Australian Government Bans New Syndicate Game

I guess... by cujo_1111 · 2011-12-20 20:48 · Score: 1

That makes it ok to download it then, huh?

--
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.

Re:I guess... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 21:16 · Score: 1

It would be pretty funny if someone got sued for downloading it. Shouldn't censorship count under the whole 'lost revenue' thing?
Re:I guess... by mjwx · 2011-12-20 21:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

That makes it ok to download it then, huh?
Cant say, but it will certainly take the wind out of the old and eroneous "lost sales" argument.

But anyway, here's what's going to happen

- Game X is "banned"
- /.er's who don't understand the situation scream about OMG Freedoms.
- Media shit storm in a teacup is created.
- OLFC changes its mind after one minor change.
- /.er's who haven't bothered to keep up scream about OMG Freedoms.
- original /. whingers are now cosplaying as William Wallace shouting OMG FREEEEEEDOMS.
- Game gets released on Oz.
- /.er's still whinging about Freedoms.
- Smart Australians order games from overseas regardless (thank you parallel importing).

I swear we'll still be hearing about this six months from now. I mean the article mentioned Left4Dead when it was released in Oz on November 18 2008, the same day as North America.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:I guess... by FatLittleMonkey · 2011-12-21 03:46 · Score: 1

(thank you parallel importing).
You can only parallel import legally available material. If it's RC, then it's "Importation of refused classification material". Same as child pornography.

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Re:I guess... by FatLittleMonkey · 2011-12-21 07:31 · Score: 1

The former should be defensible by
Mitigation != Defence.
"Defence" has a specific legal meaning. The two reasons you listed aren't a "defence" against a guilty verdict. But it may be used to mitigate the sentence, if you plead guilty and get a soft magistrate and unmotivated police-prosecutor.
(IANAL, IANYL, ASPLA)

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Re:I guess... by Fluffeh · 2011-12-21 09:44 · Score: 1

- /.er's still whinging about Freedoms.
- Smart Australians order games from overseas regardless (thank you parallel importing).
So on one hand you say that /.er's will be whining about Freedoms, but at the same time you say that the people who break a law (being importing of in this case illegal goods - which is what a US/UK copy would be) by ordering it in another country and circumnavigating this law are smart?
So smart and dumb Australians both disagree with the censorship here, the stupid ones try to bring attention to the matter and perhaps get the censorship issues with games resolved by politicians - but the smart ones import goods outside the law?
You had me for a few points, but then you lost me.

--
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Re:I guess... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 16:06 · Score: 0

Have to call you on this.
Left 4 Dead 2 was released at the same time in Aus and US but Australia got the "Low Violence" version which was essentially unplayable because any zombie you shot would simply freeze in mid air and slowly fade away.
No blood, gore, dismemberment or corpses or ragdoll physics made it really hard to tell when the target was actually dead.
It ruined immersion and by the time they had released the gore version months later the l4d2 community was long gone.
What could have been a very sucessful game flopped hugely thanks to our outdated "Think Of The Children!" systems.
Re:I guess... by biovoid · 2011-12-21 19:21 · Score: 1

You can only parallel import legally available material. If it's RC, then it's "Importation of refused classification material". Same as child pornography.
It is not illegal to own RC material. It is only illegal to sell it or publicly broadcast it. Even importing is a grey area. It will probably get through, or you might, maybe get fined.
It's nothing like child pornography. Not even in the same league. Child porn is illegal to own/sell/make/distribute and you'll face a jail term if caught.
Comparing importing RC material to child porn is like comparing jay-walking to murder.
Re:I guess... by thegarbz · 2011-12-21 20:31 · Score: 1

- OLFC changes its mind after one minor change.
But it's not really one minor change is it? Typically the results is a game drastically different from the original. Though on the upside Australian users don't need to spend money on expensive hardware given how bodies just magically disappear rather than pile up in the streets. Not to mention the eased load on the physics engine not having to fling body parts around. That makes it less of a distraction too.
Actually why do we have any of this stuff at all? When you shoot someone why doesn't the body just disappear in all games?
Oh that's right, game companies put a lot of effort into making gore realistic. After all who wants to play a zombie game which is all flowers and handshakes?

