Hotline Miami 2 Refused Classification in Australia - Update

[Davroth]

Haha, oh wow... they actually really did just straight up lie in their report. This is hilarious.

A government organisation that has this little regard for their work is just laughable. I feel sorry for the Australians.

 

[Magmarock]

GTA was originally banned not because you could kill hookers but because you got your money back when you did. Rockstar changed the amount the player got back and then it was allowed back into the country. Witcher 2 was cencered for two sex scenes, not because they were too graphic but because you received them as payment.

This is purely my opinion and nothing more:

I suspect that the OFLC is not run by old men who don't understand games, I suspect that it is ran buy ideological youthful feminists and SJW's. Doesn't this sound like the kind of issues that a modern day feminists would have a problem with. Since the begging the OFLC has been banning games and blaming Michal Atkinson for it. (Blaming a white old man) I could be wrong of course but I think it should be looked into.

 

[Blacklight28]

Oh boy am I glad that our glorious OFLC guardians were able to prevent this filthy trash from entering our fair utopia of a country and protect the dull and impressionable minds of our adult population from corruption.

Hail OFLC!

 

[Pseudonym]

This is purely my opinion and nothing more:

I suspect that the OFLC is not run by old men who don't understand games, I suspect that it is ran buy ideological youthful feminists and SJW's. Doesn't this sound like the kind of issues that a modern day feminists would have a problem with. Since the begging the OFLC has been banning games and blaming Michal Atkinson for it. (Blaming a white old man) I could be wrong of course but I think it should be looked into.

And you think that a group of old farts who've never played the game know whether or not the scene is necessary moreso than the creators of the game?

You know, we don't have to speculate about this. The board has no secrets about who they are: http://www.classification.gov.au/About/BoardMembers/Pages/Classification-Board-Members.aspx

The average age of the board members (with the exception of one of which the age wasn't specified) is 46. The oldest person being 60 and the youngest 33. There are slightly more women than men on the board. Pretty much all of them are middle to upper class have some form of higher education (bachelors degrees mostly). They have various jobs like hair dressers, artists, militairy jobs and other things. They seem like fairly normal people to me, and while I think they are dead wrong about what they are doing here, blaming their age, gender or other things isn't helpful. People of all ages and genders have various stances on how much freedom of expression should be allowed and these people are in my opinion, way too far on the oppressive side. That is however their failing, not that of their age or gender or whatever. That is of course not mentioning the fact that they are probably following (admittedly vague) guidelines that come from higher up the chain.

On topic, I hope Australians can convince their more oppresive countrymen to stop banning games from being sold. Hopefully they can change the law so that games aren't banned merely for upsetting peoples feelings.

PS: I'm not posting this so you can go and harrass these people. Harrassment is morally wrong and won't solve anything. I'm posting it so people can get a picture of who the boardmembers are so they can stop throwing unsubstantiated claims about age and gender around.

 

[CaitSeith]

Just to play the devil's advocate: was that rape scene really necessary?

Was the one in Pulp Fiction necessary?

Was Pulp Fiction's classification refused in Australia?

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Sexual Violence and Drugs having benefits will get ya banned here, not really as bad as Germany's blood-iphobia, if you're too lazy to look into other countries rating boards/trends then you only have yourselves to blame. Censorship in a way but by the sounds of it, it doesn't exactly add to the game in any meaningful way, so forgive me if it just strikes me as a developer really not wanting to redo a scene (that'll cost them money to redo) rather then being an affront to the games "artistic intergrity".

Sucks for those that want to legitimately support the developer, but I'd only start the sequeling once the Goverment gets ISP's to go along with the pirate crackdown scheme they're wanting to implement. N'yes Tony, slip that one in under the guise of stopping terrorists and the evil boat people, but you and I know it's to keep Rupert and his friends happy.

 

[Baresark]

My favorite update is where the developer said that Australians should pirate their game.

Being provocative gets them more publicity.

Of course it does, but it can't increase their sales in Australia. Free publicity as well making a statement that benefits people who aren't going to have honest legal access to it is a win for both.

