website as well.

Below are several key excerpts from the letter Robert received from the minister. You can also download a scan of the entire letter via this link.

You may be aware that there was talk of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General releasing a discussion paper on [the introduction of an R18+ classification for games]. I have been awaiting the release of this paper… Alas, the paper has not yet been released and, despite my inquiring, I do not know when it will be available. I want the discussion paper released as soon as possible and have done nothing to impede its release.

Although some members are advocates of this classification, I believe other Attorneys-General, like me, reject it. Other Attorneys-General who are opposed to introducing an R18+ classification for computer games are content to let me be the lightening (sic) rod for the gamers.

I am well aware that many game players are adults… However, it is important you do not confuse the classification rating of a game with the game’s sophistication, or the challenge or interest to the player… It does not follow that a game is more interesting to an adult simply because it contains extreme violence, explicit sexual material or highly offensive language. Indeed, with all the effort and money that goes into game development, coupled with the effects and graphics now available, there is no need to introduce these extreme elements. I am bafffled and worried about why proponents of R18+ games are putting up their hands and saying ‘Give us more cruel sex and extreme violence!’

‘Interactive Australia 2007′, a report prepared by Bond University for the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia, surveyed 1,606 Australian households randomly. The report found “79% of Australian households have a device for computer and video games”. Further, 62% of Australians in these gaming households “say the classification of a game has no influence on their buying decision”.

Given this data, I cannot fathom what State-enforced safeguards could exist to prevent R18+ games being bought by households with children and how children can be stopped from using these games once the games are in the home. If adult gamers are so keen to have R18+ games, I expect children would be just as keen.

Classification of electronic games is very different from the classification of film. In cinemas, the age of movie-goers can be regulated… Rising game and console sales make it clear that this is a growing area that needs careful regulation, even more so than cinemas and private D.V.D. hire and purchase. Access to electronic games, once in the home, cannot be policed and therefore the games are easily accesible to children.

What the present law does is keep the most extreme material off the shelves. It is true that this restricts adult liberty to a small degree, however, I am prepared to accept this infringement in the circumstances.

I am concerned about the level of violence in society and the widespread acceptance of simulated violence as a form of entertainment. I am particularly concerned about the impact of this extreme content on children and vulnerable adults.

I believe the repeated act of killing a computer-generated person or creature desensitises them to violence. To my mind, a child being able to watch depraved sex and extreme violence in a movie is damaging to the child, but the child’s participating (sic) in depraved sex and extreme violence in a computer game is worse.

Game-houses are always free to adapt games that would otherwise be R.C. [Refused Classification] and modify the game content to be in line with the M.A.15+ classification… I do not accept that this destroys the artistic integrity of the game – excusing gore and depraved sex as art is an immature argument.

Contrarily, it has been suggested that games that would otherwise be classified R18+ are instead slipping through as M.A.15+ and becoming accessible to children. This argument does not support an R18+ classification for games. There may be games that some people consider too violent for the M.A.15+ classification but the solution is not to create a classification that would permit even more violent games in Australia. M.A.15+ games are restricted to children over 15 and if younger children access these games it further justifies complete protection from R18+ games. It is up to parents and responsible adults to ensure a game is appropriate for a minor whatever age he or she is. It is up to members of the Classification Board to apply the Guidelines correctly and not to try to defeat the Guidelines because they disagree with the outcome of the actions of elected officials in a democratic rule-of-law society.

Please read the full letter now. I’d like to hear how you would respond to Mr Atkinson. Where are the weaknesses in his reply? Has he contradicted himself? What is the best way for the pro-R18+ movement to counter Mr Atkinson’s argument? Or perhaps you feel he actually makes some very valid points and, if so, which ones?

Sensible comments only, please.

On Friday, David Doe kicked off his campaign against Atkinson at Adelaide’s Rundle Mall, securing the signatures required to officially register his political party. Doe says his aim is “to exert pressure on Atkinson, currently the only Attorney General voting ‘no’ against the introduction of an R18+ classification rating for videogames in Australia.”

Atkinson told News.com.au that he “welcomed Mr Doe’s challenge,” saying:

“The voters of Croydon will now be asked directly whether they want interactive games in which gamers score points by raping a mother and daughter, blowing themselves up, torturing human figures… killing people and taking drugs to improve their sporting prowess.”

Later, Atkinson responded to several readers’ comments on the same article, claiming that neither his nor the ALP’s defeat at the 2010 state election would not benefit the introduction of an R18+ classification.

“Former Liberal Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock supported my opposition to an R 18+ Classification for interactive games at a time when most Labor Attorneys-General wanted to introduce one and he sought the endorsement of Cabinet for his position,” Atkinson wrote. “Should I stop being Attorney-General, the opposition would, I predict, be taken up by the W.A. Attorney-General (Liberal) and at least two other Attorneys-General (Labor). Moreover, many Liberals in the State Parliament and at least one Liberal candidate in the forthcoming State election support my stand.”

Doe told Kotaku that he was “a little saddened” by Atkinson’s response to his challenge. However, he remains undaunted in the face of the Attorney-General’s obvious advantages and has vowed to take his campaign beyond the electorate of Croydon.

“He is hugely popular within his electorate,” says Doe, “and he will have not only superior brand recognition, but also a well-oiled political machine running his campaign.

“Over the weekend it became clear that we will need to run a candidate for the Legislative Council, so that gamers who do not live in the Croydon electorate will also be able to show their support by voting for our candidate in the upper house. And of course, we will be working on our preferences with the other major parties in the coming months, as well as providing some quick links to people’s Federal representatives so they can voice their concern at the requirement of unanimity between Attorneys-General to implement an R18+ classification rating with a view to getting that piece of legislation amended to only require a majority vote of Attorneys-General.

“And in amongst all that,” jokes Doe, “I’m going to try to continue to paint the inside of my house, and try to get my season’s batting average above zero, and my bowling average below sixty.”

“These games are a cherished part of my life,” Núñez-Mujica writes over at website Boing Boing, “they helped to shape my young mind, they gave me challenges and vastly improved my English, opening the door to a whole new world of literature, music and people from all around the world. What I have achieved, all my research, how I have been able to travel even though I’m always broke, the hard work I’ve done to convince people to fund a start up for cheap biotech for developing countries and regular folks, none of that would have been possible hadn’t I learned English through video games.

“Now, thanks to the tiny horizons of the cast of morons who govern me, thanks to the stupidity and ham-fisted authoritarianism of the local authorities, so beloved of so many liberals, my seven-year-old brother’s chances to do the same could be greatly impacted.”

The essay in full is yours to read in the link below and it touches on more than video games. It’s brave stuff: “If I get fined for writing this (Article 13, promoting the use of violent videogames), so be it. If I go to jail because I carry rooms in my hard drive or in an R4 card for my brother, next time I return to the country, so be it. But I’d rather go to jail than betray the gamer culture, partially responsible for making me the person I am today.” Read it.

Venezuela bans violent video games: a first-person guest essay [Boing Boing]