Slashdot Mirror


Left 4 Dead 2 Banned In Australia

An anonymous reader writes "According to Australia's Office of Film and Literature Classification, Left 4 Dead 2's content exceeds that allowable for an MA15+ rating. Any such game is rated as Refused Classification, effectively banning it. From the report: 'The game contains realistic, frenetic, and unrelenting violence which is inflicted upon "the Infected" who are living humans infected with a rabies-like virus that causes them to act violently. The player can choose from a variety of weapons including pistols, shotguns, machine guns, and sniper rifles. However, it is the use of the "melee" weapons such as the crowbar, axe, chainsaw and Samurai sword which inflict the most damage. These close-in attacks cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore.'"

215 comments

  1. Good advertising by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I didn't know valve did such a good job of making a proper gorey zombie game.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re:Good advertising by Squeeonline · · Score: 1

      Cant wait to see what Yatzee has to say about the game. My bet is that he'll destroy it anyway, if he gets his hands on a copy.

    2. Re:Good advertising by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Considering that so far he seems to despise "consolized" games even more than usual for him I would expect that.

      Left4Dead1 had pretty much one of the worst UI's of any game I've ever played. Long tree style menus that randomly dumped me back to the beginning after applying changes, utter inability to fine tune individual settings, mandatory motion blur...

      I'm just hoping that since L4d2 is closer to valve's in-house stuff rather than being bought basically halfway through it has a decent chance of sucking less. That includes selling what's basically a $20 half-finished mod as a $60 fullsized game and then pulling an EA making the sequel and dumping the original only a year later.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    3. Re:Good advertising by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      That includes selling what's basically a $20 half-finished mod as a $60 fullsized game and then pulling an EA making the sequel and dumping the original only a year later.

      Don't forget failing to release many of the promised updates to the $20 half-finished mod, then announcing that they'll be in the sequel.

    4. Re:Good advertising by djnforce9 · · Score: 1

      Depends how good the game turns out to be. Yahtzee sure had a difficult time trying to take down "Batman Arkham Asylum" and couldn't help but like Psychonauts. Only time will tell though as I am certain he will review "Left 4 Dead 2" as he does with every major game release.

    5. Re:Good advertising by Flentil · · Score: 1

      But you see they didn't do good enough because those zombies aren't really zombies, they are humans who are still alive but infected. Had valve actually gone all the way and made them real zombies, they probably wouldn't have this legal censorship issue to deal with now.

  2. Advertisement? by acid06 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The player can choose from a variety of weapons including pistols, shotguns, machine guns, and sniper rifles. However, it is the use of the "melee" weapons such as the crowbar, axe, chainsaw and Samurai sword which inflict the most damage. These close-in attacks cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore.

    Seriously. Did they pay the ratings board to write that?

    1. Re:Advertisement? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      I think that sentence should be Refused Classification and banned.

    2. Re:Advertisement? by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Seriously. Did they pay the ratings board to write that?

      Probably, so I should fight my newly grown strong will to buy it.

      Fortunately I'm at work; at home I'd have bought it already.

    3. Re:Advertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just that these censors keep mixing up "certification" with "recommendation".

    4. Re:Advertisement? by AftanGustur · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Did they pay the ratings board to write that?

      That is not so unlikely, the Left4Dead community is not at all pleased with how Valve seems to be abandoning them, and have created a Left4Dead Boycott Group with over 40.000 members.

      Even if they sell each l4d II game for only 40 dollars (instead of the usual 49) that represents 1.6 million dollars in lost sales.

      So Valve has to generate more interest in the new title, and this is probably a part of that.

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    5. Re:Advertisement? by KodePhreak · · Score: 1

      Bonza mate! :D

    6. Re:Advertisement? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      These close-in attacks cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore.

      OMG, it sounds like that game rawks

      What, are Australians pussies or something?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Advertisement? by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      Left 4 Dead 2 - Australian for awesome!

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    8. Re:Advertisement? by TikiTDO · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I doubt all of those 40,000 members will follow though with this boycott. When 9/10 of your friends are playing, it will take a special kind of person to go, "No thanks, I'm trying to prove a point."

    9. Re:Advertisement? by MChisholm · · Score: 1

      Valve managed to effectively decapitate that boycott group by flying the two leaders of the group out to Bellevue, WA for a tour of the Valve offices and a look at the game.

      Who knows whether or not it'll actually affect the boycott, though.

    10. Re:Advertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. But knowing Valve's sense of humor I'm sure they've already framed the board's review and put it on the wall. Or maybe quoted it on the box packaging.

    11. Re:Advertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. Did they pay the ratings board to write that?

      Probably, so I should fight my newly grown strong will to buy it.

      They probably paid the Australian government to ban it...for the same reason.

    12. Re:Advertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, we've just got retards in power, and no easy way to get rid of them.

  3. Guns vs. melee by straponego · · Score: 5, Funny

    'However, it is the use of the "melee" weapons such as the crowbar, axe, chainsaw and Samurai sword which inflict the most damage.'

    That's odd, I think I'd rather be hit by a crowbar than blasted with a shotgun. Oh well, only one way to find out.

    1. Re:Guns vs. melee by ZiakII · · Score: 3, Funny

      'However, it is the use of the "melee" weapons such as the crowbar, axe, chainsaw and Samurai sword which inflict the most damage.'

      That's odd, I think I'd rather be hit by a crowbar than blasted with a shotgun. Oh well, only one way to find out.


      Do you happen to live in Australia by chance?

    2. Re:Guns vs. melee by imrehg · · Score: 1

      'That's odd, I think I'd rather be hit by a crowbar than blasted with a shotgun. Oh well, only one way to find out.

      Yeah, call the MythBusters! Though, Buster is not much of a zombie, but let's see what they can do about it...

    3. Re:Guns vs. melee by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Well it depends on the attacker, and how many goes they have at firing/swinging the weapon. Assuming it's just one shot/swing. If it's a wimpy 95 pounder holding the shotgun/crowbar, I'd take the crowbar hit.

      If it's a construction worker or one of those "ultimate fight" martial artist, I think I'm fubarred either way, so perhaps I should let them shotgun blast my head off...

      FWIW, a samurai sword is probably more lethal than a handgun at close range. Surgeons don't do very well at stitching the two halves of your torso together.

      --
    4. Re:Guns vs. melee by KenRH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mythbusters often use pigs when testing that kind of damage.

    5. Re:Guns vs. melee by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      Remember everything is flipped down under.

    6. Re:Guns vs. melee by Barny · · Score: 1

      Also depends on definitions.

      In aus the little metal bar they are talking about is called a "pry bar" or a "wrecking bar", A crow bar is a straight piece of hex steel about 8 feet long with a sharp flattened spike one end and a flat head on the other, used for breaking up concrete and beating the living shit out of things (trust me, a shotgun would be preferable to being hit by one of these crowbars).

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    7. Re:Guns vs. melee by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Would you rather be shot to death with a shotgun or beaten to death with a crowbar?

    8. Re:Guns vs. melee by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      More importantly, would you rather be beaten to death with a shotgun or shot to death with a crowbar?

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  4. yarr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    well now i'll have to pirate it, hope whatever legal farm is responsible for game piracy sues the government.

    1. Re:yarr by afaik_ianal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The silly thing is that when they ban a game, they increase the number of local torrenters, which increases availability to those under 18.

    2. Re:yarr by rrrhys · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, I was tooootttally going to buy it in the shop before, but now I'll just have to pirate it.

    3. Re:yarr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I was pretty devo when the OFLC permanently enabled the Duke3D parental lock on its Australian release. Until a mate of mine with net access and cd burner (quite a luxury at the time) scored the 'american' version and sold it to half my school at $5 per disc. Nearly everyone was a winner. My mate made a killing, the 'christian ethos' of my school copped another hit, and I got to play the most kick arse game ever made. The only loser was 3dRealms. At the time I clearly promised to myself if they ever made a sequal i'd buy 2 copies to make up for not paying the first time round. Oh how life twists and turns.

    4. Re:yarr by mathx314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, a lot of people will have that reaction. I'm not planning on buying it any time soon (too many other great games coming out at the end of this year), but a local ban on it would certainly remove any of my moral reasons not to pirate it.

  5. Heh by ShooterNeo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    " These close-in attacks cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore."

    Sounds like a pretty convincing advertisement for the game! Darn astroturfers....

    Seriously, the game is sold on Steam. Will steam sell you the game and let you play online if you have an australian IP address? Do they have to block you from purchasing it or not?

