Decapitation, dismemberment, locational damage, impalement, eye-gouging and the use of human heads as trophies: that’s why Aliens vs Predator was refused classification in Australia, as we reported this morning.
The official Classification Board report on the title says the Sega game is “unsuitable for a minor to see or play” because it “contains violence that is high in impact.”
Here’s the full description of the content in question:
“The game contains first-person perspective, close-up depictions of human characters being subjected to various types of violence, including explicit decapitation and dismemberment as well as location damage such as stabbing through the chest, throat, mouth or eyes.
Characters can be stabbed with a Predator’s wrist blade or an Alien’s tail in depictions reminiscent of impalement. The Predator collects “trophies” by explicitly ripping off human heads, their spinal columns dangling from severed necks.
Head can be twisted completely around in order to break a character’s neck. Eyes can be stabbed through or gouged, leaving empty, bloodied eye sockets.
It is noted that a player is able to combine manoeuvres together in quick succession, which further increases impact; for example, a Predator can stab a character through both eyes with its wrist blade and then rip off their head, with spinal column still attached. Extensive post mortem damage, including decapitation and dismemberment, is also possible.
Depictions of violence such as the above are accompanied by copious amounts of blood and gore, including ample wound details and visible skeleton.
In the opinion of the Board, the violence in the game causes a high playing impact due to its first-person, close-up perspective, conceptual nature and the level of explicit detail involved in the depictions. The game is therefore unsuitable for a minor to see or play and should be refused classification.”
In essence, similar to the situation with Left 4 Dead 2, it’s the human appearance of the victims of such high level violence that increases the impact.
Sega told us earlier today that they are considering all their options, including the possibility of an appeal. We’ll update you when we hear more.
Adam Grabda
December 4, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Sounds awesome! Definately importing this for me and my mates from play-asia ;)
Report PermalinkDaniel Hutton
December 4, 2009 at 6:16 PM
The funny thing was, as I was reading the above passages like “a Predator can stab a character through both eyes with its wrist blade and then rip off their head, with spinal column still attached”, I was quite literally thinking the same thing. It sounds freaking awesome.
But we have to think of the children. Cos you know, a 5 year old kid playing this game will suddenly have the urge to go and rip out people’s spinal columns, ammirite?
Report PermalinkMichael Pannunzio
December 4, 2009 at 2:08 PM
That actually does sound pretty gruesome, and almost Manhunt-esce.
Report Permalinkcrotchdot
December 4, 2009 at 2:09 PM
They should use the OFLC’s report as an advertisement for the game, it sure as hell made me want to play it.
Report PermalinkGordon Mackenzie
December 4, 2009 at 7:45 PM
As if i wasn’t already looking forward to this game, that was the best advertisement ever!
Report PermalinkPsychoSmiley
December 4, 2009 at 2:10 PM
“unsuitable for a minor to see or play”
*sigh*
Well no shit Sherlock. I could tell any parent that. Not that this will have any bearing on my ability to play it. It didn’t work with Left4Dead 2 that’s for sure.
Report PermalinkRyno
December 4, 2009 at 2:10 PM
wont get though, no AVP for us. because there is not way such a core mechanic can be edited out the same way L4D did.
its a pity but certainly not the reveiw boards fault. noone can say that the predator films are anything less that R18+ and a game that so faithfully recreates that is just not going to skim under the M15 rating.
Report PermalinkNegativeZero
December 4, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Actually, both the predator films are only rated M.
Additionally absolutely everything described here except eye-gouging was in the previous two AvP games…
Report PermalinkWiseHacker
December 4, 2009 at 2:11 PM
And this is different to the dismemberment in Fallout 3 how?
Report PermalinkWiseHacker
December 4, 2009 at 2:15 PM
I just read the reasoning again.
“The game is therefore unsuitable for a minor to see or play and should be refused classification”
It is clear that the ACB is oblivious to the fact that this game is *never meant* for kid.
Report PermalinkRyno
December 4, 2009 at 4:52 PM
thats a legal term, not a descriptive term. their context is correct.
a “minor” in australia is any individual under 18. so what they say is correct. this game is unsuitible for anyone under 18 and without an 18+ catagory for video games is must be refused classification.
Report PermalinkRyno
December 4, 2009 at 4:48 PM
its the issue of melee vs ranged gore.
decapitation by axe/bat/sword is considered differant to decapitation from shotgun. a rediculous standard but its what we got.
peoples heads didnt come off from melee weapons in fallout 3.
Report PermalinkWiseHacker
December 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM
They do in Fallout 3.
Granted that don’t come off in one piece but they still come off, :-P.
Report PermalinkPhill
December 4, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Uh, yeh they did. The sword did it, and any melee weapon will do it once the body is on the ground.
Report PermalinkJoshy206
December 4, 2009 at 2:12 PM
I think the board’s decision was the smartest thing to do under the circumstances of no R18+ rating. This is the a game which would BE R18+. L4D2 was a stupid decision, because it’s very much like the first, but this is understandable.
Report Permalinkwho am iiiiii
December 4, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Seconded.
I doubt a lot of the people here saying it isnt that bad have seen the gameplay footage- for example when a predator sneaks up behind a dude, grabs him by the throat, lifts him in the air as he chokes and struggles, the suddenly BAM 2 spikes go right through his head from under the jaw and out the top, simultaneously ripping off his head and leaving a permanent “shocked” expression on his face… the predator then pockets the head… its pretty messed up.
Report PermalinkGarrick Bortignon
December 4, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Import FTW?
Report PermalinkdoubleDizz
December 4, 2009 at 2:17 PM
“causes a high playing impact due to its first-person, close-up perspective, conceptual nature and the level of explicit detail involved in the depictions.”
