We've heard from Australian Attorney General
Michael Atkinson in the past on why he thinks certain games shouldn't be available to Australian consumers. And when he was asked recently by
ABC why the upcoming
Aliens vs. Predator was
refused classification in his country (read:
banned), he echoed previous sentiments on the interactivity of games having a stronger affect on people than other mediums. "I accept that 98 percent, 99 percent of gamers will tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but the 1 to 2 percent could go on to be motivated by these games to commit horrible acts of violence," Atkinson said.
When the subject of
AvP comes up, though, Atkinson put on his game reviewer cap and offered, "You don't need to be playing a game in which you impale, decapitate and dismember people." So, what're you thinking, Mr. Atkinson -- 5.0/10 maybe? 4.7/10? We're all ears.
[Via
GamesIndustry.biz]
{ Dec 11th 2009 at 11:45AM } 
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
XLM @ Dec 11th 2009 11:49AM
"I accept that 98 percent, 99 percent of gamers will tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but the 1 to 2 percent could go on to be motivated by these games to commit horrible acts of violence,"
Well sir, the exact same argument could be used for movies, tv shows and books, hell even art. Best be careful, that argument sits on a slippery slope.
Brodo @ Dec 11th 2009 11:54AM
What about the .005% that are motivated to do violent acts by shooting a water gun?
Enjoy your waterguns while they last...
MrAlex @ Dec 11th 2009 12:06PM
1-2% of gamers is way too large, what's the the combined user base of this gen's console?
And that's excluding PC gamers, it's more like 0.1% of gamers, maybe less.
Space @ Dec 11th 2009 12:25PM
Brodo, they probably banned water guns in south australia....seriously, they've been going through a terrible drought for the past decade or so.
Dash @ Dec 11th 2009 1:16PM
XLM has said it perfectly. Every medium has this sort of content, and is not considered a problem or banned.
But the problem is simple: videogames are treated in a diferente way. And why? Because some people don't like it and therefore can't respect our decision to like it. A certain Shakespeare book contains teenager suicide. But you can't do a game with the same content (Persona had problems for just looking like suicide). Horror and pornographic movies are legit, but games have to be cartoonish and child proof.
And they only do that because they simply don't respect games or gamers. When a future generation, that grew up with games, get to the power we won't see this anymore (just like happened with tv and movies).
For now, this situation is pure censorship, and a complete disrespect to the population. Hopefully we, gamers, can somehow fight against this idiotic system. Otherwise, as XML said, it will be a slippery slope.
heypaul @ Dec 11th 2009 1:54PM
1-2%? Hmm...
If I assume the number of comments we get on Joyswag posts is the number of active users (let's 3,000), then between 30 to 60 of you guys are murderers and rapists. I'm getting out of here.
Aaron @ Dec 11th 2009 5:21PM
Yeah, it is a very spineless statistic as you can obviously tell.
According to that logic, six million people bought Modern Warfare 2 and 1-2% will be motivated to commit unspeakable acts of violence. Therefore, 60 000 - 120 000 people have found their inner bloodlust in the month of November.
...Urge to kill, rising.
DaFreak @ Dec 11th 2009 5:29PM
Dear, Michael Atkinson
Group 1
Should you ban driving a car because 1 to 2% causes deadly accidents?
Should you ban mobile phones because 1 to 2% causes distractions which leads to deadly accidents?
Should you ban hammers because 1 to 2% uses it to kill people with?
Should you ban bunnies because 1 to 2 % causes disease?
Group 2
should you ban books because 1 to 2 % causes someone to kill somebody?
Should you ban movies because 1 to 2 % causes people to murder somebody?
Should you ban music because 1 to 2 % of listeners decides to kill people?
Should you ban games because 1 to 2 % of gamers are murderers?
Group 3
Should you ban abusive dads because 1 to 2% of their generated offspring become murderers?
Should you ban rapists because 1 to 2% of their victims kills themselves?
Should you ban extremist preachers that call for hate because 1 to2% goes on a killing spree?
Should you ban pollution because 1 to 2% dies of cancer?
I hope you can see the differences. Cars and their drivers have been proven to kill people accidentally and in some cases even deliberately. Do you think we should ban cars? Now it gets even weirder because it has never even been proven that the media causes 1 to 2% of it's users to kill people. Yet you choose to ban it anyway? Wouldn't it make more sense to ban things of which it has been proven that 1 to 2% causes deaths instead of banning and censoring the media of which you think causes deaths? Note: Don't ban any of these.