Thanks for the Advertisement! by lexsird · 2011-12-20 20:48 · Score: 1

Now I HAVE to get this game. I was going to get it anyway, because I played the old one made by Bullfrog. I hope it's just as good.

--
Take the Red Pill.

Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! by tegeus · 2011-12-20 20:59 · Score: 1

I was thinking the same thing. I didn't know about this game and just checked it out because of this very item (I loved syndicate wars, pity it's just another fps). If I was a paranoid sort of guy I would almost think this is some sort of viral marketing technique. Grease a few palms to over rate our game, money well spent. But to be fair I don't know enough about the process to know how much it is open to this... Would be interested if someone here knew more
Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 21:12 · Score: 0

it's a sequel to the old Syndicate game? Oh lawd, i loved that game!!!
Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 21:26 · Score: 0

The Streisand Effect in full force. The only reason I ever played Manhunt 2 is because it was banned in the UK by the BBFC.
Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! by Gadget_Guy · 2011-12-20 21:43 · Score: 2

Now I HAVE to get this game. I was going to get it anyway, because I played the old one made by Bullfrog. I hope it's just as good.
I'm afraid if any company can ruin the old idea then it would be Electronic Arts. And seeing that they changed it from a tactical shooter to an FPS then it seems that they are on course for a disappointment. All they have done is use the same name to convince fans of the old game to buy this one. For all I know it might be a great game, but that will be despite the name "Syndicate". But I guess the tactic works; except for Aussies - they weren't fooled!
Regarding the banning, it would be nice if the classification board could give it a tentative R18+ rating, even though that would still result in it being banned. Then when the new rating system does become law, we would suddenly have a supply of games to play and the companies would not have to take the time and expense of resubmitting the titles.
But I suppose that they can't be expected to use guidelines that have not been passed by parliament. For all the classifications board knows, some back-bencher might add a clause that bans any game that mentions sheep. (Because that's the first law of Aussie Sheep Club: you don't talk about Aussie Sheep Club - or if you do you call it the New Zealand Sheep Club).
Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! by Rik+Sweeney · 2011-12-20 21:49 · Score: 2

I hope it's just as good.
I guess you haven't seen the trailers yet. It's a tired, run of the mill FPS, most likely featuring an emphasis on multiplayer and a 4 - 5 hour campaign tacked on at the last minute.
Australia is right to ban this travesty.

--
Summation 2
Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! by Narishma · 2011-12-21 00:37 · Score: 1

It's not a sequel, it's a reboot.

--
Mada mada dane.
Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! by somersault · 2011-12-21 01:16 · Score: 1

The reason I played Manhunt is that there was a big fuss made over the rating here in the UK.
The reason I didn't play Manhunt 2, is that Manhunt was shit.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! by Hatta · 2011-12-21 02:15 · Score: 2

It's not Syndicate. It's a generic FPS.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! by Barny · 2011-12-21 08:26 · Score: 1

Oh, let me guess, another game with 4 player mutli-play?

--
...
/me sighs

Thank you, OFLC by NoobixCube · 2011-12-20 20:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Peter Sunde would like to personally thank the OFLC for their contribution to The Pirate Bay's ad revenue.

--
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll

Re:Thank you, OFLC by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 21:19 · Score: 0

Peter Sunde would like to personally thank the OFLC for their contribution to The Pirate Bay's ad revenue.
The OFLC doesn't read Slashdot, nor does it care what Slashdot's readers think. Your attitude will go un-noticed and ignored by the OFLC.
If you bring up the Pirate Bay, I'm sure it will not be left unpunished, because that is a common enemy of both the Government and the Corporation. The power of government combined with that of the corporation is something that you don't mess with lightly. You can ask anybody who has ever had to deal with a CIA funded death squad.
Re:Thank you, OFLC by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 22:19 · Score: 0

Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Re:Thank you, OFLC by Elbereth · 2011-12-21 01:12 · Score: 1

That's actually a very good idea...
Re:Thank you, OFLC by mug+funky · 2011-12-21 14:00 · Score: 1

actually, it's the Classification Operations Branch now
Re:Thank you, OFLC by mug+funky · 2011-12-21 14:01 · Score: 1

oh, wait, it's the Classification Board now.
a rose by any other name, huh?

