Ditto. I would give a finger to be able to slap some of those guys around a bit and tell them to stop being so fucking stupid.Chipperz said:
On the Left 4 Dead Ban
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I refer Yahtzee back to this chart:
Ironically out of his own videos. I agree Australia's rating board is being dickish here. Still, I feel a bit relieved I joined the boycott if only for the feeling I get from the Australia article where I can think "Oh, that's nice. Boo to you Valve, getting what you deserve." (granted, I don't ACTUALLY think Valve deserved this. But you have to admit they're approaching the realm of gore being gratuitous.
Ironically out of his own videos. I agree Australia's rating board is being dickish here. Still, I feel a bit relieved I joined the boycott if only for the feeling I get from the Australia article where I can think "Oh, that's nice. Boo to you Valve, getting what you deserve." (granted, I don't ACTUALLY think Valve deserved this. But you have to admit they're approaching the realm of gore being gratuitous.
"The interactive nature of the game increases the overall impact of the frequent and intense depictions of violence. This, coupled with the graphic depictions of blood and gore, combine to create a playing impact which is high."
What part of this is undesirable?
What part of this is undesirable?
This quote from the Manhunt ZP seems appropriate
"There's a very clear certification indicating that twelve year olds aren't supposed to be playing it but there's no denying they play it anyone because no one other than twelve year olds are into this thing. Talking breathlessly about wire decapitation and baseball bat cranial explosion is a good way to win friends around middle school but around the office water cooler it's a good way to lose them."
"There's a very clear certification indicating that twelve year olds aren't supposed to be playing it but there's no denying they play it anyone because no one other than twelve year olds are into this thing. Talking breathlessly about wire decapitation and baseball bat cranial explosion is a good way to win friends around middle school but around the office water cooler it's a good way to lose them."
Ok, well the whole protecting children from images that may have negative consequences isn't too bad of a stance to have. However, this does invite a question as to when a person should be held accountable. By refusing to classify L4D2, they have effectively banned the game from being sold within the borders of Australia. However, if they're worried that children may be getting ahold of this game and would then go about shooting up their neighbors with assault weapons, isn't there a bigger issue at hand here? The first issue would be: WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEIR PARENTS DOING WHEN THEY'RE BUYING AND PLAYING THIS GAME? The second issue would be: HOW THE FUCK ARE THEY GETTING ASSAULT WEAPONS AS MINORS? These two questions are just starters as to the irrational nature of this ban. If minors are openly gunning down fellow citizens in the street, then Australia is in a state of disarray so grand that the banning of a single violent video game seems more like an attempt to cover up the fact that the country is already fucked up to the point of irreparability. I, however, doubt that this is the case with Australia.
As an American, I find this ban to be unfair and stupid. Unfair due to the fact that a majority population of gamers are being denied to enjoyment of one of their favorite pasttimes, due to the negligence of some outraged parents or whatnot. Stupid, because this could be damaging to business relations with video game companies and Australia. If there's one thing that should be avoided during times of economic stress, it would be bad business relations. To protest this ban would be intelligent on these grounds alone: the dissatisfaction of a large population and the dissatisfaction of businesses in relation to Australia.
This also brings in the point of accountability for actions. If these games are being obtained by minors, then that means someone has provided them with the game. There are several possibilities as to who is doing so: Video Game Retailers, Parents, Older Friends, or Shifty Men on Street Corners. This means that there has been an act of negligence somewhere in this chain. If friends are giving friends the game, then there should be no reason why parents cannot step in and halt this from continuing to playing the game. If Video Game Retailers are providing the game, again parents could step in when the game comes home, and also, there should be a government crackdown on retailers instead of on the product. If parents are giving the game, then there is an obvious lack of interest in the argument that the ban is for "the welfare of the children" in these adults. This would be a judgment call by the guardian figures that the game is appropriate for their children. If shifty men on street corners are giving the game, then your police department sucks because this is the preliminaries to a full-scale drug ring operation. In all these cases, the product would not be the problem, but the accountability of the providers.
The accountability issue further continues if/when the child commits an act of violence outside of the video game. If the person is in their teens, do we hold them accountable as freethinkers? What about a person aged 20? How about a 40 year old man? At about 14 or 15, people can start to make their own decisions as to how they want their lives to go and can be self-sufficient, so why not start holding them accountable for their actions at this instead of providing an excuse for them to use against you later? How many murderers down the line will begin to use "It was the video games that did it" as a valid reason for how their behaviors were shaped if you don't start holding people accountable for their choices as teenagers?
This ban is just another way for parents, retailers, the government,etc. to place blame on something other than themselves or the individuals that engage in violent actions. In the end, it's really just a way to avoid being held accountable.
As an American, I find this ban to be unfair and stupid. Unfair due to the fact that a majority population of gamers are being denied to enjoyment of one of their favorite pasttimes, due to the negligence of some outraged parents or whatnot. Stupid, because this could be damaging to business relations with video game companies and Australia. If there's one thing that should be avoided during times of economic stress, it would be bad business relations. To protest this ban would be intelligent on these grounds alone: the dissatisfaction of a large population and the dissatisfaction of businesses in relation to Australia.