 

[Haerthan]

Huge snip

You didn't annoy me, just made me facepalm myself.
For your first point, yes sure you can support them. But you have got to admit that their guidelines are so vague that everything can be banned under those guidelines. Let us take Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes for example. It could have been banned as it has an implied rape scene in one of its collectibles. Autumn, an upcoming game about rape, will most certainly be banned. Saints Row IV was censored, South Park the Stick of Truth was censored (with koalas no less). And those are games that aren't made for children: one being mature, the other being for teens. Again if parents would do their bloody jobs, there would be less conundrum in the industry and cries of "think of the children". Let the people that take care of their children think of them, cause I sure won't. Unless it is CP, than I will alert the authorities.

Second their job and the criteria are set by people that have absolutely no idea how videogames,the industry and general science works: POLITICIANS. So everything said by a politiician should be taken with a grain of salt.

Third, but that is the problem most of the Western civilization, most of Far East Asia and parts of Southeast Asia are not violent. Sure the US has an issue with their guns, but outside of it violence is something that does not happen too often. I mean look at Canada, the worst outbreak of violence in recent memory was the Ecole Politechnique Massacre in Montreal in 89 I think. So that point would only work if the places mentioned were as steeped into violence like Syria or Iraq or Mexico.

Fourth, the way it influences people is that it normalizes patterns of thinking. It doesnt make you do something, it just makes you more accepting of it.

 

[sleekie]

These are the same people who gave Atelier Totori Plus an 18+ classification. Their credibility is zero.

 

[Alma Mare]

Just to play the devil's advocate: was that rape scene really necessary?

Was the one in Pulp Fiction necessary?

Was Pulp Fiction's classification refused in Australia?

Of course not. It's rated R18+.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

The artist might have wanted his rape scene (whether it's real or fake within the context of the game is irrelevant, it is still a scene that visually occurs), but the real question is 'does his rape scene have any merit or offer any significant insight or point for discussion within the subject?'

If it does not, then I think that censoring it is completely reasonable. Adults complaining that 'I'm old enough/sensible enough to have rape in my game' is on a certain level, perverse.

This is where I'm seeing major biases in your viewpoint. It's perfectly fine to have brutal, painful and deadly violence but the only way to have rape is to make it a "point of discussion within the subject". If we restricted works based on horrific and traumatic events based on how much it brings to the table then we'd never be able to make a holocaust movie ever again because the over-arching opinion was that it was a disgusting event. I recently played

Spoiler: relatively new game spoilers

the level in the latest Wolfenstein set in a concentration camp

and that didn't have anything to say on the matter yet it still disgusted me and it had every right to be there. To say that media that doesn't bring up anything new on horrific events deserves to be censored is just silly. It seems like the entirety of your argument is based on the fact that its rape, and if it were something equally traumatic and horrible you'd pass it by.

 

[AlphaAscalon]

Huge snip

You didn't annoy me, just made me facepalm myself.
For your first point, yes sure you can support them. But you have got to admit that their guidelines are so vague that everything can be banned under those guidelines. Let us take Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes for example. It could have been banned as it has an implied rape scene in one of its collectibles. Autumn, an upcoming game about rape, will most certainly be banned. Saints Row IV was censored, South Park the Stick of Truth was censored (with koalas no less). And those are games that aren't made for children: one being mature, the other being for teens. Again if parents would do their bloody jobs, there would be less conundrum in the industry and cries of "think of the children". Let the people that take care of their children think of them, cause I sure won't. Unless it is CP, than I will alert the authorities.

Second their job and the criteria are set by people that have absolutely no idea how videogames,the industry and general science works: POLITICIANS. So everything said by a politiician should be taken with a grain of salt.

Third, but that is the problem most of the Western civilization, most of Far East Asia and parts of Southeast Asia are not violent. Sure the US has an issue with their guns, but outside of it violence is something that does not happen too often. I mean look at Canada, the worst outbreak of violence in recent memory was the Ecole Politechnique Massacre in Montreal in 89 I think. So that point would only work if the places mentioned were as steeped into violence like Syria or Iraq or Mexico.

Fourth, the way it influences people is that it normalizes patterns of thinking. It doesnt make you do something, it just makes you more accepting of it.

