THE guidelines for an R18+ classification for video games show that the Australian Classification Board is continuing to treat adults like children, experts claim.

The board released the guidelines yesterday,after a decade long battle to bring video game classifications in line with films and television shows.

But some experts say the caveat to the guidelines wrongly treats the interactive nature of gaming as being harmful, despite studies showing that was not the case.

Pictures: Video Games Refused Classification

Dr Christopher Ferguson, associate professor of psychology and communication at the University of Texas told News Ltd that it was confusing for video games to be rated differently to films and television shows due to their "interactivity".

"I suspect the comments are geared toward mollifying the moral crusading constituency whom I guess would otherwise be opposed to the new classification system," Dr Ferguson said. "The idea that the 'interactivity' of video games made them any more harmful than television or other media is pretty much dead."

Dr Ferguson said he referred to it as "scientific urban legend" that video games made people violent "given that it had been thoroughly refuted in scientific literature".

"Nevertheless it sometimes gets mentioned in support of regulation," he said. "Generally, the best research coming out now suggests that video game violence has very little impact on behavior at all."

In 2010, Former Australian Attorney General, Robert McClelland, released a report which concluded that the department's research had found no connection between video game violence and aggressive behaviour in youth.

The US Supreme Court threw out a case in the same year after California law enforcers to tried to place a ban on violent video games because of their alleged links to violent behaviour.

Hundreds of scientists from both sides of the debate presented evidence to support their claims before the court ruled it had insufficient evidence to rule that video games were the problem.

Ron Curry, CEO of the Interactive Gaming and Entertainment Association told News Ltd that the board had wrongly conflated the idea that interactivity was bad for children, when the R18+ classification should focus on how it impacted adults.

"R18+ classification is not for kids," Mr Curry said.

Psychologist for the video game addiction treatment clinic, Emil Hodzic, told News Ltd that violent video games did have an effect on young people, but there were other factors that needed to be taken into consideration.

"It does have an effect on empathy and aggressive behaviour to name a few," he said, "but there is still the constellation of other out-of-game social and moral shapers to take into account, factors to which, we are more frequently exposed and less sensitive to by adulthood. "

Mr Hodzic said interactivity was "a double edged sword," because different games rewarded or punished the choices users made while playing.

"One can be asked to participate in or mock amoral, illegal and antisocial acts, but one may also have the in-game choice of doing the right thing," he said.

The psychologist said it would have been better if the classifications identified the moral choices users had to make in the game.

"That may make a big sticker for the game box but would have benefit to the guardians or parents who are considering buying the game,'' he said.

"If the sticker included something like choice of physical abuse... or will teach the player to gamble and reward them it could really make a difference.

"It could also be a good starting point for guardians or parents to talk about right and wrong with their children."

The Australian Classification Board told News Ltd that its role was to apply the policy of the day and that they would use the guidelines when there was a classification for computer games.

Originally published as R18+ rating 'treats adults like kids'