Gratuious violence my arse. by BeShaMo · 2011-12-20 20:50 · Score: 2

I'm sure Australia actually banned it for ruining the sugar coated nostalgia of the first games with another generic shooter.

Smooth move, Australia. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 20:54 · Score: 0

I hadn't heard of that game. Now I'm looking for information about it.

Depends on how you look at it by Sycraft-fu · 2011-12-20 20:54 · Score: 3, Informative

Downloading it and not paying for it is really punishing the publisher, and it isn't their fault. The Australian government is the one causing the problems. Now if you can't import the US/UK version without risking jail/a fine then ok, maybe it is your only way to play. But if importation is possible, it would seem that is the way to go. Show the AUS government how stupid their policies are and support game makers.

Re:Depends on how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 20:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Downloading it without paying for it instead of not buying it without paying for it does not punish the publisher at all.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by sg_oneill · 2011-12-20 20:56 · Score: 5, Informative

I dont really understand how its punishing the publisher in this case. Like any piracy, there isn't any theft (piracy isn't theft unless you somehow take someone elses copy of them) , but unlike regular piracy, there isn't even an oportunity lost. There can be no lost transaction when the publisher *cant* make a transaction in the first place.
Its literally victimless in all known senses.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-20 21:08 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Downloading it without paying for it instead of not buying it without paying for it does not punish the publisher at all.
But that actually punishes every other publisher, including indie games, since you're getting your entertainment fix from your pirated game and don't buy some other game instead.

For this same reason pirating apps punishes open source.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by cheekyjohnson · 2011-12-20 21:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

But that actually punishes every other publisher, including indie games, since you're getting your entertainment fix from your pirated game and don't buy some other game instead.
Damn. I'll think about that next time I download a game that is actually free. I could've given money to other game developers! What a little thief I am!

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Depends on how you look at it by SharkLaser · 2011-12-20 21:15 · Score: 1, Interesting

It's not completely victimless. It's lost opportunity to other game developers since you're playing some other game you pirated instead of getting theirs.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by cheekyjohnson · 2011-12-20 21:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, if you're going by that logic, then just about everything is a lost opportunity. Why are you playing sports instead of buying company X's video game!? Why did you buy my competitor's video game? You should have bought mine! Why did you just download that free game instead of buying mine? Why didn't you give me all of your money?
I wouldn't say there's a victim here.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Depends on how you look at it by SharkLaser · 2011-12-20 21:26 · Score: 0

Note that it's not a free game, you're just pirating it. If there's a free game that is just as good and more wanted by you then it's all good, but by pirating game it's unfair comparison.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by cheekyjohnson · 2011-12-20 21:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Note that it's not a free game, you're just pirating it.
I know that. But using the logic above, I seem to be able to make a victim out of anyone. No action is without victims, it seems.
I don't see any victims in this scenario.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Depends on how you look at it by LeperPuppet · 2011-12-20 21:44 · Score: 1

Customs will confiscate any imported copies IF they can identify them. Not sure what the punishment might be, but unless you're attempting to conceal a copy within a shipment of drugs or explosives, Customs won't find it unless you're extremely unlucky.
It's sort of a win, given that an imported UK copy can be purchased for approximately $45, while locally purchased copies will start at $80
Re:Depends on how you look at it by sirlark · 2011-12-20 22:03 · Score: 1