It has never been proven that games are the cause of murder nor will that ever happen. If that was the case all gamers would be murderers. People that kill somebody have mental problems. These people that have a tendency for murder are more likely to play violent games. Perhaps you should focus on addressing their mental problems instead of dealing with one of their symptoms. In other words you got it backwards. Games don't make murderers. Murderers like every other person between 5 and 40 play games.
In some parts of Africa murder rates are much higher and they don't play any games at all!
1 to 2% of the air breathing population kills people. Perhaps this air makes them murderers? Do you see what i did here? You look at a group that does a certain thing and because a small part of that group does something you don't like you ban the thing that the entire group does even without any proof of the link between the two. You can not ban air, what will you do now?
1 to 2 % of gamers might be suicidal, or have a thing for fluffy bunnies, a tendency to hate vegetables, a liking for chocolate, ... Do you think this is because they play games?
If everybody plays games... Isn't it normal then that there are murderers amongst them? If that wouldn't be the case, gaming would actually be the cure for murderers.
So far group 1 and 2, onto group 3
The only things worth banning are those without any positive effects. Why is it okay to ban abusive dads, rapists, extremists, pollution,... and not games? because games are enjoyed by the pretty much everyone and nobody likes abusive dads, rapists, extremists or pollution.
Conclusion: Groups 1 and 2 shouldn't be banned because they are useful and enjoyed by everyone. The last group should be banned because nobody wants those.
You are not allowed to choose how your population spends it's time. As long as they are not hurting anyone you have to grant them their freedom to choose. In your country's history, many men gave their lives protecting this freedom for the entire world. Don't dishonor their name by now undoing what they worked for.
I hope you can now see that what you are doing is wrong. You should not be afraid to change your stance. In fact people will applaud you for it. You will score with your electorate because most of them actually play games and would love to keep playing them.
Friendly greetings from a world citizen concerned with our freedom, [insert name], ( [insert country])
> croydon@parliament.sa.gov.au < Go Go Go ^^
Dartmerc @ Dec 11th 2009 6:36PM
As long as there is auto-balancing and decent matchmaking, I don't really see the problem with 1% - 2% turning violent.
anthonyjh @ Dec 12th 2009 2:49AM
I JUST BOUGHT THIS GOD DAMN SUPER SOAKER
Sidebuster @ Dec 11th 2009 11:51AM
I was thinking the same could be said for religion. So is he going to ban religion because that 1% might become extremist and blow up the outside world?
The Bodyguard @ Dec 11th 2009 11:54AM
I like your comment
R (Planeteers | Power of Penile Pulse) @ Dec 11th 2009 12:04PM
Religion is arguably one of the most dangerous things out there. Between the Dark Ages, the Crusades, current Islam extremism, and plenty of other things, its far more dangerous than media. How many deaths can be directly related to religion compared to being directly related to video games?
david @ Dec 13th 2009 10:49AM
R, before the religious people respond....
It's not just religion that has killed so many people, look at the history of Soviet Russia.
The problem isn't just religion, or just the media. It's people. Crazy people will find reasons to kill others for any reason out there. Pointing the finger at any one thing is simply wrong. If you think getting rid of religion will stop wars or stop mass genocide, then I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken.
People have killed eachother from the dawn of time for anything from stealing their rock, to sleeping with their wife, to simply being crazy.
And to the article, this guy is an effing idiot if he thinks that banning a video game will prevent the '1-2% of gamers' from killing. Anyone motivated to kill based simply on playing a video game WILL, without a doubt, find another reason to kill (movies, books, or fucking butterflys)
Bad people do bad things that is something that cannot be prevented by any laws.
Exemplar @ Dec 11th 2009 1:08PM
@david
totally agree. it's people that's the problem.
when will people stop blaming ideas and take responsibility for themselves?
The Bodyguard @ Dec 11th 2009 3:54PM
I honestly blame greed before I blame people. Greed and jealousy. Those make you do the dumbest things. Most religious wars have an alternative motive of grabbing land. Land, land and more land.
