Fallout 3 refused classification

While I agree generally with what most people are saying here, I can't help but think that the makers of Fallout 3 should have known that there were going to be problems. From what I understand, the game features the player injecting himself with drugs to improve health etc, and this is where the major problem lies.

The Aussie classification board has for a long time banned games where players inject drugs or use drugs to improve their performance in inappropriate ways. Games that come to mind include Narc and Blitz.

SO I think some of your anger should be at the makers of the game who couldn't care less about passing our censorship codes, and how Australia is treated as a second-rate market. Afterall, our censorship codes have been in place for years longer than Fallout 3 has been in development, so the makers should really have tailored the game to pass the standards here and elsewhere.

However, I agree with an R rating, not just so we get uncensored games here in Australia, but so obviously violent games like Condemned 2 are given a more appropriate R rating instead of an MA.

I think of the major problems with an R rating is making retailers not sell them to minors. Cinemas and video stores are generally good at stopping kids from seeing R rated movies, but I can't imagine the average 17-year-old at Game and EB are going to strictly enforce such a policy.

Also in response to Marka regarding the so-called "child porn" pictures in the news recently, I think that's completely irrelevant argument. Anyone who actually thinks pictures of naked children are by themselves porn is themselves a sick puppy. The very definition of porn is something that is designed to excite people sexually. Those pictures did not have the children in sexually provocative poses, they were just naked. So does this make every naked baby photo (like those Anne Geddes calandars) constitute child porn or is every ad where the mum kisses a naked baby's tuss pornography? Of course not. I'm all for calling those pictures "inappropriate", but to call them "child porn" is another thing entirely, and best left to the fear mongers at Today Tonight and A Current Affair (the same peopel who say violent games makes violent people).

Enjoyed the comment hexen, but do you really think movies are more violent than games? In my opinion, even the worst movies for violence don't compare with the constant head exploding and beating up bums with a bit of 4x2 and then putting their head into a window like Condemned 2. Or the constant limb-flying violence in a game like Timeshift.

By pure numbers, I reckon more people die in Condemned 2 than a dozen R rated horror flicks, and in equally gruesome ways.

Which is another reason we need an R rating - so violent games are properly classified to allow the mature gamers to play what they want and keep the younger folk from increasingly violent games that seem to fall under the MA rating.

Oh in rely to Benza - I was just making the point for both sides. While we don't like them, I think for the most part our censorship laws are pretty consistent, so if the makers of Fallout 3 really cared about us Aussies as gamers, they would have already made a slightly censored version to suit our standards.

My point is this - if we were a big market like the US, do you think they still would have made a game that didn't meet its censorship rules?

MikeZombie - the coin has two sides though. I agree with what is being said, I just offered another side of the story. Sure, our standards need changing, but the developer should have made some effort to ensure the game is able to be released in all markets. Australia isn't the only market in the world with strict cencorship codes that this game will fail to meet.

Anyway, didn't mean to make a big deal out of it, was just saying that blame is not all one way. I personally think a company that makes million of dollars in Australia has at least some responsibility to make a game that meets our standards without us having to wait for a censored version or having to import it which must hurt local retailers.

Interesting debate everyone.

Brad - I'm no expert on gaming costs, but surely the cost of cutting a few sections of a game would be pretty small. They will likely do it now anyway for it to be released in all countries, the same as Rockstar did for GTA 4 and how Dark Sector is set to be re-released with cuts.

I just think if you plan to make a game that risks being banned in some countries, you'd make two versions in the first place if you are going to have to down the track anyway.

Bovine - I think your comments make a lot of sense. However, if we have an R rating, will the game shops police it properly? If game shops have R rated games, would you be confident that your children won't be to get a copy?

As far as Attorney-Generals go, I think they are appointed differently from other politicians and aren't voted in as such. I'm not sure though - that may just be the federal AG.