That makes no sense. Either I want to play game A and game B (and game C... but have a limited budget and can only afford 1, 2 or whatever of them), or I really am only interested in game A. If game A is unavailable, the industry is losing out by me pirating game A, because I will still likely spend my money to obtain games B, C etc to the extent I can afford in the first case (I wanted to play them all); Or I'll not spend my money on the other games because they never interested me in the first place. People don't budget according the game class/entertainment class. They're not going to reserve their budget for 'an FPS game', they'll reserve it for 'THAT FPS GAME' and if I can't get that, then bollocks to that, I'll go watch some movies or buy some dope or whatever.
e.g. I like CRPG's -- I would spend money on skyrim, but it's not available in my country... I'm not going to spend my money on need for speed: the latest regurgitation (tm), nor the latest FPS. I'll also not spend my money on Dragon Age, or other CRPG's unless it was already on my list of interesting things, in which case I'd buy even I pirated game A.
The only time your logic works is gift buying. Buying cousin Johnny a game means the $100 is going to spent on a game regardless of preferences, but again, piracy of the first doesn't stop the money from being spent.
Of course all of this assumes that all the games aren't going to be pirated anyway...
Re:Depends on how you look at it by AlanS2002 · 2011-12-20 22:25 · Score: 1

It's not completely victimless. It's lost opportunity to other game developers since you're playing some other game you pirated instead of getting theirs.
It's no opportunity lost, as it's not an either/or situation. You could still get the other game developers game (if you were inclined to do so in the first place) as well as pirating the one that you are unable to acquire legitimately.

--
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
Re:Depends on how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 22:26 · Score: 0

Indie games aren't publishers, they are developers that *also* publish. I'd be happy to make a donation to the developers of a banned game I pirated.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by DrXym · 2011-12-20 22:42 · Score: 1

Downloading it and not paying for it is really punishing the publisher, and it isn't their fault.

Well you could say it is their fault for expecting their game to slide past one of the most draconian game censors in the world. Not that I'm trying to defend Australia's level of censorship which I think is ridiculous, but I'm just saying. Can't cry "unfair" when the situation is pretty well understood even if it is a bad situation.
And if the game is banned from the country how much material harm are you actually causing EA by pirating it? The ban meant they weren't going to profit from the game in Australia any way. I suppose some people might import but I really doubt many would unless Syndicate turns out to be an amazing title that people MUST have. If it's a typical 65-80% EA game crapped out from the production line then I doubt many people would be too worried about rushing out to import.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by Dionysus · 2011-12-20 22:44 · Score: 1

Like any piracy, there isn't any theft (piracy isn't theft unless you somehow take someone elses copy of them) , but unlike regular piracy, there isn't even an oportunity lost. There can be no lost transaction when the publisher *cant* make a transaction in the first place.
Its literally victimless in all known senses.
I take it you feel the same about companies that take GPL code and distribute it without providing the source?

--
Je ne parle pas francais.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by SharkLaser · 2011-12-20 22:47 · Score: 0

It's not completely victimless. It's lost opportunity to other game developers since you're playing some other game you pirated instead of getting theirs.
It's no opportunity lost, as it's not an either/or situation. You could still get the other game developers game (if you were inclined to do so in the first place) as well as pirating the one that you are unable to acquire legitimately.
This would be true if everyone had infinite amount of time and endless interest in playing games. But we don't, and the pirated game is decreasing the time and interest you have to play other games. It's not really complicated.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by Stormthirst · 2011-12-20 23:01 · Score: 1

For this same reason pirating apps punishes open source.
This is only true if there's an open source app that does does exactly what the pirated app does. Unfortunately there aren't nearly as many open source games than closed source.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by AlanS2002 · 2011-12-20 23:03 · Score: 1

It's not completely victimless. It's lost opportunity to other game developers since you're playing some other game you pirated instead of getting theirs.
It's no opportunity lost, as it's not an either/or situation. You could still get the other game developers game (if you were inclined to do so in the first place) as well as pirating the one that you are unable to acquire legitimately.
This would be true if everyone had infinite amount of time and endless interest in playing games. But we don't, and the pirated game is decreasing the time and interest you have to play other games. It's not really complicated.
The point implied by my statement, it that if someone was really that interested in the other game in the first place, they'd get it. The alternative to illegally downloading and playing a game that is unable to be obtained in any other way isn't limited to purchasing and playing a game by other game developers. Perhaps I'm not interested, at that point in time, in purchasing and playing another game, perhaps I'd rather stare at my navel or go on a hike, etc.
So as another poster pointed out, in your line of argument, any activity other than purchasing the other game developers game is a opportunity lost, which is frankly an absurd argument.

