Fallout 3 (1 Viewer)

[runtlocks]

gahh this is BULLSHIT MAN

 

[stazi]

hahahahahahahhahaha.

i kind of knew it was likely to happen, but fuck this. seriously. oh well, guess we can import a PAL version of the game from the UK quite easily.

 

[runtlocks]

but i want the collectors ed

fucking...just FUCK


looks like it was because of the drugs

http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/07/olfc_report_why_fallout_3_was_banned_in_australia.html

 

[stazi]

you could always import the CE, or get the CE edition here for the collectibles and sell just the game

 

[Looking Glass]

Quite possibly the first good thing I've heard about Fallout 3 since it was announced.

That's what they get for removing groin shots, I guess - a hit right to the balls.

I'm normally stringently opposed to all forms of censorship. And our classifications system *is* utterly pathetic. But I'm going to pretend they banned it for being a farcically mediocre "sequel" to a stellar series, rather than becuase it has a bit of tit in it.

Now if they'll just ban Deus Ex 3 as well, I'll be ready to start campaigning for their removal.

 

[runtlocks]

gee man get with the times


http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/887/887728p1.html

Also worth noting, for people considering a foreign copy of Fallout 3 on PC and PS3, we have some bad news; you may run into legal issues. The OFLC's guidelines on the importation of games restrict buyers from importing games with drug-related content:

"The Classification Board may advise that importation or exportation of items should not be allowed if they:
# in relation to a computer game – are unsuitable for a person under 18 to see or play; or
# promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence; or
# promote or incite the misuse of a drug specified in Schedule 4.

Like importing any other banned game or film, you take the legal ramifications of the process into your own hands. Don't say we didn't warn you.




christ

 

[stazi]

Yeah they have never enforced that though. They may stop the game from coming in but they wont fine you. Also worth noting, my copy of GTA IV was sealed in a clear postal case! They examined it and didnt care.

Really, the risk of someone confiscating your game when importing it is almost nonexistant

 

[Graney]

What kind of fucked up morality where depicting drug use is banworthy, but vividly exploding a niggers head off with a shotgun is totally cool.

 

[ogmzergrush]

FUCK. I just had a huge post typed up, but session timed out and it's gone. Sorry guys, here's the point form. :/

- Probably get a "magical happy juice" medicine instead of morphine, etc. Superficial changes to appease censors, not sure if it seems worth it to import just because of that. Seems very pedantic to pull the game up just on that, but then that's OFLC for you.

- Confuses me how Bethesda didn't see this coming. They referred multiple times to child killing being out as it flags the game for censor attention, but didn't anticipate the difficulty with "real world" drug depiction. The ratings guidelines here, and presumably elsewhere, are quite clear on both of these points, so you'd think that they could have saved themselves some time on this.

- Entire thing is overblown - many games are submitted, refused, modified, reviewed and passed for classification. Only reason half the people getting upset about this even know about it is because of the amount of attention Fallout 3 is getting. Kinda seems pointless getting worked up about a game being censored if you wouldn't even notice the missing content had you not read about it first.

- Fuck game ratings, need to start treating adults like adults.

- Situation is ridiculous still, encourages piracy, blah blah, vote with your dollars, email the oflc and whine, etc.

 

[ogmzergrush]

What kind of fucked up morality where depicting drug use is banworthy, but vividly exploding a niggers head off with a shotgun is totally cool.

The guidelines are pretty detailed, and factor in things like whether the consequences of the actions are immediately obvious. In the case of the aforementioned individual, their sudden case of death is probably enough to satisfy most ratings boards that the game does not separate the consequences of shooting people in the head from the act itself. Further to that, the ramifications of the action are also factored in - guards now chase you, whatever.

The distinction made with drugs here is that they bear a striking resemblance to, and in one case share the name of, real world substances, and are used by the player to positive ends, despite having relatively minimal downsides included. Couple the "realism" of the drugs with the fact that they're demonstrated as having a positive impact with few drawbacks, and I guess there's your distinction.

