"Censorship is the very wall that holds creativity back from complete freedom; because without exposure to the good and the bad, the acceptable and inappropriate and the offensive and polite, how will the mind thrive for more than what is given?" -- Anonymous
With the OFLC's hands bound by legislation that decides what type of games can be made available in Australia, it's no wonder that our track record of refusing classification to videogames is known the world over.
Based on OFLC statistics, between 2006 and 2007 more than 6200 items of media were rated in Australia. Of this figure, only 890 represented computer games, with the remainder made up of print publications (books and magazines), publicly exhibited films, and VHS and DVD sales and rentals. The figure also includes referrals from both the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) and Australian law enforcement agencies.
Of those 890 games, 765 were rated either G or PG. Of the 125 MA15+ titles submitted, only four games were banned for not meeting the classification guidelines. Going back even further, a look back at the last decade shows that 26 titles were banned outright in Australia for failing to meet ratings guidelines. However, while both high- and low-profile game franchises have been denied sale in Australia, appeals and editing have allowed numerous others that were initially refused classification to fit into the maximum MA15+ rating as outlined by the National Classification Code and to go on to be sold legally.
Duke Nukem 3D and Soldier of Fortune: Payback are two such examples that, during the process of their classification, were found to be outside of the guidelines and required modification before they would be allowed to be sold. Duke Nukem's 1996 classification included the voluntary removal of specific elements of the game, namely the depiction of women as exotic dancers and as prisoners inside cocoons. While those images were disabled for the Australian retail release and passed, a patch available on the Internet allowed full functionality to be restored, enabling features that were not taken into consideration (thus unclassified) during the game's submission for its rating. (While this may appear fairly tame by today's standards, a similar issue would again come to the fore with the "Hot Coffee" Grand Theft Auto San Andreas scandal some eight years later.) Duke went on to be re-rated and allowed to be sold by Australian retailers at the maximum MA15+ classification rating.
Soldier of Fortune: Payback travelled a slightly different path on its way to classification approval in Australia. In October 2007, the game was refused classification rating by the OFLC due to "close-range shooting with substantial blood spray, blood splatters on the ground and walls, and the ability to target various limbs of the opponent which can result in dismemberment." All these features are typical of the two previous SoF games which passed as MA15+ rated titles for their high level of animated violence. Soldier of Fortune: Payback required significant changes to be made, and after doing so Activision's ultra-violent shooter was able to successfully pass through the censors a second time a month later. The changes included reducing the number of blood effects, removing the ability to dismember enemies, and toning down the ragdoll physics present in the game. Again all three features are staples of the series, and all featured prominently in the two previous games which passed through unscathed on their first attempt.
Of course, there can't be any serious classification discussion without mentioning Rockstar Games. The company is certainly no stranger to controversy, especially here in Australia, where it has had its fair share of run-ins with the OFLC over its hugely successful Grand Theft Auto series. Manhunt on the Xbox and PlayStation 2 platforms set an Australian censorship precedent when the game was banned almost a year after going on sale rated MA15+. Though the game had been available between October 2003 and September 2004, the federal Attorney General intervened on behalf of the Western Australian Minister for Justice to get the game taken off shelves. The retrofitting of an RC (refused classification) rating made the product illegal to sell, rent, own, advertise, or publicly display in Australia, and it remains banned from both sale and foreign import under threat of heavy penalties (including fines).
It would appear depictions of strong violence remain one of the most contentious issues facing games submitted for classification in Australia. Game developer Digital Extremes is the latest to feel the full wrath of the OFLC in February this year when its title Dark Sector was banned ahead of a March 2008 retail launch. In its official statement relating to the ruling, the OFLC cited "decapitation and dismemberment of limbs accompanied by large blood spurts," as a major cause for the ban. The board also contests that "when Hayden cuts off his opponent's limbs with the glaive, large amounts of blood spray forth from the stump and the injured person screams with agony which increases the impact." Only a few weeks later Ninja Gaiden II successfully sailed the treacherous Australian rating waters and receive an MA15+ rating, despite decapitation and disembowelment playing a pivotal role in the title's gameplay mechanics.
A look back over the last decade's banned games list reveals that with the exception of Nintendo (no real surprises there) and Microsoft, all the major players have had at least one title butt heads with the Australian censor body. EA, Activision, Red Ant, AFA Interactive, Atari, Acclaim, Eidos, Sony, Take 2, THQ, Vivendi, and Sega have all joined the illustrious ranks of having their games marked part of the "not for sale in this country" club.
In order for any change to be made to this process (the establishment of an R18+ rating for games, for example), all state and territory Attorneys-Generals must agree. Only then is the proposal submitted to the Federal Minister for Home Affairs Bob Debus for consideration. While the issue of an adult rating has been broached at Standing Committee of Attorney-General (SCAG) meetings previously, little is likely to change in the short-term. At the most recent SCAG meeting held on March 28, 2008, the various Attorneys-General decided on taking the issue for public consultation.
In Part Two of this feature, we'll dive headfirst into the reasons why Australia doesn't have an R18+ rating for games, as well as compare ourselves to the rest of the world to see exactly how we fare comparatively when it comes to culling adult content. Stay tuned to GameSpot AU for more.
Leave us a comment and let us know your thoughts on Australian video game classification.
Censory Overload: An in-depth look at Australian video game classification
GameSpot AU's in-depth look at Australian video game classification.
198 Comments