Aussie Gamers Dress As Zombies To Raise R18+ Awareness

swandives writes "Australian gamers will dress as zombies to raise awareness about the lack of an R18+ rating for video games in the country. The protest will begin at Hyde Park Fountain on March 27 and lumber through Sydney, raising awareness of the need for a higher classification rating and hopefully causing a bit of havoc at the same time! Computerworld Australia has pictures of previous zombie protests in the lead-up to the event. Australia has a long history of lobbying for an R18+ games classification but, even after a decade, video games are banned from sale if they exceed the maximum M15+ classification. So far, the list of banned titles includes 7 Sins, Risen, Left 4 Dead 2 and Dark Sector. Others, like Alien vs. Predator, were initially banned but appealed the rating and are now MA15+."

Comments

Left 4 Dead 2?

[VGPowerlord]

I thought Left 4 Dead 2 was censored enough after its initial rejection to receive an M15+ in Australia.

Whoa, really?

[Pojut]

Dark Sector was banned? That's a shame. I know it amounts to nothing more than a Gears of War/Resident Evil 4 ripoff in terms of overall design, but it's seriously one of the most underrated games of this generation. Personally, I think it looks and plays better than Gears of War, and in some parts even ups the intensity (although it's scale is smaller than GoW). It has its problems, but it is still one hell of a fun game to play.

Screw the reviews you have read...if you enjoy third person shooting games in any capacity, you are doing yourself a massive disservice by not playing Dark Sector.

Re:Someone needs to say this...

[Adambomb]

Close:

Gaaaammmes....

What we really need

[calibre-not-output]

is to be done with this ridiculous system of rating and censoring everything. For fuck's sake, forcing every parent to agree with a committee on what is appropriate for their children is ridiculous.

I'd sooner ban idiots who tell my kids they'll go to an eternal afterlife of torment unless they have the same imaginary friend as the leader Third Twice-Reformed Baptist Church of the Three-Sided Square Circle than a game about a blue hedgehog who likes to jog.

Re:What we really need

[Pojut]

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and go ahead on assuming that you are on the young side.

The game rating system (aside from the "Adults Only" debacle, which honestly isn't much of a problem anymore) has been hugely successful. The ratings system for games isn't meant to be something that parents follow word for word, it is just a clear and easy to understand system they can use to determine whether they want their child playing something or not. Even though it is changing, a lot of parents still aren't gamers, and will have no way of knowing whether a game is appropriate for their kids or not. Knowing that a game has different levels of violence, language, or sexual content helps them make a decision without trying the game first themselves.

Personally, I wouldn't care what my kid played so long as they could demonstrate to me that they understand the difference between a video game and real life...but most parents don't feel that way. Knowing the media that their kids are consuming is important to them, and game ratings help them to do that.

Re:What we really need

[jsled]

What we also really need is for people to understand that not only children play video games.

Re:What we really need

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, you must confusing Australia's system with that of a sane country. Rating games to inform parents about the content within is a great idea, but Australia took it one step further and established a system under which games denied classification cannot be sold, even to adults.

Re:What we really need

[Pojut]

Ah, my mistake...I saw "game ratings" and instantly thought of the ESRB ratings here in America (despite the fact that the freakin' article was about Australia). ::slaps self:: sorry about that.

I agree, the classification system in Australia is completely whacked.

Re:What we really need

[calibre-not-output]

If the rating were content to describe what potentially objectionable content each game features (cartoon violence, sexual innuendo, &c) it would be fine. But instead they decide what age that content is suitable for, and discriminate the content seemingly as an afterthought, written in small type beneath the large-type "minimum age".

I have nothing against a purely informative system, like the one Syberz described in his reply to my parent post. But in some places (Australia is among the most radical, but also Brazil, where I live) the rating is used as a base for deciding which games are legal to purchase, even for adults. You're right in your assumption that I am younger, however I feel that you would agree with me if you were banned by a store employee from buying a product that you want and are legally entitled to purchase because you happened to be accompanied by your (legal minor) younger brother and store policy is to not sell that product to anyone accompanied by a minor. And why is that the store policy? Because the people who inspect and enforce these rules are too stupid to understand that yes, I play games in my free time too, and no, that doesn't make me a criminal just because I live in the same house as a minor.

