Does Australia Have A Point?

This is a possibly not-safe-for-work screenshot of the upcoming Aliens Vs. Predator, which has currently been denied a rating in Australia due, apparently, for gore.

Click the image to enlarge.


Comments

    1. I've seen worse
    & 2. That is just wonderful!

    Its not Australia its South Australian Attorny General Michael Atkinson!

    Check out "Gamers4Croydon" for more information on why this was banned and what you can do to stop this stupidity.

    No, I don't think we do have a point. I mean the same can be said for movies like Saw.

    At the end of the day, adult content is adult content and should be treated as such. We should focus less on censoring everyone and put more effort into ensuring kids don't get their hands on this stuff.

      \agree

    I think it should have been banned, it's obviously incredibly violent and I don't think a film with that much gore would be rated under R18+.

    So because we can't rate it for adults only, if you're of the mind that a person is an adult once they're 18, then it's not quite rite to release it at a rating that children can obtain it.

    I know that it's easy enough to get around age restrictive ratings, but we can at least try can't we? I'm all for an R18+ rating on games by the way =)

      OMG, are you serious? Are you related to Michael Atkinson, or are you a student of the same school of thought? Let me guess, you're one of *those* people who believe that video games are worse than movies because they're interactive, and so making your avatar kill someone in a game is training you to do the same in the real world. [laughs]

      I wish I could say that there's *never* been a study that successfully linked violent video games to causing violence, but it's pretty close to never. That's if you exclude people who are particularly impressionable, such as those with a mental illness that inhibits their ability to differentiate right from wrong -- but you can't build laws to govern a whole nation around a single, arguably minority group.

      Banning games will not solve any problems.

    Definitely a ridiculous post. The only point Australia (ie: Classification Board) has is that this definitely shouldn't be for minors.

    Epic screenie by the way. :p

      I think he was saying that in the absence of an R18+ rating, it is better it is banned than to be on sale in that form.

      Obviously an R18+ rating would be the best solution. I've seen movies with far more gore than that, so content is no real argument.

    No, there is no point to the limitations of the Australian Classification system for Video Games.

    Yes, this game should be rated for people 18 years old or older. Does that then mean adults should not be able to play it in Australia?

    If the Australian classification system was in line with most other countries, there would be a lot less game banning.

    Wow, aren't Kotaku a bunch of muppets?
    The day it goes for review you guys post this pic.
    Cheers for ruining any chance the game had in getting released here.

    Amateurs.

      Because it isn't like the OFLC would have a review copy of the game or anything...

    That's one way to do a tracheotomy!

    By the way, you can show surgical procedures but not gore. Roughly the same thing in my opinion. Watching surgical procedures on TV makes me squirm, but I don't go around trying to ban it. I just don't watch it.

      There's a world of difference between cutting into someone surgically while they're motionless and knocked out as opposed to jumping on someone and ripping their throat out while they're kicking and screaming with blood and gore flying out :/

        That doesn't mean the game should be banned. What century is this again?

    Soldier of Fortune.

    not the recent one im talking the 2000 game where a Desert eagle used to take peoples limbs off at the joint and they would continue with a black knight impressions.

    second, this is still tame or at least barely equal to the horror and gore of preditor 1 & 2. the net launcher fires, pins a man to a wall, then conrtacts to dig into his skin and leave him bleeding from multiple lacerations.

    Mommmy why does that man have an extremely long neck?

    My point is that that dude should floss.
    look at the black crap between his teeth! That's not predator, its gingivitis!

    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Yes, the Classification board was right to refuse classification (i.e. ban the game), since there's no way that this game is suitable for an MA15+ rating under the current system.

    However that doesn't change the fact that it is ridiculous in this day and age that Australia does not an adult restricted rating category for games.

    looks like it should be an adults only game to me.
    I have no problem with banning kiddies from playing it. Put a big red adults only sticker on it, R18+ etc and I will be fine with that. Same as every other adults only product in the world.

    We got no jobs, we got no food ... our marine's heads are falling off!!

    But seriously, it's just like horror films ... I understand why people don't want to watch them, I don't think they're appropriate to show kids, however a lot of people enjoy watching them. Should that group of people be denied that right because some people find horror films not to their taste, or because of the fact that a lot of kids have access to dvd player?

    It's democracy people. Tolerance and responsibility are key.

    We should introduce a R18+ rating instead of banning it. Its like f—king Steven Conroy and his internet filter... its government fail!

    Here's an interesting thing to think about.

    Many people compare the rating of games and film. However, you must realise that the interaction, actually controlling and making the choice to disembowel that poor guy, will have a much greater impact on the audience than just watching such an event occur.

    It's also interesting when people compare the new wave of current gen games to last gen games. Sure they may depict the same level of gore but much more realistically. As gaming hardware becomes more powerful and graphics lean towards photo-realism, surely that will play some part on the impact it has on the player.

      "However, you must realise that the interaction, actually controlling and making the choice to disembowel that poor guy, will have a much greater impact on the audience than just watching such an event occur."

      sdf, I understand peoples draw to making claims like this, but it is currently unfounded. There is no conclusive proof to back this view up, and I think you'll find what little study has been done shows casual links that both and agree with and refute this claim.

      I'm not sure that the interaction argument is valid.

      In games atm, executing an on-screen action is done so by pressing a button, or in the case of some Wii games, performing a simple arm movement. As far as I'm aware there is no decapitation\disembowel button in real life.