    1. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an American friend in Japan who couldn't buy some English Games on Steam due to IP address restrictions. A VPN through my home system quickly made that feasible.

    2. Re:Heh by ScytheBlade1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They sell boxed copies as well. A search on gamestop.com shows this.

      And as that search shows, they also sell copies for the 360, which is definitely not steam. Plus, something tells me that most game companies don't like pissing off an entire national gov't. Just a thought though.

    3. Re:Heh by VoltageX · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      As far as I know, they will block the game from Australian accounts. Time to leave.

      --
      "Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
    4. Re:Heh by GF678 · · Score: 0

      Do they have to block you from purchasing it or not?

      I'm not sure if the law has been ammended in Australia yet regarding digital purchases, but I bet Valve would prefer to err on the side of caution and not sell to us Aussies right now, just in case.

    5. Re:Heh by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 0

      I don't think they block the torrent version of the game ;)

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    6. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, the game is sold on Steam. Will steam sell you the game and let you play online if you have an australian IP address? Do they have to block you from purchasing it or not?

      You'd be surprised. For example as a German (i.e. non-US plus one of the strictest censorship systems for video games) many online shops are essentially banning us from buying there. Doesn't matter that they are in the US or elsewhere, they either only sell to America or explicitely ban Germany. Possibly fearing they might end up in the "search engine black list" which would remove their site from Google, etc. in Germany.

    7. Re:Heh by laederkeps · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was under the impression that "Refused rating, effectively banning the game" simply meant what the U.S. sees as the walmart effect - unrated games aren't sold by popular stores.
      Is it actually illegal in Australia to sell a game which is unrated? That seems a bit excessive to me.

    8. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A number of smaller online stores don't ship to Germany simply because getting stuff through (German) customs is horrid and slow. A friend of mine specifically formed a partnership with a shop in the same market in Germany so he can avoid the hassle as much as possible. He's had packages stuck in customs for over a month, though it usually arrives at the destination, eventually.

    9. Re:Heh by regular_gonzalez · · Score: 2, Informative

      They would have to block the sales of the game, or face legal penalties. There is a workaround, however, that is used in every sizeable gaming community where Game A is not available in Region B for whatever reason -- a friend who *is* in Region A can buy the game as a gift, and then gift it to the person in Region B (whereupon B paypals money to A). Inconvenient? Definitely. But not insurmountable, if you're a regular on a gaming forum like Shacknews.

      --
      Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
    10. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK (IANAL) it's ok for individuals to import RC material for personal, private use just not to sell it or display it to the public. There have been some controversies where locally made films cannot be shown at festivals and then go off to win prizes overseas.

    11. Re:Heh by Nocterro · · Score: 5, Informative

      Illegal to sell or import. Unlike the USA, our "rating" system is an undisguised censorship system.

      --
      [clever sig]
    12. Re:Heh by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering L4D is primarily a mutliplayer game, I think they do ;-)

    13. Re:Heh by anomnomnomymous · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Steam can disable certain games from being sold in your country, or only let you download the censored version (as is being done with the German version of L4D). The weird thing is that there is a way around that: If someone from another country buys the game for you (and gives it as a gift to your account), it will only have the restrictions for the country it's bought in. I've bought L4D for someone in Germany, and they can now enjoy the full experience (as it should be anyways...)

      --
      When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
    14. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was referring to digital download stores. I don't think of games as physical items anymore.

      Customs are very annoying, that's true. I wouldn't even try to order something physical from a non-EU country due to that. Ok, that and the fact that low-value products cost more in shipping and high-value would leave me with zero warranty right ...

    15. Re:Heh by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Time to leave.

      How is it that some people seem to think the free market economy extends to what country you live in...? Such a bizarre thing to expect is a realistic proposition for most people.

    16. Re:Heh by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

      For the PC version, yes.
      But there are versions for consoles which aren't sold via some online distribution system.

      And they do have L4D for PC on disc as well.

      of course, I'm assuming they won't change the distribution method with L4D2 (obligatory: distant cousin of R2D2?)

    17. Re:Heh by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 1

      Just one problem with that -- region coding. I suspect that the controls that prevent Region 1 games from being played on Australian XBoxes work unless specifically hacked.

      --
      There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
    18. Re:Heh by F'Nok · · Score: 1

      The GP was talking about buying on Steam, not on Xbox.

  6. Sounds great by holophrastic · · Score: 2, Funny

    As someone who enjoys the first L4D, this is a really great description of the next one. I'm looking forward to it based on this description alone.

  7. bit torrent much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cant wait to bit torrent it

    ~ An Australian

  8. Working for these companies by suso · · Score: 1

    The game contains realistic, frenetic, and unrelenting violence which is inflicted upon "the Infected" who are living humans infected with a rabies-like virus that causes them to act violently.

    It must be interesting to work in HR at this company.

  9. Looks like.... by Korey+Kaczor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like somebody high up in Austrialia is a wee-bit angry about not having any of the promised downloadable content of l4d...

    1. Re:Looks like.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      ...or got pwned one too many times in PvP.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Did I read this wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    For some reason I thought this was China. I guess I stopped reading after I saw the word Banned.

    1. Re:Did I read this wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia...China

      Tomato...Tomahto

    2. Re:Did I read this wrong? by Hecatonchires · · Score: 1

      I knew Kevin Rudd speaking Mandarin wasn't a good thing!

      --

      Yay me!

    3. Re:Did I read this wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yank...Seppo

  11. And... by BaronSprite · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is different than the evening news? I'm all for sex over violence and a happy world but honestly the stuff that happens in that description is up nightly on TV. My friend down in AU says he watched 28 days/weeks later, so how is this any different?

    1. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's different because 28 days/weeks later was a movie...

      If it was a game, then possessing it or watching it would be a crime.

    2. Re:And... by Quothz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is different than the evening news? I'm all for sex over violence and a happy world but honestly the stuff that happens in that description is up nightly on TV.My friend down in AU says he watched 28 days/weeks later, so how is this any different?

      Well, don't take this as support of the ban, but there is a difference between totally passively watching violence (and simulated violence) and actively controlling simulated violence. Different bits of the brain get used, and I believe there's some evidence that both can negatively impact social development in children, with the latter having a measurably stronger impact. I'm not aware of any research showing that either adversely affects adult behavior when viewed as an adult.

    3. Re:And... by BaronSprite · · Score: 2

      Not disagreeing with anything you said but this is clearly not a game for kids, and is not marketed as such.

    4. Re:And... by norpy · · Score: 3, Informative

      By this logic it should be just as illegal to direct a film like 28 days later in Australia

      By the way, you should be modded down for the "but its harmful to children" argument you just used. The average age of an australian gamer has been shown to be over 30
      We are not asking for games like this to be available to children, only that we can have a suitable rating for adults that wish to play games with adult content not intended for sale or consumption by chidren.

    5. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm not aware of any research showing that either adversely affects adult behavior when viewed as an adult.

      If you ever have any doubt, just look at how radio and TV have affected American politics. Alternatives to the ruling party don't have a chance.

    6. Re:And... by Quothz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not disagreeing with anything you said but this is clearly not a game for kids, and is not marketed as such.

      Hm? Of course not. I disagree with the ban. I just object to analogizing the impact of film and video games - they're different media that stimulate different parts of the brain. They are different and should be treated differently: Specifically, age limitations based on content should probably be slightly lower with film than games.

      As I said, I'm not aware of any negative impact on adults, and even if there were I dislike the notion that the government should protect us from it. There's a long slippery slope there, and the bottom isn't pretty - it ends with the government criminalizing caffeine, loud voices, and anything colored bright red.

      I've no problem with age-restricting the purchase of games, with a reasonable upper limit. But I wouldn't support an outright ban even on a game in which you played a rapist pedophile on an rampage through a nursery school with a rusty letter opener.

    7. Re:And... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      He didn't use an "it's harmful to children" argument. In fact, he specifically stated that he doesn't support the ban. Did you even read his comment, or do you just knee-jerk oppose things whenever an argument involving children is involved? That's almost as bad as invoking the argument in the first place.

      The GPs point was that in fact, there is a difference between TV violence which is watched passively, and video game violence where the viewer becomes an active participant. And he is correct.

      --
      Qxe4
    8. Re:And... by rhook · · Score: 1

      Different bits of the brain get used, and I believe there's some evidence that both can negatively impact social development in children, with the latter having a measurably stronger impact.

      And there is zero evidence of this. Well, unless you listen to the people who want to ban all violent games that is.