As I said, I don't really see the value in them doing this at all, that's just how they roll. It really amounts to a checklist, tick enough of the right boxes and you're fine, tick one of the "iffy subject" boxes and you're screwed, regardless of how graphic, well-intentioned and whatever else the content actually is.

 

[Graney]

I see your point, but their rationale is senseless.

The depiction of drugs may be realistic and shown in a positive light, but the violence is even more real in every sense (the weapons depicted exist, the drugs, generally don't etc...), and how rare is a game where there is any consequence for violence, it's absolutely rewarded most of the time.

I don't believe consequences and ramifications of shooting people in the head are typically shown in any real sense.

It's just wowsers ruining our freedom.

 

[ogmzergrush]

Their logic is horrible, agreed for sure. The only way it seems to make sense is if you look at it at the most ridiculously basic level. I think a large part of the problem is that that's exactly what they do, by continuing to rate games while making the assumption that the only people who will be playing them are young children, without a firm understanding of very basic concepts.

 

[runtlocks]

something you both might want to read:

http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008...ugger_all_to_protect_kids_promotes_crime.html

but yeah zerg, pretty much spot on

 

[stazi]

here's a letter i wrote and even got a customised response for:

It is very rare that I write in to express my opinion. However, the current debate is one that I feel very strongly about. As a 21 year old gamer who enjoys the benefits of living in a relatively free 'democracy', it shocks me that I cannot be trusted to make my own informed decision about my entertainment choices when it comes to video games.

The argument from the opposition is based primarily around the tenants that:
a) Exposure to violent video games leads to social violence by young children
b) Young children can get their hands on these video games which will affect them in a negative manner, psychologically

For the first point, I must point out that no causal and conclusive link has yet been established. This leads me onto the second point: if the relationship was, indeed, established (which it is not), then it would make logical sense to restrict the sale of questionable video games to only those over the age of 18. This is, of course, easy to implement and police.

In some other nations where these ratings exist, retailers must not feature R18+ games on shelves. To obtain these games, the individual must present their ID and the clerk would obtain the game from behind the counter. This is the manner in which tobacco products are purchased in Australia.

This is not to say that there are problems with the aforementioned approach: many purchase decisions are made in-store, so retailers will be less successful in selling these products due to a lack of points of recall available for consumers. However, a purchase is better than no purchase at all. Video game publishers would also put more dollars into the Australian economy, as they try and promote these games more heavily, due to their lack of shelf presence.

Where else can this system fail?

As in the case of R18+ films, children can view this medium whilst their parents are absent from home. This isn't a far stretch, as almost all parents will have these films for their own enjoyment. However, what is the percentage of parents with video game platforms who also buy specific video games for themselves? My guess is that the number is quite minimal. If the parent is informed about the rating and content of the video game (a sticker saying 'attention parents: not for children' could even be included on packaging), then there is no reason for the video game to be in the household in the first place.

Meanwhile, adult gamers such as myself can enjoy our full democratic rights as Australian citizens to make their own decisions as to which media they choose to consume.

 

[runtlocks]

made a pre-order at eb, they're quite adamant that bethsoft are going to resubmit a modified version ala gtaiv in time for release this oct

 

[stazi]

why wouldn't you preorder at JB where you work also, EB never have any insight knowledge.

however, it is likely they will resubmit a version: they wouldn't want to lose out on million in sales

 

[runtlocks]

eb are getting the true collectors edition with a lunchbox! we're getting some shitty cover and a souless brotherhood of steel figurine instead of the fallout bobblehead.

actually, scratch all that we recieved word from head office about a week ago to stop taking preorders for it

 

[stazi]

oh right that thing. yeah i preordered that too.

 

[runtlocks]

atkinson's generic reply to people sending him mail regarding the matter:

http://www.nutwork.com.au/no-r18-for-australian-gamers-70?g

 

[stazi]

argh. such an annoying fuck. really.