Fallout 3 in Oz, alternate action plan.

Recommended Videos

Hey Joe

New member
Dec 23, 2007
2,025
0
0
I wrote this on my blog this morning, but I don't want to spam y'all, so here's the entry detailing what you can do to get the unmodified Fallout 3 to our shores.

==============================================================================================

I'm back after my tussle with the flu, and I'm mad as all hell.

Last week I was browsing Kotaku when I saw a story on Fallout 3 being refused an MA15+ classification in this country, effectively banning the full version from this country. Why?

Apparently because your avatar could shoot morphine, with positive in-game effects. Now, I'm not advocating drug use, it's been a huge issue in our country regarding the indigenous population (especially morphine in the NT), but this whole thing smacks of hypocrisy and ignorance from the rating board.

For example, I just have to browse my DVD collection to see that 21 Grams has been given a MA15+ rating. Something tells me that 21 Grams may just be a teeny little harmful and shocking to young minds than Fallout 3 would ever be. Even SAW IV, yes, SAW IV has been given a MA15+ rating according to classification office's press page!

So what? It's not being given a MA15+ rating in this country, can't you just make it an adults-only game? Well, as it turns out, no.

You see, there's no R18+ classification in this country regarding games.

Wha? But...don't they know adults actually play games? Well, one look at the board may give you some clues.

Do me a favour, go to the classification board's website www.classification.gov.au and look at the board listing.

Notice the hilariously named Donald McDonald, the director of the board doesn't look a day under 60 (his bio said he got a BAComm in 1961, so you make a guesstimate). Do you think he's ever...actually played a video game in his life?

Or is it simply that his only experience with video games stems from watching his grandchildren play?

No wonder there's no R18+ classification for games in this country! The prevailing attitude seems to be that ADULTS DON'T PLAY GAMES! Of course they don't! The rest of the board doesn't exactly paint a youthful picture either.

Coming from a theoretical perspective (as these board members must be), video games do seem more harmful than film or books.

The logic is there, video gaming is a highly interactive medium which can be easily imitated. As gamers though, I bet you you've never learned to load a gun by playing GTAIV or Call of Duty. However, anybody who knows a thing or two about film can tell you that it's a highly interactive medium too.

Through the practice of semiotics and verisimilitude, a film involves the viewer. Viewers are not passive in making meaning, but are active in it.

It's easy to see why the classification board may have this view of video games, but that's not the biggest outrage in all this. There's another player in all this that could put pressure on the board, but idly sits by while gamers are treated like children.

WHERE ARE THE CIVIL LIBERTARIAN GROUPS ON THIS ONE!?

You see the peak bodies on the news all the time, and yet they don't seem to be sticking up for our rights to play the same game the rest of the world will be playing. Could it be that censorship is just not a civil liberty issue anymore?

Unlikely. More likely however, is that they're ignorant of the whole thing.

They're kind of busy fighting lock-out laws and debating the alco-pops tax, so getting the full Fallout 3 here, and creating a R18+ classification is pretty low on their list of priorities. Who could blame them, even the most ardent gamer will tell you that these issues are more important than gaming.

There is something you can do to spur them into action though.

Instead on writing your angry diatribes to the classification board, write them to the civil libertarian groups, lambasting their lack of action on this. Start with one, and if they don't do anything, move onto the next one.

Gamers writing angry letters to the classifications board will do nothing, however, if the civil libertarian groups start getting tons of letters, the whole thing may just start to look like a juicy issue for them to pounce on.

So gamers, I implore you, don't post your letters to the classification board, post them to civil libertarian groups instead. There's bitching from gamers, and then there's bitching from peak bodies. Guess which one the classification board will listen to?
 

PurpleRain

New member
Dec 2, 2007
5,001
0
0
I don't think the Civil libertarian would do anything on this matter. I would have thought that would have agreed on the 'no violence in games' stance.

I hate Australia at the moment. Petrol is too expensive. Alchopops costs an arm and a leg. The Pope's in town cuddling a Koala named 'Darwin' (I find that amussing) and politics are doing squat all about R ratings in games. Makes me rage.
 

Hey Joe

New member
Dec 23, 2007
2,025
0
0
PurpleRain said:
I don't think the Civil libertarian would do anything on this matter. I would have thought that would have agreed on the 'no violence in games' stance.
Their opinion on violence in games is irrelevant, they fight for your right to choose. Whether that be to play violent video games or not. For example, they may think smoking is bad for you, but they fought to allow you to smoke in bars etc.

That's why the inaction on the part of civil libertarian peak bodies has me a bit steamed. Yes, it may be a classification issue, but it's also a civil liberty issue. If it got banned and we had a R18+ classification, then there's not much civil lib groups can do, but the lack of the rating says 'People in this country are NOT ALLOWED to play video games intended for adults', which is screwed up from from a civil lib P.O.V.
 

