Slashdot Mirror
New Aliens Vs. Predator Game Doesn't Make It Past AU Ratings Board
An anonymous reader writes "Australia refused to give Rebellion's new Aliens Vs. Predator game a rating, effectively banning it in the country. Rebellion says it won't be submitting an edited version for another round of classifications, however. (As Valve did with Left 4 Dead 2.) They said, 'We will not be releasing a sanitized or cut down version for territories where adults are not considered by their governments to be able to make their own entertainment choices.'"
Australian isn't the US, we have a different culture and people in general are quite happy for the government to "protect" us from certain things.
Unfortunately that attitude isn't unique to your country and there are plenty of people here in the states that would willingly surrender their freedom and liberty in exchange for "protection" from various things.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"How do you refuse when they are backed with the full force of law?"
You do something illegal. Very simple. Armed rebellion IS a legitimate choice.
I'm surprised to hear all of this "I want to change the government because it is poor and doesn't represent my interests.... but I won't do anything illegal". FUCKING PICK ONE. Either put up with the bullshit, or do something about it, don't sit there and bitch like a whiney fuck.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
If a ratings board bans their game, even if it's a derivative piece of movie-spawned crap, it's pure gold for marketing. There's no way that the Australian government is going to block kids from getting the game...they will find a way one way or the other. But they're definitely doing yeoman's work in promoting the game everywhere by giving it a big "bad" rating. All the ratings system does is provide a free benchmark for a particular genre to strive for because they know that's what will turn heads and sell their product.
I know that if I were representing the company for this product, I'd be scheduling a big party to celebrate the rating and ban, not trying to make a political/free speech point out of it. The ratings system is an amazing helping hand to this particular venue.
Contrary to the US, most every other civilised country in the world recognises that the average citizen does NOT have some God given right to own a rocket launcher!
Hyperbole. No civilian in the US owns a "rocket launcher", unless you are referring to one of these.
Unfortunately the American gun culture is now being exported (along with rap and like shit) and we're starting to pay the price with a rise in handgun crime.
Yes, it's all our fault. Your criminals were honest hard working folk until they caught a glimpse of the American gun culture, upon which they become violent murderers.
The average American is a sheep being led to the slaughter so some Ruger guy can afford another corporate jet, and the best part is, they have you loving it!
Ruger isn't that big of a company. I actually met their CEO once upon a time. Guess what? He was flying commercial.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
However, this "willingness to give up freedoms for safety" only shows itself statistically when talking about terrorism. Harris Interactive did a poll a few days after 9/11 asking the question and by 80%, Americans were willing to lose some freedoms. A second poll in 2007, halfway through the second GWBush administration, showed similar results.
It's interesting that of all the dangers in the world, the one that turns Americans into quivering masses of fear is something that is so statistically insignificant as to be nearly nonexistent. We hear conservative members of congress, big tough guys who like to swagger and threaten, worry about the 200 Gitmo detainees as if they were James Bond supervillians who could destroy American with their minds. Khalid what's-his-name, the supposed "9/11 mastermind" is actually so dangerous, they say, that he can't even be allowed to be tried in a court of law. Now that's fear.
Seriously, if you listen randomly to a segment of any US "conservative" media, one of the most common expressions you'll hear is "I'm afraid..." or "I fear...".
You are welcome on my lawn.
They aren't acting on behalf of a sovereign state, so they can't be war criminals. They're common criminals. It doesn't matter how heinous their crime is, everyone deserves access to the civilian justice system. Someone who murders his wife deserves access to the civilian justice system, someone who murders 20 college students deserves access to the civilian justice system, and someone who assists in the murder of 3000 people deserves access to the civilian justice system. It's called rule of law, you can't circumvent it just because you fell like it.
Indeed. Why, if declaring someone "enemy combatant" wouldn't put them outside the normal legal system, and able to be hold prisoner for as long as his captors desired, then how would the powerful get rid of their enemies? Why, the very thought that "everyone is equal before law" might lead someo to question the divine right of the king and the status of the aristocracy!
Kudos for Khalid, thought; he might be a freedom-hating murdering bastard, but not many people can have freedom die a little bit just by having their name mentioned on an Internet forum.
Very well, then bring them before a court. You did know that war criminals get sentenced or released on those, didn't you?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.