--
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
Re:Depends on how you look at it by higuita · 2011-12-20 23:16 · Score: 1

But dont forget that there is many good open source games out there.
In many cases, graphics arent as good as close source games, but in many open source games are you have more fun time than in the close source ones (many are pretty, but boring or too short/buggy to be fun)

--
Higuita
Re:Depends on how you look at it by SharkLaser · 2011-12-20 23:23 · Score: 1, Flamebait

What? Most known open source games are just ports of the best closed source games like Civilization, SimCity, Quake or Theme Hospital. On top of having sucky graphics, open source games are way too repetitive and all the open source shooters try to mimic Quake. Which is boring in 2011. Where is just as much fun open source multiplayer game than Team Fortress 2 is? Or Battlefield 3/Modern Warfare 3 online? Grand Theft Auto? Assassins Creed? Deus Ex? Portal? Left4Dead? Skyrim? The list goes on and on... Hell, they could even make a simple tower defense game. But Defense Grid beats them in that too.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by SharkLaser · 2011-12-20 23:28 · Score: 1

I never said it would be so black and white or tried to argue that every pirater doing it counts as lost sale to competitor. The exact percentage is unknown, but that effect certainly exists.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 01:47 · Score: 1

More importantly, why are you playing video games when you could be curing cancer!?
Re:Depends on how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 02:01 · Score: 0

Downloading it without paying for it instead of not buying it without paying for it does not punish the publisher at all.
But what if you don't not buy it with a lack of not avoiding to withhold payment? Doesn't that not punish the publisher not at all?
Re:Depends on how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 02:04 · Score: 0

It kinda of is since the money saved is spent on entertainment anyway.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 02:05 · Score: 0

not buying it without paying
That's like a slap in the face slap. Way harsh dude.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 04:02 · Score: 0

humblebundle.com
Re:Depends on how you look at it by Creepy · 2011-12-21 04:57 · Score: 1

Call it flamebait, but the parent has a point - Cube 2, Nexuiz, Tremulous, etc all play almost exactly like Quake 3, and in some cases the graphics aren't much better. Some more modern games like NetDevil Warmonger are more tech demos (that one is based on proprietary Unreal 3 tech, as well). Many of the best free games do mimic popular commercial games.
That said, there are a few that have some merit, like the Battle For Westnoth. It takes a lot of work to make commercial quality games, even though some commercial quality open source engines exist (albeit most with requirements that the games created on them are free).
Re:Depends on how you look at it by Belial6 · 2011-12-21 05:08 · Score: 1

Since importing the game would be just as much an illegal activity as copying the game, importing is not a legitimate solution. I'm sure that EA's official stance is that they don't want you committing a crime to play their game anyway.
Re:Depends on how you look at it by i_b_don · 2011-12-21 07:39 · Score: 1

The difference is making money. Yes, taking GPL code and distributing it is the same as DLing movies and then selling those movies to other people.
d

--
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
Re:Depends on how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 10:47 · Score: 0

I sir as a publisher do not see your logic!
Re:Depends on how you look at it by Maritz · 2011-12-21 12:21 · Score: 1

Species evolve. Individuals die. ;)

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

banned next in Australia is anybody's guess... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 20:58 · Score: 1

Battletoads.

Piracy by expo53d · 2011-12-20 21:05 · Score: 1

In unrelated news, piracy of the video game "Syndicate" rose by %1200 in Australia.