    9. Re:And... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      In other words, Australia thinks it's adult subjects are children.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    10. Re:And... by Ren.Tamek · · Score: 1

      I believe there's some evidence that both can negatively impact social development in children, with the latter having a measurably stronger impact.

      You don't believe in evidence. There either is evidence supporting your claim, or there isn't. Current research on a causal relationship between video game violence and real world violence is pretty inconclusive. Take a quick look at the top 10 hits in google reporting on the findings of recent papers.

      Now if you'd rather be safe than sorry with your own children that's fair enough, but I really think its morally wrong to use censorship to deny a work to an entire country based on unscientific opinions.

      --
      "If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever." - George Orwell, 1984
    11. Re:And... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Please let me know where you live, so I can make a point of avoiding it. Any country which has mobs of zombies regularly featuring on the evening news is a long way down my list of holiday destinations...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:And... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      In other words, Australia thinks it's adult subjects are children.

      Australia is a democracy, so it has just the kind of government it deserves that treats its citizens exactly as they deserve, just like the USA deserved Bush and all the consequences and we Finns deserve the Middle Manager ministers in charge here.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    13. Re:And... by Quothz · · Score: 1

      You don't believe in evidence. There either is evidence supporting your claim, or there isn't.

      I said "I believe there is evidence". I'm'a assume English isn't your first language (for now; more on that below) and explain that the phrase means "I'm not certain, but I think evidence has been found".

      But since you're calling me out on it, I'll look at your links. Link the first:

      This powerful combination of two studies presents persuasive evidence that violent video games do indeed increase aggression in some players.

      Link the second:

      Playing violent video games like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Kombat can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life, according to two studies appearing in the April issue of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Furthermore, violent video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because they are interactive, very engrossing and require the player to identify with the aggressor, say the researchers.

      Link the third:

      After 40+ years of research, one might think that debate about media violence effects would be over. An historical examination of the research reveals that debate concerning whether such exposure is a significant risk factor for aggressive and violent behavior should have been over years ago (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Four types of media violence studies provide converging evidence of such effects: laboratory experiments, field experiments, cross-sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies (Anderson & Bushman, 2002a; Bushman & Huesmann, 2000).

      Link the fourth:

      The link between anger and aggression is far from clear, and they would like to see similar results reproduced with other test groups and using different games and experimental setups. It's also worth noting that they attempted to measure a wide range of additional factors during their study, but many of these measurements produced statistically insignificant or contradictory results.

      This is the first one that doesn't claim the connection is well-established, but it does find a causative link between aggressive behavior and violent media. It attempts to establish that there is an additional factor. Link the fifth:

      After an average playtime of 56 hours over the course of a month with âoeAsheronâ(TM)s Call 2,â a popular MMRPG, or âoemassively multi-layer online role-playing game,â researchers found âoeno strong effects associated with aggression caused by this violent game,â said Dmitri Williams, the lead author of the study.

      Teenagers experiencing 56 hours of fantasy violence over one month and then self-assessing their feelings. 'Nuff said, I hope. Link the sixth:

      A brain mechanism that may link violent computer games with aggression has been discovered by researchers in the US. The work goes some way towards demonstrating a causal link between the two - rather than a simple association.

      Link the seventh:

      After an average playtime of 56 hours over the course of a month...

      Same as five.

    14. Re:And... by Ren.Tamek · · Score: 1

      Quoting out of context and insults; it's what all the cool kids are doing.

      Seriously though, given that I obviously misunderstood your first post (using 'believe' to mean 'I am aware of the existence of' rather than 'I have belief in') I really think further argument is pointless given that we seem to have the same viewpoint: no scientific consensus (regardless of which side of the debate you think is stronger, more research is required, especially before laws are passed). Excellent. Glad that's straightened out. Also you smell (sorry i'm not great with insults).

      --
      "If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever." - George Orwell, 1984
    15. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he said "adults" ... that particular demographic you mentioned... they don't count...

  12. Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by rve · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't they have an 18+ rating for games in Australia?

    Polls consistently show that the vast majority of gamers are adults.

    1. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 5, Informative

      No we do not.

    2. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Pyrus.mg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Few Australians escape the dingos to reach the ripe old age of 18 and those who do have usually lost limbs to crocodiles or tragic boomerang incidents, assuming they haven't been paralyzed by some sort of venomous critter. Not exactly hardcore gamers in other words.

    3. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds like the nanny state is extending across the former empire. We all know the Indians are even more prudish than us Americans, the Aussies appear to be bowing to the idea that a game can be too violent for an ADULT to play, what's next the Canadians deciding drinking is too much fun and that it keeps people from serious work? The Puritans may have died out as an organized religion but the harm they have done to the western world is pretty endemic.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by grapeape · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope, their rating system goes from G, PG, M, MA15+ (which is a mishmash of what we have as T and M in the ESRB though nearly all end up on the MA15+ side) and then RC games classified as RC are automatically banned from sale and display.

    5. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      Don't they have an 18+ rating for games in Australia?

      No, strangely enough, they actually don't. Apparently, they have an 18+ rating, but it's not applicable to video games. Games that would receive such a rating are refused classification and banned from sale in the country. Which I find very stupid, given the number of games that aren't geared for kids and the average age of gamers is, what, 27 now?

    6. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      Hopefuly that was sarcastic as Puritans = founders of New England, drinking ban = *cough* that was the US and in some cases still is and "harm done to the western world" = most of Europe disagrees.

    7. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Part of the reason may be that 18+ movies only get limited release because of the economics of that medium. As you point out most gamers are over 18 so the 18+ rating would not deter game developers and 18+ games would proliferate.

    8. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by jamesh · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not exactly hardcore gamers in other words.

      Yes. Those of us that survive don't need to play violent games. We've lived it!

    9. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Hoopsnakes kill more people than dingos.

    10. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by norpy · · Score: 1
    11. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by adamkennedy · · Score: 4, Informative

      R18+ is not applicable to video games, which has been an ongoing complaint of the industry for a LONG time now.

      So in the sense this isn't "banned" as such, it's just that the censors are given the game and told to work out the category.

      Normally, anything so bad that it doesn't fit into the R18+ classification (which usually means stuff like "realistic depictions of rape" and varying gradients of behaviour heading towards but falling short of "child pornography") are the only things that end up beyond the available ratings and in the "Refused Classification" area.

      The problem is just that they WOULD quite happily give it R18+, but they aren't allowed to. Which leaves violent games like this thrown in with rape video and similar stuff, where they don't belong.

      Everyone knows it's fucking ridiculous, and as the game-playing public ages I imagine it will get fixed eventually. It just results in stupid edge cases in the short term.

    12. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      Introduction of such a rating would require consensus (and possibly unanimity) from the state's Attorney Generals. Atkinson, the AG from South Australia currently opposes this and is also refusing to allow publication of the results of public poinion on the matter.

      Copies will be downloaded or imported just as they have for previous iterations of 'Refused Classification' games. Sure, kids who rely on their parents buying their games will probably be unable to get a hold of a copy - but that is already true of MA 15+ rated games. Anyone old enough to be able to buy a MA 15+ is perfectly capable of finding a copy and now it has an additional cachet of being 'forbidden'. All this does is inconvenience those adults who might wish to _legally_ obtain a copy and provides justifiaction for modding consoles to play 'backups' or downloading copies.

    13. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Hecatonchires · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Adding a new rating requires an all in favour vote by the Attorney Generals of each state. There is a particularly rabid religious AG who always votes no. We're waiting for him to die.

      --

      Yay me!

    14. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by imrehg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't they have an 18+ rating for games in Australia?

      Polls consistently show that the vast majority of gamers are adults.

      in connection with this... Just because a kid "shouldn't" play the game, nobody is allowed to? Ratings are for the parents, if i was a parent and wanted to get a 18+ classified game to my kid, who give the right to the government to stop me? No-one. They cannot buy the game themselves, but that's all. So, again, because some board of someones thinks that it is not suitable for children, who the hack are they to tell what is available for sale. Oh, right, the law.... And because it's about "just some game and stuff", people won't go out to protest (though now they would have time, since cannot get the game). But it is just another nanny-state bullshit...

    15. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hoopsnakes kill more people than dingos.

      I thought it was Dropbears.

    16. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Techman83 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Unfortunately no we don't, M15+ is the highest. We need to have a unanimous vote by the Attorney Generals to get something like an R18+ for video games and Michael Atkinson voted no to the change (everyone else voted yes).

      "He doubts whether any safeguards could be put in place to deter young people, who after all (are) the most computer literate and savvy in our society, from being able to access material."

      news.com.au

      Until he is replaced or retires, there will not be any change to the classification system.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    17. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Funny

      We're waiting for him to die.