ElArabDeMagnifico

New member
Dec 20, 2007
3,775
0
0
I use to be able to read long passages like these but I have Chronic Drye Eye now, currently taking restasis and using more "moistening" contacts - they just aren't acting quick/long enough -, but I could only get halfway through this, and from what I've read....is it really true that the only reason people are uptight about games down there is because the members of the classification board are old and stupid?
 

stompy

New member
Jan 21, 2008
2,951
0
0
ElArabDeMagnifico said:
is it really true that the only reason people are uptight about games down there is because the members of the classification board are old and stupid?
Yes. That, and Michael Atkinson, but yeh, the OFLC isn't really know for its sympathetic opinion of video games and their players.

Frankly, even if Australia gets an R18+ rating, which evidently isn't going to happen soon, I'm not buying from stores that sell games for double the price of overseas retailers, especially for games that have been censored, and therefore have less content. If the government loses that money, well, sucks to be them.

Of course, if the government wakes up the next day and suddenly lowers the price of video games, and instates a R18+ rating, then I'll buy. Yes, I'm selfish and greedy, but I'd rather have the money in my pocket.
 

PurpleRain

New member
Dec 2, 2007
5,001
0
0
Hey Joe said:
PurpleRain said:
I don't think the Civil libertarian would do anything on this matter. I would have thought that would have agreed on the 'no violence in games' stance.
Their opinion on violence in games is irrelevant, they fight for your right to choose. Whether that be to play violent video games or not. For example, they may think smoking is bad for you, but they fought to allow you to smoke in bars etc.

That's why the inaction on the part of civil libertarian peak bodies has me a bit steamed. Yes, it may be a classification issue, but it's also a civil liberty issue. If it got banned and we had a R18+ classification, then there's not much civil lib groups can do, but the lack of the rating says 'People in this country are NOT ALLOWED to play video games intended for adults', which is screwed up from from a civil lib P.O.V.
Perhaps the letters will be sent then. Make a great argument about restricting our right as a country by cencoring the 'games' and freedom that the rest of the world is entitled to.
 

Hey Joe

New member
Dec 23, 2007
2,025
0
0
ElArabDeMagnifico said:
I use to be able to read long passages like these but I have Chronic Drye Eye now, currently taking restasis and using more "moistening" contacts - they just aren't acting quick/long enough -, but I could only get halfway through this, and from what I've read....is it really true that the only reason people are uptight about games down there is because the members of the classification board are old and stupid?
No, they're not stupid, they just don't do enough research regarding video games, and generally have the perception that video games are for kids. I was kind of angry when I wrote this, so it does come off a tad bit 'rage on the page'.

The second half painted the issue as a civil liberty issue. Why can't adults play games that are intended for adults when others around the world can?

Hence, you should be hounding civil liberty peak bodies alerting them to the issue. Hopefully they can put some sort of pressure on the government that angry video gamer letters can't.
 

sma_warrior

New member
Jan 23, 2008
129
0
0
The classification board has no power to introduce an R18+ category for video games. That resides in the UNANIMOUS decision by all Attorney Generals. There is ONE SOLE AG who refuses to budge by the name of Michael Atkinson (he's from South Australia....) - all the rest agree with introducing it.

So yeah, you might wanna do an update on your blog so any outraged readers can CORRECTLY direct their anger. It's not a case of not understanding that gamers are no longer kids or the OFLC being unsympathetic - it's all because of some wanker thinking he can parent aussie kids better than the parents can.
 

stompy

New member
Jan 21, 2008
2,951
0
0
sma_warrior said:
it's all because of some wanker thinking he can parent aussie kids better than the parents can.
Michael Atkinson is also pushing for internet censorship... he's making a lot of enemies...
 

Hey Joe

New member
Dec 23, 2007
2,025
0
0
sma_warrior said:
The classification board has no power to introduce an R18+ category for video games. That resides in the UNANIMOUS decision by all Attorney Generals. There is ONE SOLE AG who refuses to budge by the name of Michael Atkinson (he's from South Australia....) - all the rest agree with introducing it.

So yeah, you might wanna do an update on your blog so any outraged readers can CORRECTLY direct their anger. It's not a case of not understanding that gamers are no longer kids or the OFLC being unsympathetic - it's all because of some wanker thinking he can parent aussie kids better than the parents can.
Gamers should still direct their anger toward civil liberty peak bodies, totally forgot about the AG though. Although I thought the process was in reverse and the OFLC drafted and put the motion to the AG who then had executive power to introduce it into parliament?

Mee so confuuused!
 

sma_warrior

New member
Jan 23, 2008
129
0
0
Hey Joe said:
sma_warrior said:
The classification board has no power to introduce an R18+ category for video games. That resides in the UNANIMOUS decision by all Attorney Generals. There is ONE SOLE AG who refuses to budge by the name of Michael Atkinson (he's from South Australia....) - all the rest agree with introducing it.

So yeah, you might wanna do an update on your blog so any outraged readers can CORRECTLY direct their anger. It's not a case of not understanding that gamers are no longer kids or the OFLC being unsympathetic - it's all because of some wanker thinking he can parent aussie kids better than the parents can.
Gamers should still direct their anger toward civil liberty peak bodies, totally forgot about the AG though. Although I thought the process was in reverse and the OFLC drafted and put the motion to the AG who then had executive power to introduce it into parliament?

Mee so confuuused!
Well they tried to put it through in March and MA was the only AG who refused to pass it so...