Re:Piracy by Dr_Barnowl · 2011-12-20 21:10 · Score: 1

Surely it was by infinity%* ?
If there are zero sales, and even one guy pirates it....
* Stupid slashcode, won't allow you to use the ∞ entity.
Re:Piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 21:16 · Score: 0

Since after this news, legitimate sales of the video game "Syndicate" will be 0 in Australia, 1200% of 0 is also 0.
What we will actually see, even with one copy pirated, is an *infinite* percentage increase in piracy.
Re:Piracy by SharkLaser · 2011-12-20 22:50 · Score: 0

There will be more than 0 sales because people will be ordering it from other countries. And EA will probably modify their version so that it passes censors.
Re:Piracy by RivenAleem · 2011-12-20 22:56 · Score: 1

*knock on door*
Agent Smith: Dr_Barnowl (yes he can pronounce an underscore) of slashdot? We're here to ask you a few questions about your recent attempt to divide by 0
Dr_Barnowl: BLLuueeggthss *shows bowl containing brain*
Agent Smith: Not again. Jones, get the funnel.
Re:Piracy by somersault · 2011-12-21 01:22 · Score: 1

Even if you use an infinite percentage, it will still be zero.. so, uh.. yeah.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Piracy by CountBrass · 2011-12-21 03:21 · Score: 1

Dividing by zero is 'undefined' it is not 'infinity'.

--
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.

Why act surprised? by Gadget_Guy · 2011-12-20 21:10 · Score: 1

Why be surprised that the R18+ rating has taken force when the article from the linked Slashdot story said:

O'Connor said the R18+ legislation did not make it into this year's final parliament session, but he plans to introduce it in the February 2012 session.

And like others have said here, perhaps it was the lack of imagination for remaking an isometric team-based game as an FPS that offended the classification board so much.

I can only hope that they release the original game on GOG.com to coincide with the new release. Mind you, that might confuse and disappoint some Aussies who find the only game of that name which is available to them is not what they thought it would be.

Actually it's the music by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 21:12 · Score: 0

Skrillex is just too much for the Aussies.

Re:Actually it's the music by Grimbleton · 2011-12-20 22:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Skrillex is dubstep's Nickelback.

They helped kidnap, torture and murder civilians by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 21:40 · Score: 0

But they don't want you to play any video games where you fight against oppressive governments.

You have persuaded me by turing_m · 2011-12-20 21:45 · Score: 1

HEEHEEheeeheehee

--
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.

The same thing happened in New Zealand. by dadioflex · 2011-12-20 21:45 · Score: 1

Until it was pointed out that the in-game enemies are all Australian and it was passed.

Questions were raised in the Australian parliament about the situation. Questions like, "New Whatnow?"

That didn't really happen.

That just confirms my thoughts by grahamtriggs · 2011-12-20 22:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

The original Syndicate was a 'beautiful' game, that did not contain or need extreme violence. A modern version of Syndicate would not need extreme violence either.

This is not Syndicate. It's not even a modern version, or a 're-imagining'. This is a completely different game, with some vague influence from Syndicate, and the name grotesquely attached to it.

Re:That just confirms my thoughts by Will_TA · 2011-12-20 22:39 · Score: 2

Rather like the new Star Trek film, or the Sherlock Holmes films. I wish people wouldn't be afraid to give their ideas their own support rather relying on the coat-tails of the past.
Re:That just confirms my thoughts by Tim+C · 2011-12-20 22:56 · Score: 2

I'll admit it's been a long time since I played the original Syndicate, and my memory isn't the best, but I seem to remember sending a team of 4 highly-augmented cyborg agents out with mini-guns to mow down bad guys and civilians alike; seems kinda violent to me. Sure, you didn't have ultra-realistic graphics, but books generally contain no graphics and can still be plenty violent.

That's not to say that I don't expect this new game to be a travesty of course.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:That just confirms my thoughts by wcoenen · 2011-12-20 23:36 · Score: 2

did not contain or need extreme violence

Are we talking about the same game? The one with the uzis and flamethrowers?
Re:That just confirms my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 00:02 · Score: 0

Are you joking? There was plenty of controversy about the violence in the original Syndicate when it came out, as documented on the wikipedia page for e.g.
Didn't contain extreme violence? Syndicate was gratuitously brutal, that was half the appeal of it (to those that were 14 at the time. Ahem.)
Re:That just confirms my thoughts by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-12-21 01:11 · Score: 2