      Why wait? Get out your crowbars, axes, chainsaws and Samurai swords!

      I'm sure you'll doubly enjoy to see his blood spray and splatter! If Martin Bryant was able do it, so can you!

      We want to see Atkinson's head. On a platter. Along with his left arm and right leg!

    18. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Most of Europe is also under an inane set of laws mostly pulled out of thin air. I don't think they have a right to judge on the sane-ness of many laws pertaining to freedoms.

    19. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Wait, so the Attorney Geeral isn't allowing publication of public opinion [polls] on the matter? (I'm assuming you meant to say that; what other public opinions could there be? Editorial-types, which are anecdotal? Nah, polls makes sense; they're the ones that represent more people.)

      So, why does the attorney general have any say over what gets published by the Aussie media? What kind of backwards system is that, where the person having a hand making the law can also prevent public opinion from being displayed about the law, while also being the head of an organization that executes the law???

    20. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      That would be most of the world.

    21. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I always assumed that the average gamer was between 5 and 15. Can you back up your stats?

    22. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of Europe is also under an inane set of laws mostly pulled out of thin air.

      In most European countries you can drink a beer in a public park and not get arrested.

      Some European countries don't seem to care a great deal if you like to smoke weed (even decriminalised in a couple of places).

      Some European countries don't care so much if you can't get a date and decide to just go buy yourself that blowjob instead.

      Yep, sounds pretty fucked up to me. Dangerous, even! You lot should really stay over there on your side of the ocean where it's safe. :P

    23. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      so L4D 2, mhh, banned, who cares, plenty of other games to choose from.

      So it's ok as long as they only ban unreasonably games you don't like, right?

      "First they came for L4D2..."

    24. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      . As you point out most gamers are over 18 so the 18+ rating would not deter game developers and 18+ games would proliferate.

      ...And so, the market would determine what should be produced, instead of an arbitrary governor.

      Where's the problem?

    25. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, why are parents letting kids play them? Is australia's collective IQ so low that government must do the parenting while the parents just run around drooling and playing with kangaroos? A least Germany has an excuse for their extreme caution in regards to violent media, but whatever happened to Australia to make you all so wimpy and frightened?

    26. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      Presumably he is holding back government analysis of this rather than independent surveys. It was quite a shame - we need all the AGs to agree to make a change to the ratings system and everyone was willing to do it but this retard. As a result no change!

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    27. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Razalhague · · Score: 1

      Are those some kind of paratrooper bears? Does Australia even have bears? ...though that would explain why they need to be paratrooped down there.

    28. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hoopsnakes? Rubbish.

      No, what you've really got to look out for are the drop bears. Do not walk underneath a gum tree after dark...

    29. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by rve · · Score: 1

      Here on Ars Technica: age of the average gamer is 33

      It shouldn't surprise you terribly, as it's an expensive hobby

    30. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No, it was /b/'s favorite Australian, Josef Fritzl.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    31. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by rve · · Score: 1

      bah, copied the link from the wrong tab. This is the right one:

      age of the average gamer is 33

    32. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      . As you point out most gamers are over 18 so the 18+ rating would not deter game developers and 18+ games would proliferate.

      ...And so, the market would determine what should be produced, instead of an arbitrary governor.

      Where's the problem?

      I agree with you.

    33. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you already know this, but anyway. Dropbears is in the book the Last Continent, by Terry Pratchett. Have no idea where he gets the idea however...

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    34. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen, but hopefully he dies of natural causes and not at the hands of some violent video game playing anarchist otherwise we'll NEVER see R18+ for games!

    35. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      No we don't. Thanks to one man by the name of Michael Atkinson. I thought we're supposed to be a democracy, but I guess not.

    36. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      Most of everywhere is under an inane set of laws mostly pulled out of thin air.

    37. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      We certainly are, I can't wait for his generation (and religion) to die out.

    38. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Benaiah · · Score: 1
      No we don't.

      "We" really want the rating but our fatally flawed democracy wont allow it.

      Every now and then we try but it never succeeds

      In order to get the R rating we require the unanimous decision from our state governor generals, and the SA Governor General is an ultra conservative, and refuses every time. Can't get around it until he dies or they change the bureaucracy .

    39. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      Since when do 18+ movies only get limited release? There have been huge blockbuster movies with R ratings. They get shown everywhere.
      Now it's also probably true that most R movies get a limited release, but that is due to the movie, not the rating.

    40. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Benaiah · · Score: 1, Redundant

      No, it was /b/'s favorite Australian, Josef Fritzl.

      Fritzl is "Austrian", The same place as your Governor Schwarzenegger. Not Australia.

    41. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      No, it is really a balance thing. Game not so impressive and the censors concern about children's access to that content is, borderline, a difficult thing to judge. So potential risk versus gain, so possible harm to minors versus profits for one amongst thousands of other games, and look to be honest compare these two pages http://store.steampowered.com/app/500/ and http://www.amazon.com/Left-4-Dead-Pc/dp/B000PS4X7S, what is the major difference, that's right ratings advice, so valve is looking pretty guilty of marketing unsuitable products to children.

      Now the tests are will this post also get flame modded down, will steam , naughty naughty, make a correction to product sales page and, will you realise the only answer to the question you actually asked is yes (I think you might have unreasonably and ban the wrong way around) but, if not, just to be clear, yes they should ban 'unreasonable games' but I wont get that worked up over it either way.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    42. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia and Austria are thousands of miles apart you dim-witted freak.

    43. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      I don't understand you, so let's say you're right.

      Nice retort!

    44. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Pretty much the entire world is under such laws. The only difference of which subset of laws are in any given country.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    45. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Nah it's just because of a few 300 year old gamer vampires skewing the average.

      What do they do if they have insomnia and can't sleep during the day? They play computer games in the basement.

      --
    46. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Really? I always assumed that the average gamer was between 5 and 15. Can you back up your stats?

      Numerous people seem to think so (pretty much wrong everywhere, as pointed out by numerous posts) which is why computer games have so many stupid laws passed (or people attempting to pass them) against them when (for example) books publishers can do pretty much what they want.

      (ooh, a violent book got published, let's ban it so that 8 years old don't read it !, after all they read comics all day, clearly they're the biggest book reading demographic !)

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    47. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by mhwombat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hoopsnakes are much less dangerous than dropbears, at least you see them coming.

    48. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoooooooooosh

    49. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by the_raptor · · Score: 1

      Australian politicians are still stuck in the mindset that "teh nintendoz" is for the kids. And that any adult that still plays games is some kind of deviant dole bludging waster who should go work three jobs and only sleep 4 hours a night like the PM.

      Of course the lack of an R category has backfired in that the censors quite often mark games that got R rated in America as MA15+. Ironically if they allowed an R catergory kids would have less access to violent games.

      I guess I will be firing up bittorrent or using digital download.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    50. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by MistrX · · Score: 1

      I think the world in 20 years will only be playing Christian games. Sigh...
       
      ...

      Wait! The Bible is one of the most bloodiest books in history so if they make a game out of that fully photorealistic and true to the story, were in for an epic gory game of 'biblical proportions'!! I hope you can play as Jesus with powers like standard no-clipping, flying, walking on water, God mode and infinite health, cure leprosy within people before their guts and gibs start to pour out and fall off! You probably get to slaughter a few followers of Jesus playing as the Romans or the levels with the great flood where you play as Noah: Rescue and collect as many animals as you can before bloodthirsty Dinosaurs eat them all, when you win the level all Dinosaurs die because they didn't survive the flood all folowing the true story of the Bible!

      I wonder what kind of rating that would get, it's the Bible in it's true form packed in one epic game! It will probably educate kids with having faith in God and Jesus and learn the story. I think they will give it an 'All audiences' rating. :D

    51. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one of us had their country founded by people who were too religious for Europe?
      Which one of us has religious nut jobs banning stem cell research?
      Which one of us has religious nut jobs trying to ban abortion?
      Which one of us had a nanny state ban drinking?

      Yeah its British influence that makes places stupidly nanny statish..LOL!

    52. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Lord+Pillage · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...the 18+ rating would not deter game developers and 18+ games would proliferate.

      I'd have to disagree. I'm sure there are many game developers who actually enjoy making content that is not necessarily violent or objectionable. Developers don't have to make gory content just because they can.

      --
      try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
    53. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      "He doubts whether any safeguards could be put in place to deter young people, who after all (are) the most computer literate and savvy in our society, from being able to access material."