I've gone on to say across a few posts that I agree that the Board needs reforming. I also agree that the people on the board very likely have minimal knowledge if any about video games and that's wrong. The sad state of modern politics means that the word of our elected officials means so little. I hate how things have gotten on that front. It's their own faults in most cases though.

The 'vagueness' in the guidelines you mention exists because of how humans judge media. Phrases like 'not exploitative' or 'not gratuitous' aren't empirical because whether something is 'exploitative' or 'gratuitous' depends on the perspective of the person judging if it is or not. There's no way any group of individuals will share the same thoughts about say Pulp Fiction and it's content.

//I'm not going into children and media, like I said.

I looked back at my post and I'm not sure where you're going with the western civilisation to others comparison.

I'd argue that normalising crime, violence and sexual violence so that people are more accepting of it, is a really really bad thing. If you are more accepting of something then you're more likely to overlook it, condone it or undertake it.

The artist might have wanted his rape scene (whether it's real or fake within the context of the game is irrelevant, it is still a scene that visually occurs), but the real question is 'does his rape scene have any merit or offer any significant insight or point for discussion within the subject?'

If it does not, then I think that censoring it is completely reasonable. Adults complaining that 'I'm old enough/sensible enough to have rape in my game' is on a certain level, perverse.

This is where I'm seeing major biases in your viewpoint. It's perfectly fine to have brutal, painful and deadly violence but the only way to have rape is to make it a "point of discussion within the subject". If we restricted works based on horrific and traumatic events based on how much it brings to the table then we'd never be able to make a holocaust movie ever again because the over-arching opinion was that it was a disgusting event. I recently played

Spoiler: relatively new game spoilers

the level in the latest Wolfenstein set in a concentration camp

and that didn't have anything to say on the matter yet it still disgusted me and it had every right to be there. To say that media that doesn't bring up anything new on horrific events deserves to be censored is just silly. It seems like the entirety of your argument is based on the fact that its rape, and if it were something equally traumatic and horrible you'd pass it by.

Yeah, I'm biased. I've seen the effects rape has on people and their families. I despise the crime.

I haven't played the new Wolfenstein but when people tell stories about the Holocaust it's usually to make the point that 'this was a truly disgusting and horrific thing'. That is a legitimate point to make. It's not very deep but still.

The reason why physical violence is so prevalent in games I believe, is because violence is easier to justify in a narrative. Humans can accept most anything as long as it's justified. A villain in a game kills your wife and burns your house down? Yeah go off and revenge kill him, make him pay for what he did. Justification of the action. Whether we as individuals consider revenge to be morally acceptable is another debate.

The flip side to what I've said is, violent death has just as much an impact on the persons family and is just as terrible. I agree. It comes down to justification and the normalisation of violent death in modern societies. What made this easier is probably that every human being is asked to accept death, because we are all going to die at some point. Also the long history of violent conflict in history and the stories people have told about those conflicts.

How can you justify rape in a game narrative? Revenge?

The root of the difference is in society's different perspective on rape. Most people see it as fundamentally worse. There are connotations with deprivation of liberty, psychological damage, physical injury, suicide, misogyny, gender double standards, the list goes on.

As a topic when you try to discuss rape in a society you have to consider all of these things otherwise you are going to offend and piss people off.

 

[mike1921]

Huge snip

You didn't annoy me, just made me facepalm myself.
For your first point, yes sure you can support them. But you have got to admit that their guidelines are so vague that everything can be banned under those guidelines. Let us take Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes for example. It could have been banned as it has an implied rape scene in one of its collectibles. Autumn, an upcoming game about rape, will most certainly be banned. Saints Row IV was censored, South Park the Stick of Truth was censored (with koalas no less). And those are games that aren't made for children: one being mature, the other being for teens. Again if parents would do their bloody jobs, there would be less conundrum in the industry and cries of "think of the children". Let the people that take care of their children think of them, cause I sure won't. Unless it is CP, than I will alert the authorities.

Second their job and the criteria are set by people that have absolutely no idea how videogames,the industry and general science works: POLITICIANS. So everything said by a politiician should be taken with a grain of salt.