This is no different to me sitting in a cinema watching a film depicting the exact same thing, in a close-up POV shot (which the Aliens franchise has done a NUMBER OF TIMES!)
I completely agree this movie IS NOT suitable for minors. But if the movie versions have the option to get an R-rating so that adults who wish to watch the film can do so, WHY THE HELL CAN’T I GET THE SAME FREEDOM IN MY VIDEO GAMES.
WHEN THE HELL IS THIS GOING TO END FOR GOD’S SAKE?!
PS – How’s the corruption and bullying accusations going Atko?
Report PermalinkMichael
December 4, 2009 at 2:17 PM
THIS IS BEYOND A JOKE! ITS A GOD DAMN BANNING FRENZY NOW! WHY IS THIS HAPPENING! GOD THIS SUCKS!!!!!!!!!
Report PermalinkMattholamew Jonas
December 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM
this game sounds awesome. :)
Report PermalinkJosh
December 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM
They needed to add, “and god have mercy on your souls”
Report PermalinkKeg
December 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM
GHEY!!
This game looks fricken awesome!
VOTE G4C!
Report PermalinkJamie Galea
December 4, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Absolutely ridiculous. Sure, there are some pointless things that I can understand (such as ripping out eyes and stuff), but still ridiculous.
Report PermalinkJoshihatsumitsu
December 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Chances are, same with Left 4 Dead 2, had this game gone through without any issues, without the song and dance that goes with being Refused Classification, it would have gone onto retail shelves and I’d probably not notice it.
Yet, with the description of why the game was refused, I kinda want it now, just to see what the fuss is about. I mean Silent Hill Homecoming wasn’t that great, and Dark Sector? Please… yet part of me wants it, just because I’m not supposed to.
RC just make things so much more appealing. So I guess the lesson here is: if you want someone to be attracted to you, just get Refused Classification. People love the mysterious kind…
Report PermalinkFracture
December 4, 2009 at 2:33 PM
9 year old children go on the internet and type gore into google images, what is this game going to do?
Report PermalinkBrenden Murphy
December 4, 2009 at 11:32 PM
type “gore” into google images and you get Al
Report PermalinkMatthew Smith
December 4, 2009 at 2:33 PM
I guess this illustrates the heart of the issue: The classification guidelines demand that games be evaluated as a past time for children only. I am endlessly amazed that it still can’t be seen as a mature form of entertainment.
Report PermalinkBrendon
December 4, 2009 at 2:35 PM
By that description I can understand why it got refused. I guess you would have to see it foryourself to judge just how bad it looks.
Report PermalinkCloneTrooper
December 4, 2009 at 2:39 PM
And yet the Saw game gets classified….
A game about a Serial Killer who sets up deadly and elaborate traps, taken from the series of movies that have ridiculously violent traps that are depicting real people getting killed..
But its okay, we can stop them going to see those movies at the Cinema….and we’ll completely ignore the fact minors can get their hands on those DVDs if pepole over 18 go and buy rent them and take them home…because if we acknowledged that, then our arguements for protecting the minors would fall down in a massive heap.
*sigh*
Sad thing is, we should expect to much more of this in the future.
Report PermalinkSaveUsFromTheMonsters!
December 4, 2009 at 2:42 PM
All those acts listed above can be found in the Predator or AvP films and yet none of those were refused classification. While I’m pretty sure Predator was rated R when it first released on VHS none of the films rate worse than MA15+ now.
I call bulldork.
Report PermalinkJames
December 4, 2009 at 6:58 PM
The different classifications are defined in terms of the “impact” on the viewer. They also work under the assumption that an act that you actively participate in has higher impact than if you are a passive observer.
So it is quite possible for things found in an MA15+ movie to exceed that rating when they occur in a game.
Report PermalinkDitty
December 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Australia… I am disappoint(ed).
Report Permalinkbrad
December 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM
pfft.
Report Permalinkso even though its an “alien being” it could still corrupt us and “de-sensitize us toward violence? uh huh. theyre trying to protect us just in case we mutate and turn into some freak monster killing machine. rofl.
its funny that fps games encounter almost no issues and in these we actually kill characters that ARE depicted as human.
OFLC = out of control!
David, have we had any update on our mate’s appeal re:MW2?
Mr Waffle
December 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Sounds like pretty much the most awesome game ever made, and I cannot wait to play it!
Report PermalinkPhill
December 4, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Fallout 3.
Enough said.
Report PermalinkSteve
December 4, 2009 at 2:46 PM
In all fairness to the Classification Board, they’ve made the right decision here. R18+ sounds like the appropriate rating for this game, and it’s not their fault that they’re unable to give that rating.
Report Permalinkthyco
December 4, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Steve is right, and the most important line in the report is the last sentence. that line can also been seen as a statement from the board that they know the game is ment for adults but there hands are tied due to the lack of the correct rating.
The board also have L4D2 still in their minds as well as the MWF2 No Russian Controversy as well.
SEGA will most likely appeal but i believe it will be the RC will be upheld, however SEGA could try and make a big push with it to bring it into the spotlight to the majority of the population.
Report PermalinkBlenny
December 4, 2009 at 5:40 PM
I totally agree. Just another reason the classification system for games needs a complete over-haul, including the introduction of an R18+ classification.
Pull your fingers out, AGs (or should that be AsG?).
Report PermalinkAussieSniper
December 4, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Agreed. We need that R18 rating NOW.
Report PermalinkDavid Foster
December 4, 2009 at 6:47 PM
they even said ‘unsuitable for minors’. and for some in the past theyve said ‘not suitable for those under hte age of 18, but as theres no rating’ or similar
Report Permalink