      Well he's right, which is also the reason they will be able to evade his ban on the stuff in the first place. What an idiot, if you've got a moral objection just come out and say it you hypocrite.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    54. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Snap!

    55. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows it's fucking ridiculous, and as the game-playing public ages I imagine it will get fixed eventually. It just results in stupid edge cases in the short term.

      Naive much? Lets look at history to see how well thats worked out for us:
      1. Alcohol: At first anyone could drink. Then nobody could drink, then 16 year olds could drink, then 18, then 21. Note that you can vote and be drafted at 18 but still can't buy a beer. So no the edge case did not get fixed.
      2.Marijuana: A native weed that has been cultivated in the US for over 400 years. Only in the past 60 years has there been prohibition (thanks refer madness). Growing 1 plant in most states will land you with 5 years in prison. Growing more than 10 will get you 20. However in California it has been legalized for "medical use" and the US attorney general says he won't prosecute. So how well did that edge case work out?
      3.Federal Taxes: Income tax is less than 100 years old. It was originally supposed to be a temporary tax on the wealthiest 1% of Americans to pay for the war. We're still paying for it today. How well as that edge case worked out? Now we all pay taxes.

      Give me one example where some government restriction or prohibition has been "fixed eventually". I can't think of any.

    56. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      And even the few that *DO* live into adulthood usually just end up out on the wastelands, a white line nightmare where men kill one another for a tank of gas or a bite of food.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    57. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easier to wait for him to die than vote him out?

      Australia's got worse problems with their video game ratings system. And I'm an American.

    58. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but for every positive example of freedom, one can easily point out another example of a law or custom that is repressive. Every country has their ridiculous shit laws. Sure, the drinking age is 21 in the U.S. and drug laws are too harsh (in most states), but at least we don't outright outlaw videogames and movies that aren't passed through a ratings board (the way the UK, Germany, and Australia--among others--have been know to). Even a game or movie that is not submitted for a rating here can still be sold (though most mainstream retailers wouldn't carry it).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    59. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > Give me one example where some government restriction or prohibition has been
      > "fixed eventually". I can't think of any.

      alcohol prohibition in the US...your constitutional amendments for it

    60. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by dns_server · · Score: 1

      It's from a bundaberg rum commercial. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULEQpUY_crc

    61. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      What I want to ask this guy (SA Attorney General) is this:
      Why do you think that the safeguards put in place to prevent R rated computer games from being sold to minors would be any different to those currently in place for R rated movies and why do you think such safeguards would not be adequate to prevent minors from gaining access to this content?

    62. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      ...And so, the market would determine what should be produced, instead of an arbitrary governor.

      Where's the problem?

      Arbitrary governor no longer gets to feel powerful, and his sex life will suffer as a result. Soon he'll start drinking - more, that is - and ends up wandering the harbor, a bitter man who's purpose in life has been lost.

      It's a fine fate for a normal human being who loses his job on the altar of globalization, but surely you can't expect the nobility to suffer it?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    63. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until he is replaced or retires (...)

      ...or is killed

    64. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't your legislative branch just change the law that requires a unanimous vote by the AGs? Seems easy enough.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    65. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by lanceran · · Score: 1

      *whooooosh*

    66. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by Eddy_D · · Score: 1

      Man, sounds a lot like living in Canada, where you have to build igloos to protect you from the grizzly bears and hockey pucks, then listen to the same ol boring story, for the 11 months of winter, about the moose and the squirrel.

      --
      - I stole your sig.
    67. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by iosq · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, yeah. Atkinson, the aforementioned AG lives in an absolute backwater shit hole, who will continue to vote him in for a long time. He has a stupidly high approval rating in his electorate, with a safety margin of around 15-20% (Don't quote me on that one, not entirely certain). The vast majority of Australians really do want a harmonised rating system, but one little inbred shit hole has decided otherwise.

    68. Re:Not suitable for 15 yr old boys? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      After giving my wife the link, she quickly determined that the book was first. Anyway heres some more info.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  13. I can see the headlines now. by boxxertrumps · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The game that was so good it was banned in Australia.

  14. Wha... by Idiomatick · · Score: 3, Funny

    Aren't there people over the age of 15 in Australia? If not the level of drinking in that country is really worrying.

    1. Re:Wha... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a German I can tell you how these rating systems work: it's ok to censor and ban stuff because it's FOR TEH CHILDREN!!!11; affected adults are collateral damage. Also the old geezers in governments still think that video games are only for children.

      So basically it's election campaigning material where they go as far as they want because they and the mass of their voters (i.e. seniors) are not affected at all.

  15. Great Advertisment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks Australia! Now I'm sure to buy it!

  16. Not that bad... by InfinityWpi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, at least there's no nudity!

    1. Re:Not that bad... by DeadPixels · · Score: 3, Funny

      That, my friend, is where you're unfortunately wrong. You thought you didn't like the Witch before...

    2. Re:Not that bad... by muindaur · · Score: 1

      *looks for the nearest sharp, pointy object and proceeds to gouge eyes out attempting to rid the brain of that image*

    3. Re:Not that bad... by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      look up left4head theyve got smokers molesting zoey, hunters "raping" her, and defeat of a witch via lesbian acts.

  17. I, for one by djconrad · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our undead marsupial overlords!

  18. I'm confused by datazone · · Score: 1

    Would they ban a movie displaying the same content?

    --
    Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
    1. Re:I'm confused by Hecatonchires · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      --

      Yay me!

    2. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check to see if 28 Days (or Weeks) Later is banned. Left 4 Dead is pretty much the same content, but in America and with more guns.

    3. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but a movie with equivalent content would most likely be R 18+, for which there is no R rating in games. Our politicians are still under the false belief that once you grow up, you don't play video games anymore.

  19. Re: by hydrolyzer · · Score: 0, Troll

    no, but there is such a thing as an R18+ rating for movies, not so for games.

  20. here's an idea by SEAL · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Valve's Zombie shooter has been refused classification, which means it can't be made commercially available in the country.

    Valve should thumb their nose at Australia's rating board and make the game freely available there.

    1. Re:here's an idea by imrehg · · Score: 1

      Valve's Zombie shooter has been refused classification, which means it can't be made commercially available in the country.

      Valve should thumb their nose at Australia's rating board and make the game freely available there.

      Or on Steam?

      Then there's not much the boards can do, is there?

    2. Re:here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a LOT they can then do about it, Like put their Australian divisions completely out of business through huge fines, not to mention all the legal treaties they have with the US.

    3. Re:here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valve should thumb their nose at Australia's rating board and make the game freely available there.

      No, they'll just make modifications to tone down the gore so it can get an MA15+ classification, exactly as usually happens with games that are refused a classification in Australia, and exactly as the classification system is intended to work. Nothing to see here.

    4. Re:here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that would achieve what exactly? Piss off the local authorities that they're going to have to go through for future releases, and release a lot of hard work for free with little to no prospect of getting anything back on it later?

      Valve is a relatively nice company, but it's still a company that relies on profits.

    5. Re:here's an idea by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      If they did that, I'd buy the game even though none of my PCs can run it.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    6. Re:here's an idea by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You mean, apart from get a court order preventing credit card companies in Australia processing any payments to Valve or their agents?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:here's an idea by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      While I would love a free L4D2, I doubt Valve will want a repeat of what happened in Australia with (I think) the Orange Box-- crossing the Pacific to Thailand to buy cheap copies.

      But this could be better marketed as an expansion pack to the original, frankly.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  21. More interested in the naked Zoey model for L4D by rwa2 · · Score: 0

    The European version of L4D really ought to replace all of the violence with sex. It would take surprisingly little coding... you and your fellow vacationers are traipsing through streets filled with sex-crazed ravers who throw themselves at you and pile onto you in an orgy of lust, and only your fellow friends can rescue you by pleasing them with a variety of sex toys you have at your disposal.

    Sound effects and animations can pretty much stay as-is, all they'd have to do is replace the weapons with dildos and vibrators.

    1. Re:More interested in the naked Zoey model for L4D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Left4Dildo

  22. Cranky - look at this one over here! by nellim · · Score: 1

    Bloody hell, look at this zombie over here! As you can see, because of his huge stomach and sweatpants, we call this one the BOOMER. Now if it gets ticked off it just throws up all over ya causin' the other littler ones to come racin'. We think its like the mother group, tellin' the others where the food is.

    Now this Big guy is called the TANK. Cranky, he IS big! Now this guys is like the protector of the group. He's not afraid of anything. But notice how small his head is compared to the rest of his body. This means he maybe strong, but his defiantly defiantly not smart - like jock from you local high school. This also means he's attached to fire. CRANKY, he saw is! RUN! RUN! THROW THE BLOODY MOLLY!