I take it you never set a civilian on fire and let them run through a crowd. On the US box for Syndicate Wars was the sub title:
Corporate Persuasion Through Urban Violence

I played both the original Syndicate and also Syndicate Wars in my youth. Personally I would have loved to see a proper sequel in the 3rd person view where you control 1 or more agents. Syndicate Wars ran great on my 486 dx2 66 with 8MB ram, with modern hardware you could have more agents, larger levels better AI and improved graphics.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:That just confirms my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 06:47 · Score: 0

After actually reading some Holmes, and thinking back to the movie, I don't actually feel that the movie was all that great a departure from the shorts.
Re:That just confirms my thoughts by cheesybagel · 2011-12-21 08:36 · Score: 1

After you see the Granada TV series on Sherlock Holmes it is hard to think of any other adaptation to be good or successful.
The Star Trek film was great compared with TOS.
Re:That just confirms my thoughts by Toonol · 2011-12-21 10:26 · Score: 1

The original Syndicate was horrifically violent; but it wasn't explicitly violent. It was just suggested or abstracted away. You could mind control a random citizen to kill his friends, then leave him behind to be shot... or take him with you to forcibly remove many body parts and permanently make him a slave.

But it didn't show it graphically.
Re:That just confirms my thoughts by Maritz · 2011-12-21 15:32 · Score: 1

For me Jeremy Brett is the definitive Holmes. He's actually how I imagined Holmes to look, pretty much, before I ever saw anyone play him. Apparently he took the role so seriously and so deeply into his psyche it messed his head up a bit. Cool. ;)

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:That just confirms my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 21:04 · Score: 0

I take it you played it with the sound off.
The sound of Syndicate's flame thrower and its victims will be with me til the day I die.
Froorch. Fwooooorch.Huaaagh! Huaaagh! HuaaaaAAaaAgh!!!!!

Bah by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 22:58 · Score: 0

The censors objection was to the ability to dismember the corpse after it was dead. Hello??? AVP anyone??? Playing the alien you can dismember and EAT the corpse in order to gain health. Talk about a level playing field...

They should re submit it later by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 22:59 · Score: 0

The revised guidelines are currently only a draft and are yet to be formalized in parliament: http://www.classification.gov.au/www/cob/classification.nsf/Page/InformationCentre_ProposeddraftGuidelinesforR18+ComputerGames

Actual notice for Syndicate: http://www.classification.gov.au/www/cob/find.nsf/5b6ebdff7f5b9a24ca2575ca00062226/578554decfa593b1ca25796b0057f806?OpenDocument

Re:They should re submit it later by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 00:44 · Score: 0

Won't make a difference all our R18+ law will do is push some games that would have previously been MA15+ into R18+ and keep anything that would have been RC RC anyway.
from the revised guidelines

Computer games will be refused classification if they include or contain any of the following:
CRIME OR VIOLENCE
Detailed instruction or promotion in matters of crime or violence.
The promotion or provision of instruction in paedophile activity.
Descriptions or depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive descriptions or depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 years.
Depictions of:
(i) violence with a very high degree of impact which are excessively frequent, prolonged, detailed or repetitive;
(ii) cruelty or realistic violence which are very detailed and which have a very high impact;
(iii) sexual violence.
Implied sexual violence related to incentives and rewards.
SEX
Depictions of practices such as bestiality.
Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:
(i) activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent;
(ii) incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent.
DRUG USE
Detailed instruction in the use of proscribed drugs.
Material promoting or encouraging proscribed drug use.
Computer games will also be Refused Classification if they contain:
(i) illicit or proscribed drug use related to incentives or rewards;
(ii) interactive drug use which is detailed and realistic.

Would allmost say it should be banned everywhere.. by Ch_Omega · 2011-12-21 00:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

...as it spits in the face of the original, and awesome, Syndicate games, which were anything but a dumbed down rail-shooter.

Re:Would allmost say it should be banned everywher by eyenot · 2011-12-21 00:31 · Score: 1

They did wha-- omg my breakfast huuurrrfddfffff

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee

Why?! by xenobyte · 2011-12-21 00:33 · Score: 1

Why are there still countries in the so-called civilized world that actually bans stuff through censorship?