The Dark Wayne [Planeteer: Power of the Batusi] @ Dec 11th 2009 4:26PM
whoa, whoa, what? A civil discussion about religion?! NOT ON MY INTERTUBES
fred @ Dec 11th 2009 7:26PM
Soviet Russia does show it isn't specifically religion but any belief system that makes you put ideas before people. In the USSR that was The Party, in Nazi Germany it was racial purity and other such nonsense and with religious fundamentalists it's their various sacred cows that give us lovely things like blood libel and calls for cartoonists' deaths.
Jerk Face @ Dec 11th 2009 11:55AM
They need an 18+ rating. Period. Problem solved. Grown-ups should be able to play what the fuck they want to.
coffee_elf @ Dec 11th 2009 11:55AM
Wow, 1 to 2 percent? So according to this idiot, Left 4 Dead, which sold 3 million copies (and was refused classification in Australia) motivated at least 30,000 acts of violence.
The Mighty Thor @ Dec 11th 2009 1:53PM
exactly. I'd like to point out this guys fail at math. I also would like to see these 30,000 people he so claims.
RogueJedi86 @ Dec 11th 2009 3:25PM
Don't forget the 110,000 people who went to crime after playing WoW!
Meh @ Dec 12th 2009 8:00AM
Hey, you want actual data? Here: http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames
Turns out, 98 percent, 99 percent of gamers tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but the 1 to 2 percent are motivated by these games to NOT commit horrible acts of violence. Holy shit!
MosquitoControl @ Dec 11th 2009 11:58AM
Man, wouldn't it suck if every govenment left us only with what we "need to be" doing...
"You don't need to be eating that steak. Have this gruel instead, it's just as nutritious."
"You don't need to be using that internet. Take this herpes pamphlet instead, it'll occupy your time fine."
"You don't need to be smiling. Walk around with a blank look, it's just as useful."
robert @ Dec 11th 2009 1:57PM
It's called communism and it doesn't work.
:D
yenrab @ Dec 11th 2009 11:59AM
It's funny how you guys hate this guy but he's a liberal/socialist just like you.
Do you all not agree that wealth is not earned but received by luck? Do also not agree that wealth should be distributed to poorer folks that weren't lucky financially? I mean, if you agree with those two sentences then why would not agree with this guy, because essentially he's saying they have to look after the unlucky minority.
vidGuy @ Dec 11th 2009 12:03PM
I hope this is some weird attempt at satire.
Jaydrool the damager @ Dec 11th 2009 12:06PM
"You don't need to be playing a game in which you impale, decapitate and dismember people."
------------------------------------------------
Thank you for protecting us all.
Carrie @ Dec 11th 2009 12:09PM
Wh.. what? None of that made sense at all. The words in your post do not make sense. They are irrelevant to the topic in the article.
This Atkinson guy is an idiot, whether he's liberal or socialist or whatever. Video games do not cause the massive amounts of real-world violence that he thinks they cause. That has nothing to do with welfare or wealth, or an "unlucky minority" that doesn't exist.
And from what I can remember, using laws to impose moral behavior on citizens is a pretty conservative venture. It's the conservatives that do things like ban gay marriage and abortion, not liberals.
Space @ Dec 11th 2009 12:53PM
So you DON't think that a young white male born to lower-manhattan banker family was a little more lucky than a poor black female born to a poor family in a violent neighborhood like West-Philly?
The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Sure it's not always the case, but, for the most part it is.
White people stole this land 500 years ago and have passed it on down to to their children. Giving white people a headstart in this country. How many black families own thousands of acres of farmland? How many Native Americans are bank executives?
if you are not born into a rich family how can you pay to go to university without putting yourself in debt $30,000? scholarships and grants are available but not everyone in the country can get them. Not everyone can afford an education to earn more money, no matter how hard they work.
vidGuy @ Dec 11th 2009 2:30PM
Circumstances of birth occur by luck. What you do with your life, however, is not based on luck. Yes, a child born into a wealthy family may have be given more opportunities, but ultimate success is far from guaranteed, just as ultimate failure is far from guaranteed for a poor child.