    Okay, we got away. Now will we were running, and our sound guy was getting eatin', we manged to see this guy right over there. That's the SMOKER. We don't know why it coughs or why he's so tall, but we do know that he has a very very very long tongue. Cranky do you see him grab that guy from way over there. Hey he just got me mate!

    Finally, we see this guy over here is the Hunter. He kind of looks like a rapist with that hoody on, but don't worry. He's not going to be rapin' no one, he'll just tear them to shreds and then eat'em. Well cranky, this raps up another great show. Catch us next week when we get to see the zombies from Valves Left 4 Dead 2. *A tech whispers in his ear* Well cranky, it looks like L4D 2 has been banned by me mates in the Government, but it's okay cause...we are totally f*cked over!

    1. Re:Cranky - look at this one over here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Crikey", doofus.

  23. FAIL! by Explodingchopsticks · · Score: 1

    Seriously, I'm getting this game whether they ban the sale here or not! It's my bloody* diplomatic right to play this :D @Idiomatic - An english friend of mine was once asked: What's the legal drinking age over there. he replied saying "11" "Oh wait do you mean legally?" :D *hehe, get it? :P

  24. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I was upset about them not just making it an expansion to L4D_1. But from this Ratings Board-vertisement, it sounds like they gave it an overhaul. The description has me won, I give in.
    (I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet, considering the fuss made before.)

  25. L4D2... by pookemon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where the bloody hell are you?

    --
    dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
  26. You do have to admit... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...that the first L4D was rather gory and that L4D2 is doubtless gorier still. Even so, I have difficulty understanding the "gore is gore, regardless of the context" type of thinking that seems to be going on here. Just as the treatment of gore in Saving Private Ryan is vastly different than the treatment of gore in , I'd hold that some games treat gore very differently than others. Some games are simply designed to glorify gore and the act of murdering. Others have gore, but it isn't the point.

    I mean, take Manhunt 2. From what I saw of it, it was basically built from the ground up to glorify murdering people in order to create controversy so that it could sell a few more copies. Regardless of whether it actually crossed lines, I think the point was that they were trying to get as close to the line as possible. I don't see worth in that.

    But if you look at the treatment of gore in L4D, it's obvious that while it definitely contributes to the gameplay (i.e. the game would feel very different without the gore), it isn't the point of the game. You wouldn't stop in the middle of a zombie swarm to call a friend over so that you could show him how blowing off a zombie's leg might have X effect. What you would show someone is the strategy for surviving that swarm though. I mean, sure, occasionally something particularly gory and satisfying happens, and everyone goes, "whoa, did you see that?" (at least, when you first start playing), but that's not really the point of the game; people don't go seeking out those moments. Instead, they just happen incidentally, which is in stark contrast to the earlier-mentioned game.

    Anyway, I've rambled enough. Long story short, Australia is really backwards in some things, and I feel sorry for the friends I have from down under, and not just for this stupidity.

  27. Gonna go buy it now by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 1

    From the report: 'The game contains realistic, frenetic, and unrelenting violence which is inflicted upon "the Infected" who are living humans infected with a rabies-like virus that causes them to act violently. The player can choose from a variety of weapons including pistols, shotguns, machine guns, and sniper rifles. However, it is the use of the "melee" weapons such as the crowbar, axe, chainsaw and Samurai sword which inflict the most damage. These close-in attacks cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore.'"

    is this a report or an advert?

  28. Re: by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

    I 3 Threads

  29. Australian version: Theft of Bread by discord5 · · Score: 1

    In other news, Valve just announced that the sequel to their game "Left for Dead" will have a special Australian version with localized content. The localized sequel, named "Theft of Bread", will have a horde of undead stealing bread, where the player equipped with appropriate tools is tasked with the mission to retrieve the bread the undead have stolen slice per slice. Valve has announced that the weaponry will include old-time classics such as the breadknife, the toaster and various kinds of jam. Players can grab the "butter" powerup for that extra toasty goodness.

    Rumor has it that Australian censors are quite disturbed by the cake level, and the inclusion of a chainsaw. As the horde of undead minions steal a cake for a birthday party, the player is tasked with skillfully cutting the cake using only a chainsaw. Australian censor believe that the close combat situation involving said cake and the splattering of cake-bits due to the interaction with the chainsaw may upset children and small animals, and potentially could have disastrous effects on birthday parties all over Australia.

    "We've really been trying to give our players the best experience," Valve's Gabe Newell said in a recent interview, "and that is why we believe that the cake-level is an integral part of the game. Our playtesters reported a high level of satisfaction of being able to masterfully cut the cake just in time for Mruuuuuh's zombie birthday party, and only one of our 10.000 playtesters reported feeling a bit disturbed by all the flying cake-bits. Up until this point, none of our playtesters have ruined a birthday party, nor have there been any cake-incidents at Valve headquarters."

    Australian gamers responded outraged when they heard the censorship boards feedback, and have started a boycot of the Australian cake industry. "Crikey, we're just trying to make a stand here mate," said one angry gamer, "we've had it with the big cake industry lobbying the government to try and stop us from enjoying a game that might change the image of their product. If we don't draw a line here, there will never be an end to it and soon we won't even be able to play Cooking Mama.". Representatives of the cake industrie were unavailable for comment, but an inside source in CakeBake Ltd reveals to us that upper management bakes a cake with Gabe Newells face on it every day, and recently acquired a chainsaw for "maintnance purposes".

  30. Nasty shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really like L4D. I saw the game trailer for L4D2, and I think this game is very bad for kids. And adults of unstable psychology (not that uncommon, something like 1-10%, no matter how you define unstable).

    Why is this game bad? It makes the player numb to a very nasty kind of violence, which unstable people very easily will be inspired by. If you don't believe me take a look at the trailer with chainsaw and some closeups of kids.

    Sure, I doubt any lawmakers can do anything about it, and I believe this rating/lack of rating will only give Steam a better marketshare.

    However, I think it is incredibly amoral to develop something like this, similar to legalized trafficking, Europeans tricking Asian guest-workers into lifelong "slavery"-debt or sweatshops in the US. (ok, swearshops are illegal, but still very common).

    1. Plan with nasty consequences for a significant number of people
    2. ???
    3. Profit.

    What to do about. Well not much can be done. Just accept it.

    1. Re:Nasty shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here's something to do about: kill yourself

  31. This from the country that made Road Warrior! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    I will never understand censorship.

    Left 4 Dead 2 is bad for people, Road Warrior is good for people.

    Australia, you have a wallaby in your dickhole. Crikey!

    Censor that and put another shrimp on the bar-bee.

    In all seriousness... Left 4 Dead 2 (a shitty expansion pack) and Road Warrior 2 are perfectly fine for entertainment. Stop the censorship. Chill out... and have a veggemite!

  32. What if Left For Dead 2 were an addon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like it should have been?

    Does releasing an add on to a previously shipped game in Australia require reexamination? Just food for thought.

  33. Did they really play that game? by Raziel-chan · · Score: 1

    Seeing as there's a factual error in the report:

    'The game contains realistic, frenetic, and unrelenting violence which is inflicted upon "the Infected" who are living humans infected with a rabies-like virus that causes them to act violently. The player can choose from a variety of weapons including pistols, shotguns, machine guns, and sniper rifles. However, it is the use of the "melee" weapons such as the crowbar, axe, chainsaw and Samurai sword which inflict the most damage. These close-in attacks cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore.'

    The zombies in the game are quite obviously no longer alive, I mean, they have rotten skin, pieces falling off, not to even mention the special infected. Quite different from the rabbies zombies depicted in, for example, 28 days later.

    cya
    Raziel-chan

  34. The message is clear by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Informative

    Aussies, if you want to see blood and gore spluttering from some zombie's guts, it's time to go to your parlament!

    How you read that, well, that's up to you...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:The message is clear by shadowblaster · · Score: 1

      So, are you saying parliament is full of zombies who splatter each other's guts.

      I never though parliament question time could be so interesting...

    2. Re:The message is clear by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If you want to read it that way, well, I can't tell you how to interpret it.