Re:What we really need

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The game rating system (aside from the "Adults Only" debacle, which honestly isn't much of a problem anymore) has been hugely successful. The ratings system for games isn't meant to be something that parents follow word for word, it is just a clear and easy to understand system they can use to determine whether they want their child playing something or not.

A friend of mine worked in a video game shop. He used to have parents with, say nine or ten year old children in tow, come up to him with a game like "LittleBigPlanet" which was rated as 7+. They would then ask him "Is this too babyish for him?" or "Is he[the child] too old for this?". My friends efforts to dissuade them were met with dubious looks. Often, the child would saunter up with a 12+ or 15+ title and wave it about, usually with rhetoric along the lines of "Well DAVE has this game!" or "Timmy's parent let him have this". The parent would then purchase the higher age rated title (usually inferior) confident in the knowledge that it couldn't possibly be "too babyish" for their growing youngster.

There were a couple of funny stories along this line though. One day, one of these pairs came in looking to buy "Grand Theft Auto:San Andreas"(18); my friend decided to have a little fun. He informed the parent that the game she was buying contained scenes of extreme violence, gore, brutality--and here he proceeded to really embellish the content--, you could run people over, kill them with baseball bats, shoot their dead bodies, commit murder, burglary, arson, kill policemen,--here he went off the rails altogether--,kill children, kill animals, kidnap people, and see brains and guts strwn about everywhere. The woman only nodded and said, "Sure, he'll be alright. His friend has it anyway".

About to ring it up, he then dropped the bomb. "You do know as well that, the game has some...sexual content.". The woman's face contorted and she began to slowly recoil. "Well! I did not. He's not getting that so!". Amid protestations from her ward, the woman paced the game back on the shelf and walked out of the shop. My friend said the look the child gave him as it was dragged out of the shop was worth it alone.

Your morals, are not my morals, and they are not the morals of most other people. People have their own morals. If your 18s game has heads getting blown off, some people will quite happily give it to their ten year olds. If your 7s game has a character in a miniskirt, or two characters kissing, some people won't let their 14 year old play it. Yet more people look on your ratings as recommended age ratings, not minimum age ratings. Putting those numbers on the boxes does nothing but placate the outrage brigade; it doesn't help real people make purchasing decisions, or at least, help them in the way you have intended. Even indicators like the PEGI, Violence/Sex/Discrimination/Gambling logos are of little help as they are often inappropriately applied or give the wrong connotations.

Giving video games age ratigns is like trying to give clothes in a shop window age ratings. It's doomed to failure no matter how its done. People are individuals and they should be entitled to buy clothes for themselves and their children as they see fit, and not have someone else's morals thrust upon them from on high. I've trotted this one out before, but Ratchet and Clank for years had a 12+ rating in Europe, despite the creators stated objective to be the video game equivalent of a Pixar film. The most recent title has a 7+ rating, and I shudder to think of the self censorship the team had to go through to secure that rating.

Content suffers from censorship. People aren't help by censorship. Good games are not purchased because of censorship. Children are not protected by censorship. The only people who win from censorship are the censors, and they are the very people who our society should not allow to triumph. We don't need video game censorship, at least not in its current form.

Re:What we really need

[calibre-not-output]

Well, that's not so much of a problem with the general rule as it is with interpreting it. In the example above, I was of legal age, but was perceived as buying the game for a minor by someone who had no legal authority or obligation to make that sort of judgment even if I were.

Re:What we really need

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Content suffers from censorship. People aren't help by censorship. Good games are not purchased because of censorship. Children are not protected by censorship. The only people who win from censorship are the censors, and they are the very people who our society should not allow to triumph. We don't need video game censorship, at least not in its current form.

Jesus, could you get a more narrow and simplistic opinion?