Not only is it morally wrong on every level; it also promotes piracy and circumvention. Are they stupid or just mind-numbingly dumb?

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --

Re:Why?! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 01:28 · Score: 0

Where would you draw the line at what is acceptable in a game xenobyte?
Re:Why?! by Hatta · 2011-12-21 02:19 · Score: 1

There is no line.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Why?! by operagost · 2011-12-21 03:12 · Score: 2

Please remember that this is the country that banned nearly all guns because one psycho shot up a shopping mall. For a country that has so many chompy, stingy, poisonous monsters, they sure are fearful.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

Re:Would allmost say it should be banned everywher by dbIII · 2011-12-21 00:41 · Score: 1

which were anything but a dumbed down rail-shooter.

Now that's what the next version of Railroad Tycoon should look like :)

Re:Would allmost say it should be banned everywher by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-12-21 01:12 · Score: 1

That might be fun.

--
Time to offend someone

The worst part by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-12-21 01:34 · Score: 1

Instead of trying for a more unique format (3rd person action/strategy) they decided to go with the FPS format. That is what I liked about the older games is they were willing to try different things, granted the AI and graphics kind of sucked, but given how underpowered those machines were it becomes forgivable. I would have loved for there to be an actual update for Syndicate or Syndicate Wars using the 3rd person view where you control your agents but with more expansive maps, more interactions, better AI, and some improved graphics. But I guess that format would take more resources to create and might not sell as well as a more proven format like a FPS.

--
Time to offend someone

Banning violent games by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 02:26 · Score: 0

Banning violence in Australia? Who would have thought Australians were such pussies when it came to violence?

good thing for the 1st in the USA!!!!!!!! by Joe_Dragon · 2011-12-21 03:05 · Score: 1

as it does not let this kind of shit happen.

Downloading "banned" game. by FatLittleMonkey · 2011-12-21 03:43 · Score: 1

"Banning" means it was "refused classification" by OFLC. So buying a version online is "Importation and possession of refused-classification material." P2P pirating it would also add "Distribution of refused-classification material." And that puts it in the same category as importation, possession and distribution of child pornography. And this remains the case even if the OFLC later reclassifies it after the distributor re-submits a modified version.

(Although a court is likely to take the benign nature of the material into account during sentencing, but not during conviction.)

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

violent games can be therapeutic by RandySC · 2011-12-21 04:06 · Score: 1

Violent gaming can provide a therapeutic release of anger that can benefit the players in real-life. Whenever a government blocks an activity that releases a tension, such as the gaming or prostitution, then statistics show a rise in bad activities that also release the tension, such as real violence, or sex crimes.

--
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy

Re:Would allmost say it should be banned everywher by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 04:30 · Score: 0

Yeah. I was excited they were making more of these, but after watching the video it's clear that it's just a Deus Ex:HR rip-off/clone. What a waste.

I'm guessing but by sgt+scrub · 2011-12-21 05:30 · Score: 1

what game will be banned next in Australia is anybody's guess

I'm going to guess "any game distributed by P2P" since they are working hard to ban P2P traffic all together.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.

Cheaper to buy it overseas anyway. by the_raptor · 2011-12-21 05:30 · Score: 1

I couldn't care less if it is banned here because I have started buying new releases from the UK to save $30+.

--

========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion

Re: morally wrong by bolthole · 2011-12-21 05:34 · Score: 1

"morally wrong"?
I dont think you have a proper understanding of the word "moral".
Are you perhaps under 20? Or at most, under 25?

You seem to have the implied belief of, "Anything that stops me from doing what I want to do, is 'morally wrong'"

Which is actually the exact opposite of morals. Morals exist primarily for the reason of countering the typical human selfish desire of, "I wanna do whatever I wanna do".

Oh, no gauss guns? by Sebastopol · 2011-12-21 06:10 · Score: 1

Wrong Syndicate. Damn.

--
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-12-21 06:27 · Score: 3, Funny