      What I of course meant was to write a letter to your congressman/senator/whatever the aussies have, or to talk to him in person if that's possible, that you're a voter and don't want to live in a nannystate...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:The message is clear by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I've never watched the Australian Parliament, but if they're anything like the British House of Commons then that would be an improvement in the standard of debate.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  35. Quite right to ban this. by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Having spent time in real war zones and been in full on combat fire fights for 22 hours none stop literally pissing in my pants because if I did not lock and load again, I would have died. Therefore, you need to understand war is very ugly and this game has no place in "sane society". Ask yourself the question about what message this sends out to people? Do you really think this is a game which has no ramifications whatsoever. I would also question your mental state if you think that carving up people is fun and it means nothing. Psychologically, these traits end up with little value for human life, later in life.

    --
    All cows eat grass!
    1. Re:Quite right to ban this. by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sorry you had to endure your wartime experience and believe you deserve respect for what you've endured.

      It's possibly worth noting that the game in question is not a war game but I don't think that probably changes your core objection, which as I understand it is against making violence against humans (or human-looking things) and personal peril a recreational activity. I should note that, politically, I'm generally in favour of not banning things where reasonably possible. Why? Well, my core reasoning is based on the principle of freedom of speech. I prefer for the state to minimise its use of control over its citizens, even if well-intentioned, as this minimises the temptation / opportunity to increase their own power at the expense of the citizenry.

      I'd just like to explain what violent games have done to me, psychologically. Before I started playing them, I was squeamish about even swatting flies. I avoided pretty much any game with remotely realistic representations of gore or death, not because I was morally opposed to their *existence* or to people who play them but because I personally felt uncomfortable with them. Since then I've been persuaded into playing them and now enjoy them regularly, although I must admit that the most graphics / violent games make me uncomfortable and I still prefer to avoid those. The psychological change that's resulted? The violence in the game doesn't feel as real to me. But this is not, as some opponents of video games feels, because I've become more accepting of violence in general or because I've lost empathy for images of injured humans. Rather I've dehumanised the computer-generated pixels on the screen - I don't see video game violence as realistic anymore since it is simply a bunch of bits and computations inside a computer chip and some flickering lights on a screen. So for that reason it doesn't bother me as much. Real world violence remains an entirely different matter - I still hate killing insects and avoid doing so wherever possible, I abhor violence against humans and I hate to see suffering. This is because I know that real world violence is *real*, actual suffering is happening, and it pains me to think of that.

      This is obviously merely anecdote. Also, as I understand it psychologists do not rate a personal evaluation of one's own thought processes as a very convincing way of determining what's really going on. But I think it's worth noting that, whilst changes can occur as a result of playing violent games, they're not necessarily going to be the immediately obvious and clearly detrimental ones that some people expect. This is, I think, a major reason why there's a fairly acrimonious split between people who (quite understandably) think that violent games present images of unacceptable acts and the people who cannot see the problem with them at all. I think they're both right - they are sometimes images of unacceptable acts but that does not *necessarily* make the images themselves unacceptable. My personal position, as you've no doubt inferred, is that real violence is usually morally unacceptable (avoiding thorny philosophical questions about how it's sometimes justified) but that images do no direct harm and are therefore acceptable to me even though I find some of them disturbing and would personally prefer not to see them.

    2. Re:Quite right to ban this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... that in the event of a zombie apocalypse we should kill zombies?

      Taking the GAME a little too seriously over there?

    3. Re:Quite right to ban this. by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry you had to endure your wartime experience and believe you deserve respect for what you've endured.

      It's possibly worth noting that the game in question is not a war game but I don't think that probably changes your core objection, which as I understand it is against making violence against humans (or human-looking things) and personal peril a recreational activity. I should note that, politically, I'm generally in favour of not banning things where reasonably possible. Why? Well, my core reasoning is based on the principle of freedom of speech. I prefer for the state to minimise its use of control over its citizens, even if well-intentioned, as this minimises the temptation / opportunity to increase their own power at the expense of the citizenry.

      I'd just like to explain what violent games have done to me, psychologically. Before I started playing them, I was squeamish about even swatting flies. I avoided pretty much any game with remotely realistic representations of gore or death, not because I was morally opposed to their *existence* or to people who play them but because I personally felt uncomfortable with them. Since then I've been persuaded into playing them and now enjoy them regularly, although I must admit that the most graphics / violent games make me uncomfortable and I still prefer to avoid those. The psychological change that's resulted? The violence in the game doesn't feel as real to me. But this is not, as some opponents of video games feels, because I've become more accepting of violence in general or because I've lost empathy for images of injured humans. Rather I've dehumanised the computer-generated pixels on the screen - I don't see video game violence as realistic anymore since it is simply a bunch of bits and computations inside a computer chip and some flickering lights on a screen. So for that reason it doesn't bother me as much. Real world violence remains an entirely different matter - I still hate killing insects and avoid doing so wherever possible, I abhor violence against humans and I hate to see suffering. This is because I know that real world violence is *real*, actual suffering is happening, and it pains me to think of that.

      This is obviously merely anecdote. Also, as I understand it psychologists do not rate a personal evaluation of one's own thought processes as a very convincing way of determining what's really going on. But I think it's worth noting that, whilst changes can occur as a result of playing violent games, they're not necessarily going to be the immediately obvious and clearly detrimental ones that some people expect. This is, I think, a major reason why there's a fairly acrimonious split between people who (quite understandably) think that violent games present images of unacceptable acts and the people who cannot see the problem with them at all. I think they're both right - they are sometimes images of unacceptable acts but that does not *necessarily* make the images themselves unacceptable. My personal position, as you've no doubt inferred, is that real violence is usually morally unacceptable (avoiding thorny philosophical questions about how it's sometimes justified) but that images do no direct harm and are therefore acceptable to me even though I find some of them disturbing and would personally prefer not to see them.

      Dear LemmingMark, Firstly I would like to congratulate you on a very positive and insightful post to which puts many things into perspective. Really you touched my heart with a sane and very challenging view. "Thinking out of the box". Sadly it is unfortunate, not everyone is like you and can see things in such an analytical manner. I sincerely understand you are really immune from the effects of images but most people are not. This is why sumbliminal advertising was banned and hypnotic phrases, however it is still used. Now go and have a drink and think about your reply :)

      --
      All cows eat grass!
    4. Re:Quite right to ban this. by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry I wasn't able to reply earlier as I was traveling over the weekend. I'm going to have be brief right now as it's been a long day and have only just got back into town.

      Thank you for your pleasant and reasonable reply. There's a lot of emotion around these topics and it's often difficult or impossible to find people who are willing to really *talk* about the issues involved.

      I wouldn't necessarily say, despite my belief in my own nature, that I am exactly immune to images of violence. It's something I remain wary of and if I thought it was affecting me negatively then I would probably have to quit. So far I've been happy to observe that my reactions to real life violence have not been reduced, despite my acceptance of video game violence. I am in agreement with you that others may be more easily influence. Despite my opposition to banning most imagery, I'm certainly in favour of careful regulation of it, within certain boundaries. I do approve of the age regulation schemes used for movies and games. I think that games (and movies) showing particularly graphic violence ought to be restricted to legal adults. It's also worth the government and industry making sure to educate parents about computer games, since I'm sure some don't realise that they are not all suitable for minors. I don't believe in over-protecting children but I think it's pretty important not to expose them to inappropriate material at a critical time in their moral and intellectual development.

      By around the age of 18 (give or take - there's certainly room for argument on the specific age) I consider that core moral development of a person has mostly occurred, so it reduces the chance of their perceptions being warped or their blurring the line between fantasy and reality. Also, once you're a legal adult you are able to indulge in a wide variety of media and behaviour - a freedom we grant to adults since we believe they are able to make informed choices and take responsibility for real-world actions. My - uninformed by science or psychology, so this is *mere idle gossip* from a public policy point of view - belief is that those who are unhealthily interested in violence are liable to look for outlets in whatever is available. If video games were not available, there would be other ways to indulge this - movies, books, art even. Moreover there are extremely violent and *real* images that we actually wish to permit access to, for instance through normal television news, so that would always be available. So we can never completely deny access to this imagery to those who thirst for or would be warped by violence.

      Actually, though, to a certain extent I've come round to agreeing with your original support of the ban in this instance. Why? Assuming other comments here are correct (yes, yes, it's Slashdot, I must be new here, etc!) it would appear to be the case that the Aussie classifiers don't have the option of rating the game for 18+ only. They can do that for films, it seems, but not for games. The first Left 4 Dead game was available at an 18 rating here in the UK. The sequel discussed here looks significantly more violent - violent enough for me to find it disturbing, despite having enjoyed the original. Although I wouldn't approve of preventing sale of the game to legal adults I definitely wouldn't want to see it sold to ages 15+, which appears to be the only other option they could realistically have taken. My favourite solution would really be for the game not to be banned but for the 18+ classification to be available to the classification board so that games - like movies - can be restricted to adults-only where appropriate.