OK, imagine if there were no ratings on games. None. Not even just advisory ratings. What would happen? Would we enter a golden age where parents would allow kids to play whatever they want, and stop obsessing over what their kids watched and played? No, what we would get is paranoid parents, refusing to pay for anything that they, a friend, or a trusted reviewer, haven't specifically okayed beforehand. There would be considerably less emphasis on good games, and good games would be less likely to be made, since parents are now trying to minimise offensive content in their children's games, not listen to which games are good. Game companies would work harder to self-censor their content, in case the paranoid chinese whispers known as "word of mouth" shed an unfavourable light on their game. I fail to see how the system would be any better.

You are living in the libertarian dystopian fantasy (which is only 75-90% imaginary), where the government's censorship attempts are oppressing its people, against their wishes, or if not their wishes, then at least contrary to their best interests. The fantasy also dictates that there cannot be but a single positive effect of censorship. No matter how many negative effects accompany it, no matter how many different and complex situations that censorship can be applied, there can never be a single situation where censorship can help a single person, unless that person is in a position of power, and therefore evil (this was the tell-tale property that tipped me off).

The fact is that a lot of people genuinely want game censorship (although, the kind of censorship that bans games altogether will most probably go out of favour) and a lot of people believe that adult games do psychological damage to kids. We are currently in the process of deciding this claim, through a series of studies, so it's pointless claiming that they are harmful or not, especially so if you decide to make broad, sweeping statements about their lack of effect on all children.

Also, another tip-off about your living in this fantasy is the claim that censors "win" from censorship, without any mention about what exactly "winning" entails for a censor. I suppose the censor keeps his job, but that's also a win for many other people out there. Short of censors being part of a truly gargantuan government conspiracy to turn us into slaves, I don't see how censorship being instituted is a win exclusively for censors.

(Mods: just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's flamebait)

In the mind of the general public...

[ProteusQ]

I can't think of anything that will do more to reinforce the stereotype that gamers are a bunch of pathetic losers than their efforts to "raise awareness" to this issue by dressing up as zombies and "marching" in "protest".

If the general response to their efforts is "Get a life", they will have deserved it.

Re:In the mind of the general public...

[compro01]

I think the point may have been pointing out the "Violent zombie movies? Sure! Violent zombie Games? Banned!" silliness.

Re:In the mind of the general public...

[Frosty Piss]

If the general response to their efforts is "Get a life", they will have deserved it.

Indeed.

I believe that the successful vector for fighting this type of regulatory nonsense *MUST* come from the game companies. They are really the only force that can significantly influence the politicos. It's about money, folks.

What these guys need

[SnarfQuest]

These guys don't seem to be very bright. They really need to get some brains.

Re:What happened to the Aussie spine?

[g0bshiTe]

They all hide in shame after Crocodile Dundee 2.

Makeup! we don' need no Stinkin' Makeup

[517714]

I noticed that only half of the participants had makeup on - the remainder simply relied on their basement pallor.

Is that a roundabout way to censor?

[Opportunist]

If you refuse to give something a rating and content without rating may not be sold, this is a quite insidious way to censor it.

It's like creating a law that states that the "adults only" rating does not apply to porn and may not be used for porn, without introducing a new rating for porn, keeping it on the no-go list for non-adults and at the same time banning everything unrated. Presto anti-porn censorship.

Either do away with the "not rated - not allowed to sell" or make sure that EVERYTHING can get a rating. Failure to do either is nothing short of censorship.

Re:Is that a roundabout way to censor?

[GKevlin]

It seems to me that the actual intent of these laws is to create censorship, so I think it's more of a "mission accomplished" feeling for those behind this.

Re:Why do Aussies stand for this?

[davidbofinger]

The very idea of making it illegal for adults to buy a videogame or to buy a movie is ludicrous.

As a possible counterexample, suppose there's a thriving industry in Nastystan producing films that show children being raped, tortured and murdered. Should it be legal to allow these films to be imported into Australia and sold to adults?