Australian Gamer has an interview up with an unnamed member of Australia’s Classification Board who provides some insight into both the rating and appeal processes.
The person queried would only identify himself as a Senior Classifier for the Board.
He/she was asked to provide a little more detail into how the Board actually reviews content:
I will clarify that we don't play through all games, I don't think we have the resources to do that. However the Act is set up in a way that allows the industry to provide an assessment under strict circumstances which is then provided to us. That involves a detailed report on the content of the game, in majority of cases we also receive gameplay footage and we always receive a copy of the game itself.
How does the Board measure or quantify violence?
It's a hard question to answer as it is a moving target. We operate in a method by which we call an impact test. This test is somewhat prescribed but on some level it comes back to the individual impact on the person playing that game. Putting that aside, I can give you the standard answer which is any violence that exceeds "Strong".
Overall in terms of the guidelines violence that exceeds a "Strong" rating is a scene that contains the use of greater detail that can include slow motion, close-ups, extenuation techniques (such as lighting, perspective and resolution), uses special effects in colour, tone, images and sound. A key factor in some of the controversial decisions you see is the use of prolonged violence.
On the appeal process and how appeals are not handled by the Board itself:
An appeal is actually an application of review to a different statutory body and they independently classify that game. The difference between us and them is that they effectively sit above us if you consider it a hierarchy. The appeal is to them and the things that they consider are the Classification Board's initial report as well as inviting submissions from interested parties. To my understanding it has usually been a representative of the applicants that comes in to argue the point of why the Classification Board's decision was wrong.
We are effectively different statutory bodies, we do not meet in any way and to be honest I have worked here 6 and half years and have never met a single member of the other statutory body.
Many more questions answered over at Australian Gamer.
Comments
Re: Classification Board Member Quizzed
The Classification Board and the Classification Review Board are just like the ESRB, BBFC, PEGI and other ratings organisations, they are like umpires in a football match.
We may not like their decisions sometimes, but then we often forget the decisions they make that go with us too.
Even though we may not like the boards decisions all the time, there are people on the other side, like those who don't want violence in videogames that mostly hate the ratings boards all because they don't like the types of games they let pass even though they may not have played them.
Even though I may not like the Classification Board for some of their decisions like how can you measure how strong the violence is based on reward and incentives when there is no real proof of that in movies and cinema, I do often become thankful of the games they do pass and thankful that at least they are able to make their decisions based on what they have viewed via a video of the game they give a rating for.
Now, for people like Michael Atkinson, he wants to change the way the Classification Board makes their decisions by just screwing them up even more and potentially try to ban games that are even MA15+ if he gets his own way.
In this issue of an R18+ rating for games, it is NOT about letting in more violence and sex into videogames, it is all about giving the Classification Board the chance to rate some games that need an R18+ rating to make it fairer for parents to make their own decisions based on what they feel is ok for their kids at the same time allowing adults to make their own choices of what games they want to play.
There will still be some games banned like any game that has sexual violence and high detailed drug use that is a health benefit or anything else that would be deemed as refused classification like the depiction of genetalia in a sexual way or any penertration of the males sexual organ into the woman's sexual organ, sorry if I had to detail it that way, but still, there will still be some games banned even though I do want to make that choice myself for myself.
The only thing I have a problem is that the Classification Board's decisions are dictated by what the Attorney Generals allow them to make, but even then, all attorney generals have to agree on changing certain rules of how the classification board makes their decisions. And that means letting people just like Atkinson who has the power over the classification boards decisions who he himself does not really understand videogames at all.
I feel that most people on the classification board really are kinda sick and tired of mr Atkinson, therefore that is why they make their decisions themselves of what games to allow in and Mr Atkinson does not like that,
Still, I would rather the Classification board make their decisions on what is being portrayed in the violence and the sex to base their ratings on instead of trying to go too deep into detail of what the impact might be, or about the incentives and rewards that seem to be descrininating to videogames and not really fair when compared to movies and DVDs. But still, this might be because of Mr Atkinson's view of games being active and movies being passive and anything in a game the player is doing something where in movies the viewer is doing nothing.
Re: Classification Board Member Quizzed
No. The ESRB is NOT enforced by law in any way, shape, or form. The ACMA is a straight-up censorship committee. NO country or government should EVER have the ability to ban speech just because it is "graphic."
-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-
Re: Classification Board Member Quizzed
I was not talking about the ESRB being enfored by law, I was talking about them being like the umpires in a football match that some people who hate games and want to ban some games don't like their decisions, as much as we gamers don't like it how they give an AO18+ rating for a game that can't be sold on consoles because of retailers not wanting to stock it,
In any way, we have to be thankful of the decisions they do make that go our way more than the ones that don't go our way.
Re: Classification Board Member Quizzed
"Two of the key things are, as a general rule, accepting material that is restricted to adults, nudity and sexual activity which must not be related to incentives and rewards."
That's an interesting one, particularly as I'd like to see what exactly defines "incentives and rewards".
Obviously "Achievement Unlocked- Mattress Mambo (69G)" is pretty cut and dried, but theoretically you could consider anything more elaborate than a menu option like "CLICK HERE FOR TEH SEXINGS" to be a 'reward'- If you put a sex scene at the end of a conversation tree, then arguably it's a 'reward' for picking the right options. If it's a cutscene in between levels, then it's arguably an 'incentive' to finish that level.
Does how well it's foreshadowed make a difference? Not telling the player that the cutscene is there might get it out of 'incentive'-land, but might make it a 'reward' for exploration, especially if it's not part of the main story path. (And if it pops up on YouTube, does it suddenly become an 'incentive'?)
/b
Re: Classification Board Member Quizzed
Seems more like an interview then a quizz.