    5. Re:Quite right to ban this. by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry I wasn't able to reply earlier as I was traveling over the weekend. I'm going to have be brief right now as it's been a long day and have only just got back into town.

      Thank you for your pleasant and reasonable reply. There's a lot of emotion around these topics and it's often difficult or impossible to find people who are willing to really *talk* about the issues involved.

      I wouldn't necessarily say, despite my belief in my own nature, that I am exactly immune to images of violence. It's something I remain wary of and if I thought it was affecting me negatively then I would probably have to quit. So far I've been happy to observe that my reactions to real life violence have not been reduced, despite my acceptance of video game violence. I am in agreement with you that others may be more easily influence. Despite my opposition to banning most imagery, I'm certainly in favour of careful regulation of it, within certain boundaries. I do approve of the age regulation schemes used for movies and games. I think that games (and movies) showing particularly graphic violence ought to be restricted to legal adults. It's also worth the government and industry making sure to educate parents about computer games, since I'm sure some don't realise that they are not all suitable for minors. I don't believe in over-protecting children but I think it's pretty important not to expose them to inappropriate material at a critical time in their moral and intellectual development.

      By around the age of 18 (give or take - there's certainly room for argument on the specific age) I consider that core moral development of a person has mostly occurred, so it reduces the chance of their perceptions being warped or their blurring the line between fantasy and reality. Also, once you're a legal adult you are able to indulge in a wide variety of media and behaviour - a freedom we grant to adults since we believe they are able to make informed choices and take responsibility for real-world actions. My - uninformed by science or psychology, so this is *mere idle gossip* from a public policy point of view - belief is that those who are unhealthily interested in violence are liable to look for outlets in whatever is available. If video games were not available, there would be other ways to indulge this - movies, books, art even. Moreover there are extremely violent and *real* images that we actually wish to permit access to, for instance through normal television news, so that would always be available. So we can never completely deny access to this imagery to those who thirst for or would be warped by violence.

      Actually, though, to a certain extent I've come round to agreeing with your original support of the ban in this instance. Why? Assuming other comments here are correct (yes, yes, it's Slashdot, I must be new here, etc!) it would appear to be the case that the Aussie classifiers don't have the option of rating the game for 18+ only. They can do that for films, it seems, but not for games. The first Left 4 Dead game was available at an 18 rating here in the UK. The sequel discussed here looks significantly more violent - violent enough for me to find it disturbing, despite having enjoyed the original. Although I wouldn't approve of preventing sale of the game to legal adults I definitely wouldn't want to see it sold to ages 15+, which appears to be the only other option they could realistically have taken. My favourite solution would really be for the game not to be banned but for the 18+ classification to be available to the classification board so that games - like movies - can be restricted to adults-only where appropriate.

      Dear LemmingMark,, You have been dreadfully positive in your response and I wish my 14 year old daughter had the same views as you. She is quite incredible though and is learning fast. I just wish she has your comprehension of life. She is getting there. Having been in Special Ops support, you Perfect totally "fit the criteria". Perfect vision is the way to unlock life and be a geek.

      --
      All cows eat grass!
    6. Re:Quite right to ban this. by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your lovely replies. It's been really nice to engage with somebody who is interested in other points of view. *Really* listening to stuff you disagree with is one of the most difficult skills to master, I think. It's not something I'm as good at as I'd like to be but you seem to have the knack!

      I'm sure your daughter will continue to learn fast, especially if she's as open minded as you. 14 is a fairly long time ago for me and there were a lot of changes to get used to all at once - not an easy age to be. It took me a lot longer than that to really start looking hard at the world and trying to think through my viewpoints; it's still something I'm working on doing really properly!

      It's fun being a geek :-) Take care, maybe I will see you posting here again some time.

    7. Re:Quite right to ban this. by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your lovely replies. It's been really nice to engage with somebody who is interested in other points of view. *Really* listening to stuff you disagree with is one of the most difficult skills to master, I think. It's not something I'm as good at as I'd like to be but you seem to have the knack!

      I'm sure your daughter will continue to learn fast, especially if she's as open minded as you. 14 is a fairly long time ago for me and there were a lot of changes to get used to all at once - not an easy age to be. It took me a lot longer than that to really start looking hard at the world and trying to think through my viewpoints; it's still something I'm working on doing really properly!

      It's fun being a geek :-) Take care, maybe I will see you posting here again some time.

      Dear LemmingMark, I have added you as friend. I do make some radicle posts, but it is good to be a non-conformist, I do feel there is some mileage for teenagers to go through nowaday's as they are a digitalised generation and have no concept of real human interaction. Maybe this is a post for another day. In the meantime keep up the good work.

      --
      All cows eat grass!
  36. Sinudeity by SIInudeity · · Score: 2, Funny

    Man, you suck at rugby, and now you cant even play L4D2... My heart breaks for you guys.

  37. Game review by LeoPercepied · · Score: 1

    ....mmmm I think this guys would be great game reviewers.... Any game with that last paragraph on the cover, and I'm sold!

  38. Meh by Nemyst · · Score: 2, Funny

    Valve will just do the classic of making green blood or saying that these are in fact robots hell-bent on transforming the survivors into furries or something like that...

    The "restoration" crack will be available approximately 30 seconds after release in Australia.

  39. Banned at retail? by blankoboy · · Score: 1

    So it appears that it won't be on Australian retail shelves but will they somehow prevent AU L4D fans from downloading it from Steam?

    1. Re:Banned at retail? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      My understanding of the law (as an Aussie and an adult gamer who believes that there should be an R classification for games) is that if Valve sells the game in Australia over Steam, they can be fined/punished.

  40. kill all fascists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why do we allow our fellow humans to suffer under these insane laws? why not just end the people who keep coming up with this puritanical shit?

  41. Infected are Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The game contains realistic, frenetic, and unrelenting violence which is inflicted upon "the Infected" who are living humans infected with a rabies-like virus that causes them to act violently.

    Maybe I'm wrong here, but I've always understood "The Infected" to be zombies, and thus not living humans.

  42. Okay Australia, in order to see guts and gore... by flaptrap · · Score: 1

    Just put that computer down, go get the real weapon of choice, take a walk to the water's edge, and go croc-baiting croc-sniping croc-cutting croc-a-doodle-doo.

    Unless your preference goes more toward cuddly things that can't really fight back.

    But don't bring a camera and don't put the footage on the web where those censors - who are all under 16, right? - can see it.

  43. The upshot is... by Eudial · · Score: 1

    ... the more ban-happy the country you live in is, the more likely banning itself will be banned.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  44. `if i rember left 4 dead by luther349 · · Score: 0

    i rember that game has a option to turn off that kind of gore and password lock it so it cant be reenabled without the password. i believe its called adult mode. been a wile sense i played it.

  45. Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an Australian, I've seen my country slowly drift off the rails over the past 20 years.
    We're governed by a bunch of soft-cocked fucking fairies.

    If Doom was released nowadays, it'd probably be banned too.

  46. Xee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they just rate it R18+?
    Australia has no R18+rating for video games.
    Why doesn't Australia have an R18+ rating for video games?
    A single man, South Australian Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson doesn't want an R18+ rating, despite overwhelming public demand.
    Why does one man get to determine what is right for everyone else?
    The system is flawed.

    Michael Atkinson has the appearance of a man who has never and will never actually play a video game, why then is someone with no actual experience in the industry in charge of what is acceptable conduct within?

    It's time to send a message to Mr Atkinson, introduce a mature ratings system to the video game industry or turn over your duties to someone better qualified.

    Contact The Attorney-General and tell him what you think:

    Phone
    8207 1723

    Fax
    8207 1736

    E-Mail
    attorney-general@agd.sa.gov.au

    Postal Address
    GPO Box 464
    ADELAIDE SA 5001

    Office
    11th Floor, 45 Pirie Street
    ADELAIDE SA 5000

  47. That's not a knife, that's a Katana. by Derpnooner · · Score: 0

    Australia is but a stones throw from New Zealand, home of Peter Jackson, creator of "one-of-the bloodiest movies of all time" --Dead Alive. Aussies, should replace the "A" with a "P" in order to correctly convey their stance on electronic video entertainment.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, road forks you!
  48. Useless measure by Grimm191 · · Score: 1

    Does the government actually believe that they will be able to outcode any determined hackers? Not only a hacker, actually, anyone with a bittorrent .exe on their drive. Australia, you cannot stop them, only slow them down.