There is some debate in Australia about the introduction of an R18+ rating for video games. Currently, the highest allowed rating for video games is MA15+ which has meant that many games were either banned completely from sale, or modified from the original to fit the criteria for MA15+.
In recent memory, for example, Fallout 3, GTA III, GTA: San Adreas, GTA IV, Reservior Dogs, Soldier of Fortune: Payback, and bizarely, Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure (a game about graffiti) were all either banned or modified versions are sold. Technically, they not "banned" just "refused classification", which amounts to the same thing (though it doesn't stop people buying the game overseas and brining it back to Australia)
What annoys me most about this is that every other entertainment medium has an R18+ rating - music, movies, etc - only video games. Maybe I could understand if there were no video game players over the age of 18 anyway, but the average age of gamers in Australia is 33 years old. It's ridiculous to believe that a 33 year old gamer should only be allowed to buy video games designed for children under 15.
The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General is currently working on a paper for public review that will allow the public to "vote" on whether an R18+ rating should be introduced for video games. I think this is great news, and frankly, about time. However, South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson believes that paper is somehow "biased" and withdrew his support. This meant that the SCAG had to go back and rewrite the paper to be "less biased".
Um, what? Of course it's biased. Complaining that a paper stating we need an R18+ rating is biased is like saying the statement "the sky is blue" is biased. I cannot think of any reasonable argument against it.
In any case, I'm looking forward to the release of this paper so that I can submit my comments. Does "about bloody time" count as an opinion?