Third, but that is the problem most of the Western civilization, most of Far East Asia and parts of Southeast Asia are not violent. Sure the US has an issue with their guns, but outside of it violence is something that does not happen too often. I mean look at Canada, the worst outbreak of violence in recent memory was the Ecole Politechnique Massacre in Montreal in 89 I think. So that point would only work if the places mentioned were as steeped into violence like Syria or Iraq or Mexico.

Fourth, the way it influences people is that it normalizes patterns of thinking. It doesnt make you do something, it just makes you more accepting of it.

I've gone on to say across a few posts that I agree that the Board needs reforming. I also agree that the people on the board very likely have minimal knowledge if any about video games and that's wrong. The sad state of modern politics means that the word of our elected officials means so little. I hate how things have gotten on that front. It's their own faults in most cases though.

The 'vagueness' in the guidelines you mention exists because of how humans judge media. Phrases like 'not exploitative' or 'not gratuitous' aren't empirical because whether something is 'exploitative' or 'gratuitous' depends on the perspective of the person judging if it is or not. There's no way any group of individuals will share the same thoughts about say Pulp Fiction and it's content.

//I'm not going into children and media, like I said.

I looked back at my post and I'm not sure where you're going with the western civilisation to others comparison.

I'd argue that normalising crime, violence and sexual violence so that people are more accepting of it, is a really really bad thing. If you are more accepting of something then you're more likely to overlook it, condone it or undertake it.

The vagueness in the guidelines should be why the ratings board shouldn't be allowed to refuse classification and the r18 rating should be the highest one. In a country that has free speech, there's not supposed to be a board of people deciding which artistic content I can not legally buy.

Is there any scientific data proving that watching artistic media depicting a crime increases the odds of them condoning,undertaking ,or overlooking said crime? Like, why do you think people would be more accepting of rape because you saw a rape in a video game, at the age of at least 18? Especially in Hotline Miami, a game that is supposed to make you feel uncomfortable and certainly does not depict these things in a positive light.

Also, I'm not a fan of you legally trying to stop to stop me from consuming media I enjoy because you think it's a RISK factor that might change my opinion on a crime and not even doing any harm if said risk doesn't go a certain way.

The artist might have wanted his rape scene (whether it's real or fake within the context of the game is irrelevant, it is still a scene that visually occurs), but the real question is 'does his rape scene have any merit or offer any significant insight or point for discussion within the subject?'

If it does not, then I think that censoring it is completely reasonable. Adults complaining that 'I'm old enough/sensible enough to have rape in my game' is on a certain level, perverse.

This is where I'm seeing major biases in your viewpoint. It's perfectly fine to have brutal, painful and deadly violence but the only way to have rape is to make it a "point of discussion within the subject". If we restricted works based on horrific and traumatic events based on how much it brings to the table then we'd never be able to make a holocaust movie ever again because the over-arching opinion was that it was a disgusting event. I recently played

Spoiler: relatively new game spoilers

the level in the latest Wolfenstein set in a concentration camp

and that didn't have anything to say on the matter yet it still disgusted me and it had every right to be there. To say that media that doesn't bring up anything new on horrific events deserves to be censored is just silly. It seems like the entirety of your argument is based on the fact that its rape, and if it were something equally traumatic and horrible you'd pass it by.

Yeah, I'm biased. I've seen the effects rape has on people and their families. I despise the crime.

I haven't played the new Wolfenstein but when people tell stories about the Holocaust it's usually to make the point that 'this was a truly disgusting and horrific thing'. That is a legitimate point to make. It's not very deep but still.

The reason why physical violence is so prevalent in games I believe, is because violence is easier to justify in a narrative. Humans can accept most anything as long as it's justified. A villain in a game kills your wife and burns your house down? Yeah go off and revenge kill him, make him pay for what he did. Justification of the action. Whether we as individuals consider revenge to be morally acceptable is another debate.

The flip side to what I've said is, violent death has just as much an impact on the persons family and is just as terrible. I agree. It comes down to justification and the normalisation of violent death in modern societies. What made this easier is probably that every human being is asked to accept death, because we are all going to die at some point. Also the long history of violent conflict in history and the stories people have told about those conflicts.

How can you justify rape in a game narrative? Revenge?