To suggest that speaks ill of both the people who rose from small beginnings and the people who squandered their fortunate circumstances. Furthermore, this discussion is entirely off-topic.
maveric101 @ Dec 11th 2009 3:42PM
"And from what I can remember, using laws to impose moral behavior on citizens is a pretty conservative venture. It's the conservatives that do things like ban gay marriage and abortion, not liberals."
it's illegal to break into someone's house and steal their stuff. those laws are also imposing moral behavior. if you follow your train of logic all laws are supported by conservatives and liberals are basically anarchists.
alinos @ Dec 11th 2009 9:45PM
that wealth should be distributed to poorer folks that weren't lucky financially? I mean, if you agree with those two sentences then why would not agree with this guy, because essentially he's saying they have to look after the unlucky minority
yeah thats why when the politicians retire they get paid 100k+ Pension while every other person has a crap arse pension and stuggles to get by
also you mention democratic, democracy is not a friggen unanimous vote which is what this guy has
Muscle Rider @ Dec 11th 2009 11:59AM
So what's the worse place for gamers to live, Germany or Australia?
Nobledevil @ Dec 11th 2009 12:39PM
Australia certainly has been making a run for douchiest country to be in if you are a gamer. Germany's USK system also has a 16 AND and 18 rating, making a distinction that the AU territory refuses to be a part of. Germany may ban a lot of stuff too, but at least their classification system isn't as bad (at least it seems that way).
BIGGEN (LIVE-PSN: BIGGEN1103) @ Dec 11th 2009 11:59AM
hello, i'm the attorney general, and i have too much power over things that don't matter. g'day!
Glenn @ Dec 12th 2009 3:50PM
THERE HE IS! QUICK, GET 'IM, BOYS!!
vidGuy @ Dec 11th 2009 12:02PM
Wait, he is concerned that 1 to 2% of the Australian people will not be able to tell the difference between reality and a game in which space marines fight two different races of aliens?
Really?
uncle jesse [Planeteer | Power of the Unequivocal Truth, Cool Hair and being Captain Planet's Best Friend] @ Dec 11th 2009 12:14PM
I know. Seriously, I think everyone on this entire planet knows that Aliens are not real. Predator's are real, though. Right?
That Guy @ Dec 11th 2009 8:28PM
Games might inspire 1-2% of people to perform random acts of violence, but that's *nothing* compared to the percent inspired to violence by a retarded Attorney General.
freaparn @ Dec 11th 2009 12:02PM
Those 1-2% of people who can't discern fantasy from reality are going to go bugfuck and shoot up a school or daycare regardless of whether or not they play videogames, because they have severe mental problems. Whether it's the Son of Sam's dog telling him to kill lovers, or Ed Gein's dead mother instructing him to dismember women and make furniture out of their body parts, they're still insane.
Brodo @ Dec 11th 2009 12:03PM
Oh and off topic... any Dexter fans out there think that the guy on that game case looks A LOT like quinn?
http://static.tvguide.com/MediaBin/Galleries/Shows/A_F/De_Dh/Dexter/season4/dexter72.jpg
Dance Mofo @ Dec 11th 2009 12:09PM
Off Topic: I think Quinn will investigate Dexter and find out who/what Dexter really is. much like Doakes did from season 2.
Space @ Dec 11th 2009 12:56PM
I agree, with both of you.
I will also add this, season 4 was boring and I hope season 5 is the last.
trickfred @ Dec 11th 2009 12:56PM
Dance Mofo: Unlike Doakes though, Quinn seems like the type that might let it slide, if not outright participate; he is a dirty cop after all. If what you say comes to pass, I mean.
Brodo @ Dec 11th 2009 3:39PM
Really? I think season 4 is probably the second best season (following season 1)
IMO season 2 was definately the worst... but ya I think it should probably end either after season 5, or maybe season 6.
I'd rather have it end when it's still good, unlike heroes
john @ Dec 11th 2009 12:05PM
coming from a country founded by criminals as an offshore prison for england, that's kind a strange.
some kind could go back to it's ancestors behaviours LOL
adolson @ Dec 11th 2009 12:10PM
I am surprised that 1-2% of people believe they are freaking ALIENS!!!
-Z- @ Dec 11th 2009 12:22PM
So he's banning games because human minds have a chance to lose grips with reality and go insane? So, by that logic, shouldn't he ban books, music, tv, paintings, magazines, knives, forks, sporks, heavy ladles and sharp cornered tables?
brian @ Dec 11th 2009 12:31PM
"You don't need to be playing a game in which you impale, decapitate and dismember people"
why is a politician in a supposedly democratic country telling people what they should be doing?
i don't know if it is just me, but when i read that line, chills went down my back.