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.'"
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."
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?
'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.
well now i'll have to pirate it, hope whatever legal farm is responsible for game piracy sues the government.
" 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?
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.
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.
Looks like somebody high up in Austrialia is a wee-bit angry about not having any of the promised downloadable content of l4d...
For some reason I thought this was China. I guess I stopped reading after I saw the word Banned.
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?
Don't they have an 18+ rating for games in Australia?
Polls consistently show that the vast majority of gamers are adults.
The game that was so good it was banned in Australia.
Aren't there people over the age of 15 in Australia? If not the level of drinking in that country is really worrying.
Hey, at least there's no nudity!
I for one welcome our undead marsupial overlords!
Would they ban a movie displaying the same content?
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
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.
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!
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
Where the bloody hell are you?
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
...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.
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?
I 3 Threads
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".
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!
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
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.
Man, you suck at rugby, and now you cant even play L4D2... My heart breaks for you guys.
....mmmm I think this guys would be great game reviewers.... Any game with that last paragraph on the cover, and I'm sold!
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.
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?
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.
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.
... 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!
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!