The root of the difference is in society's different perspective on rape. Most people see it as fundamentally worse. There are connotations with deprivation of liberty, psychological damage, physical injury, suicide, misogyny, gender double standards, the list goes on.

As a topic when you try to discuss rape in a society you have to consider all of these things otherwise you are going to offend and piss people off.

No one here is a fan of rape, how much you like or dislike something isn't the question here.

You think violence is more acceptable because the idea of revenge makes it slightly more justified? So should Scarface be banned? Should other movies that show outright criminals with no justification as cool be banned?

It doens't matter how you can justify rape in a game narrative, I wouldn't be able to morally justify a million things I can do in a game. I can't justify a million things I've seen in movies or anime either. I mean ,for fuck's sakes, there's a ton I can't justify in books that are considered classics.

If you think it's ok to ban the sale of a videogame because a committee deems it offensive, and you think the justifiability of acts depicted is relevant to that: Do you think the same applies to books? If someone writes a book with a rape scene should it be banned? What if it's just about a serial killer? Most slasher films depict crimes that are as unjustified as rape yet we're not trying to ban those. I mean, we used to, the Hay's code existed in the U.S, ended up on the wrong side of history and we look back on laws as primitive and restricting for a good reason.

The problem with this is you're either just at its very essence fighting art, which is bigger in scope than videogames, or you are unfairly discriminating against videogames (Unless you have a solid argument for why videogames are the only medium in which this applies).

Personally I don't even think the topic of rape is relevant.

 

[AlphaAscalon]

Huge snip

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP

This is starting to get circular which is pointless, and either I'm bad at explaining myself or you're missing the points I'm trying to make.

My point about vagueness is that 'It will always be vague.' These are guidelines about emotional responses and cultural norms. Those things are NOT scientific.

What kind of scientific data are you wanting? What kind of proof?

I think that people MIGHT become more likely to condone, undertake or overlook rape if video games they consumed on a regular basis contained it. Not every person is going to feel uncomfortable about rape even if the media presents it in a negative light. Because people are made up of hundreds of experiences and a persons psyche is hard to predict.

By the way, I'm not trying to stop you from doing anything. I have no 'legal' power over you. All I'm doing is trying to have a debate. I'm not accusing or insinuating against any person in particular.

//second half

Ok, you're posing me a specific question I'll answer that.

No. No. No. Reread my argument.

I'm trying to discuss video games. Not books. Not films. Video games. They are a very unique form of media. They are audio-visual and allow a human to control the actions of an avatar. They allow a person to choose what they do. Choice.

Also how many more people are going to accuse me of being anti-art or anti-creative works.

I'm not discriminating against video games. I love video games. I am criticising the dipiction of rape in a video game.

That you don't even think rape is relevant to this topic means you either don't understand what rape does to people or you don't understand the broader outlook society has on rape, or you don't care.

All of which I feel are bad.

 

[mike1921]

Huge snip

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP

This is starting to get circular which is pointless, and either I'm bad at explaining myself or you're missing the points I'm trying to make.

My point about vagueness is that 'It will always be vague.' These are guidelines about emotional responses and cultural norms. Those things are NOT scientific.

What kind of scientific data are you wanting? What kind of proof?

I think that people MIGHT become more likely to condone, undertake or overlook rape if video games they consumed on a regular basis contained it. Not every person is going to feel uncomfortable about rape even if the media presents it in a negative light. Because people are made up of hundreds of experiences and a persons psyche is hard to predict.

By the way, I'm not trying to stop you from doing anything. I have no 'legal' power over you. All I'm doing is trying to have a debate. I'm not accusing or insinuating against any person in particular.

//second half

Ok, you're posing me a specific question I'll answer that.

No. No. No. Reread my argument.

I'm trying to discuss video games. Not books. Not films. Video games. They are a very unique form of media. They are audio-visual and allow a human to control the actions of an avatar. They allow a person to choose what they do. Choice.

Also how many more people are going to accuse me of being anti-art or anti-creative works.

I'm not discriminating against video games. I love video games. I am criticising the dipiction of rape in a video game.

That you don't even think rape is relevant to this topic means you either don't understand what rape does to people or you don't understand the broader outlook society has on rape, or you don't care.