      On the impact ... is the argument that the higher impact will make people more likely to try to emulate what they see on the screen? I stand to be corrected, but I have not seen any conclusive evidence to support a rise in violent crime, or any crime for that matter (apart from console theft perhaps), correlating with improvements in video game graphics.

      Making a decision to restrict people's access to material based on assumption is not the right course of action, IMO.

      i'm sorry, but for every study saying 'wont somebody think of the children' there is another on saying its utter bullshit.

      An R 18+ rating will provide parents with better guide lines as to what games their children can and cant play. with this in place more games will become will become out of reach and i'm sure a few currently rated m15+ would have fallen under r18+ if this system was in place, even with their edits to become m15+.

      Games are for everyone, but should be rated the right way.

      if this was 50 years ago, i'm pretty sure the media in question would have been 'Rock and Roll'. all those kids listening to all that evil music...

      things never change....

      SDF, there is no conclusive evidence to support your 'interesting' point.

      It's this kind of nonsense "well it sorta makes logical sense that since it's more interactive it will have a greater effect so it must be so" argument that Atkinson has been making that pisses me off. Go to text. Show me the research. I'll give you an example of a properly formulated argument, then you can try it the next time you post something so idiotic. Here goes.

      Ferguson and Kilborn recently published a meta-analysis (Level 2 evidence) in the Journal of Pediatrics (J Pediatr 2009;154:759-63) showing a correlation coefficient of 0.05 between violent behaviour and video game exposure, a similar coefficient to violent movies, and a value so low it would not be considered clinically significant under any normal, non-politicized circumstances. In comparison, being born into child abuse has a correlation coefficient of .25, and having a family history of violence has a coefficient of 0.75.

      Don't even make me pull the studies linking alcohol intake to violence. You certainly don't hear any talk about banning alcohol instead of limiting it to 18+ because minors may obtain it illegally. People would scoff at the very notion.

        To all above maybe my english isnt that great or you seem to have misunderstood me. By impact I simply meant the experience that the audience has i.e. will you not agree that decapitating someone in AvP will be a more gruesome experience than in, say, the original Doom?

    No, Australia does NOT have a point. People should be free to view whatever they like. If you do not want to see this crap then here's an idea..don't buy it?
    Heard the latest news, Totilo? Our government is going ahead with a mandatory firewall to keep all our children safe! *cough* BULLSHIT *cough* CENSORSHIP *cough* CHINA!

      Bugger, I've stepped in it now..

      I saw that question as being 'Is this too violent for ANYONE to be viewing?' Don't mind me...my brain isn't working today.
      But yes, valid point, not for kids. I guess I was thinking a little too hard into it..

    I can walk into any game store in the country right now and grab a copy of Soldier of Fortune 2: Double Helix, I can then equip a shotgun, run up to any enemy, fire at the stomach region and blow a hole clean through them and watch their intestines spew out onto the pavement, or unload some buckshot into their head and either decapitate them and watch blood periodically squirt from their neck artery and form a puddle or just take a few chunks out of their head, this game is rated MA, the current ratings system is very inconsistent.

    Do I think this should be R18+? Yes.
    Do I think this should be MA15+? No.
    Do I think this should be banned? No.
    Do I think banning this game is better than releasing it as MA15+? Yes. This is no where near a game anyone under 18 should get their hands on.

      I completely disagree with this being unsuitable for someone under 18. I remember back when I was 15 and this game would have been perfectly suitable for me, same with Fallout 3 and GTA4. While I agree that It should be rated R18+, I think the legal purchasing age for that rating (if it ever gets approved) should actually be 16. See, many parents aren't really taking the M15 and MA15+ ratings seriously, understandably so, given that we have three 15yo ratings. They see MA15+ and think "eh, it should be okay for little johnny 9 year old". An R18+ rating would drive home that it really is only suitable for adults and older teens.

      I don't think the OFLC thinks this isn't suitable for a 15 year old. They are banning it because they don't think it's suitable for a 10, 11, 12 year old, which the game would be bought for by dumb parents. I've always felt we should adopt the European PEGI system, which rates games differently to movies and has the following age rankings: 3+ (equiv G), 7+ (equiv G8), 12+ (equiv PG15), 16 (equiv MA15) and 18. I think these are much more sensible.

      There is preview footage of the gory trophy kills on Youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfGFiZz2DnI

    It has an EXTREMELY VALID POINT. I don't want kids seeing this...thats why an R18+ rating needs to exist.

    WOW! Better graphics than what i thought it would look like.
    Shame its banned.

    I think you're all forgeting what it was like to be children.

    I have a ten year old son and he pointed this screenshot out to me today and asked if that was why AvP was banned, I said it was likely part of the reason and he was surprised,

    "But it's just a head", he said.

    When I was ten I went mad for films like Predator, watching Carl Weathers get his arm blown off and Sonny Landham getting his spine pulled out. I laughed gleefully.

    So instead of 'please, think of the children', could the cry for classification ring as 'please, think like the children'.

      while i see your point, when i was 10 and watching mac get his head exploded i was freaking the fuck out!

      that scene with carl weathers is brilliant though.

    Not suitable for M15+. Yes we do have a point.

    Anyone here actually played the game and able to comment based on first hand evidence and context?

    Didn't think so.

      i haven't played it but i have seen a demo of the scene the COB doesn't like at media events

      I predicted this to be RC'd a LOOOOOONG time ago

    I wouldn't let my kids play this. They're all under 10. However I'm 37 and would appreciate the Australian Government respecting me enough to allow me to make my own decisions about what I'm happy to view.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now