All of which I feel are bad.

Yes it's not scientific, it's entirely social, so again why would society be fit to tell me and others like me that I can't legally be sold a video game for being too offensive?

I want proof that seeing depictions of criminal actions or playing them in a videogames makes people more likely to support them. Jack Thompson couldn't prove games cause violence, so that should be the end of it, but otherwise prove that games with rape cause rape or support of rape. If you think "Oh games MIGHT make people more likely to support those ideals"-I don't care, you're banning it you need more than that, you're just knee-jerking because your hatred of rape has overridden any principles you have when it comes to free speech.

If you're not trying to take anything from me stop supporting the board in this. Sure maybe you individually CAN'T take away my games, but what you're saying with this is that you WOULD if you could.

I know you're trying to discuss videogames, but the fact of the matter it is it doesn't matter what you're TRYING to discuss you need to be consistent. Are you going to say that videogames are the only medium of art that you think should be banned for being offensive because you think choice somehow makes that different? You don't get to narrow the scope of a conversation smaller than what it's truly about. This is about a government agency censoring art because it is at best deemed to be POTENTIALLY harmful to their minds.

When you start advocating government bans on certain types of art you're wondering how many people will call you anti-art? Seriously, is that the pro-art position in this? This is the same shit Jack Thompson tried to do, the difference is minor.

You are not criticising the depiction of rape in videogames, you're banning it. Entirely different. I know what rape does to people, I also know what genocide does to people, I've seen both depicted in various forms of art including video games. It doesn't matter what society's outlook on rape is: Art should not be banned from depicting something offensive just because of HOW offensive society makes it. It comes down to principle, I believe in free artistic expression so I will never support a ban on the sale of art.

I only don't care about rape in the context of "We should ban videogames that depict X", because X is a non-factor whether it's "onions" , "puppies", "murder" , "genocide","rape", or even "the rape of a 2 year old" or any other incredibly morbid disgusting scenarios you can plot out in your head.

"People who blame art and entertainment for society's ills are always on the wrong side of history."-Take 2 Games

 

[Magmarock]

This is purely my opinion and nothing more:

I suspect that the OFLC is not run by old men who don't understand games, I suspect that it is ran buy ideological youthful feminists and SJW's. Doesn't this sound like the kind of issues that a modern day feminists would have a problem with. Since the begging the OFLC has been banning games and blaming Michal Atkinson for it. (Blaming a white old man) I could be wrong of course but I think it should be looked into.

And you think that a group of old farts who've never played the game know whether or not the scene is necessary moreso than the creators of the game?

You know, we don't have to speculate about this. The board has no secrets about who they are: http://www.classification.gov.au/About/BoardMembers/Pages/Classification-Board-Members.aspx

The average age of the board members (with the exception of one of which the age wasn't specified) is 46. The oldest person being 60 and the youngest 33. There are slightly more women than men on the board. Pretty much all of them are middle to upper class have some form of higher education (bachelors degrees mostly). They have various jobs like hair dressers, artists, militairy jobs and other things. They seem like fairly normal people to me, and while I think they are dead wrong about what they are doing here, blaming their age, gender or other things isn't helpful. People of all ages and genders have various stances on how much freedom of expression should be allowed and these people are in my opinion, way too far on the oppressive side. That is however their failing, not that of their age or gender or whatever. That is of course not mentioning the fact that they are probably following (admittedly vague) guidelines that come from higher up the chain.

On topic, I hope Australians can convince their more oppresive countrymen to stop banning games from being sold. Hopefully they can change the law so that games aren't banned merely for upsetting peoples feelings.

PS: I'm not posting this so you can go and harrass these people. Harrassment is morally wrong and won't solve anything. I'm posting it so people can get a picture of who the boardmembers are so they can stop throwing unsubstantiated claims about age and gender around.

Okay I didn't know that. Thanks for posting this and no I have no plans to even contact these people. I would rather the Australian government revoked their power to ban things. I think it's okay to ban things once in a while when there's very good reason. But these people are abusing their power. There really are a lot of woman on that list.

Finally I don't think harassment is something you should need to remind people not to do. They should already know this.