This also brings in the point of accountability for actions. If these games are being obtained by minors, then that means someone has provided them with the game. There are several possibilities as to who is doing so: Video Game Retailers, Parents, Older Friends, or Shifty Men on Street Corners. This means that there has been an act of negligence somewhere in this chain. If friends are giving friends the game, then there should be no reason why parents cannot step in and halt this from continuing to playing the game. If Video Game Retailers are providing the game, again parents could step in when the game comes home, and also, there should be a government crackdown on retailers instead of on the product. If parents are giving the game, then there is an obvious lack of interest in the argument that the ban is for "the welfare of the children" in these adults. This would be a judgment call by the guardian figures that the game is appropriate for their children. If shifty men on street corners are giving the game, then your police department sucks because this is the preliminaries to a full-scale drug ring operation. In all these cases, the product would not be the problem, but the accountability of the providers.
The accountability issue further continues if/when the child commits an act of violence outside of the video game. If the person is in their teens, do we hold them accountable as freethinkers? What about a person aged 20? How about a 40 year old man? At about 14 or 15, people can start to make their own decisions as to how they want their lives to go and can be self-sufficient, so why not start holding them accountable for their actions at this instead of providing an excuse for them to use against you later? How many murderers down the line will begin to use "It was the video games that did it" as a valid reason for how their behaviors were shaped if you don't start holding people accountable for their choices as teenagers?
This ban is just another way for parents, retailers, the government,etc. to place blame on something other than themselves or the individuals that engage in violent actions. In the end, it's really just a way to avoid being held accountable.
I'm not really concerned with this trend of censorship and ban on games. Or should I say, attempts to perform the one or the other. As with any new media, the people in charge do not understand it. It'll take numerous amounts of reception analysis performed on the subject matter before they're convinced of the "effects" of the use of the media. I just wonder whether it would be faster, more efficient even to wait for the responsible people to die from natural causes. Hm. Which should be fairly soon, I reckon. Mindsets like those exhibited in the legislation can by definition not have en expiration date too far from the present. If not, move to Denmark, as suggested previously.
He seems to not be protecting the children, but the general populace. He believes that there is a possibility that any person, regardless of age, could commit atrocities just because they played a video game (he even uses an example of someone acting out a gta scene...in Taiwan).Samurai Goomba said:
So basically as long as violent people exist, we must try to give them as little inspiration as possible.
He also admits to being unable to tell if his children have been using the computer to play violent games because he can't watch them every hour of every day...
I wrote to some of the fatheads awhile ago about the need for R18+ ratings. I received a bunch of garbled non-sense in reply. One of the replies actually stated that the minister does not reply to emails... I thanked him for the reply and mentioned how I was disturbed about the reply that he wouldn't reply to my email.
Any Australians who wish to start a civil war and overthrow our ridiculous excuse for a government (looking at you K Rudd) let me know.
Any Australians who wish to start a civil war and overthrow our ridiculous excuse for a government (looking at you K Rudd) let me know.
I didn't even mention the Taiwan example because I figured most people would notice right away how far he was reaching to form a reason for why he should be allowed to dictate other adult's hobbies.warbaloon said:
I think what this comes down to is he thinks he's smarter and more able to decide how you will react to things than you are. He's taken an aristocratic approach to this-that he is in authority, and his ideas on how to "protect" you from yourself are true... Despite the fact that he can't control his own kids by his admission.
He's using the actions of a few nutcases to enact what comes down to restriction of freedoms upon every law-abiding citizen. I don't suppose his other last name is Bush, is it?
The thing that really got me is when he said he was open to negotiation, but then stated that his "terms" were that everyone tell him he was completely right. So basically, "Appease me, and I might grant thee some games, peon!"
This is another thing: Why is it a ratio at all? Shouldn't it be some kind of Van Diagram? Atkinson seems really set on making a distinction between "normal people" and gamers (you can see this in the GS Interview). This sort of divisive approach just splits people up. If we can make this an issue of oppression and not just a "gamer" thing, maybe more people would be on our side.williebaz said:
I'm not angry at you, mind, but gamers ARE "normal people." They do taxes, they drive cars, they act like morons every election year... The only difference is a FREAKING HOBBY. This media stereotyping of gamers needs to stop. And I think it slowly is, but Atkinson definitely hasn't gotten the memo yet.
To all fellow Aussies out there there is an attempt being made to get the review of the classification system that was promised early last year to actually happen. It is being combined with an attempt to get South Australian Attorney General Micheal Atkinson to be excluded from any future decision process due to his major conflict of interest and previous abuse of his power. Join in our whirlpool thread over here -> http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1286583.
Hey Yahtzee - how about some celebrity endorsement?
Hey Yahtzee - how about some celebrity endorsement?
I guess one could stop paying taxes and claim that since Atkinson doesn't consider gamers as people then it's hard to pay money for a government for the people, which you aren't.Samurai Goomba said:
Granted that's also a good way to wind up in prison.
I'm just more...amazed I guess that there's a place making even Germany start to look bad in terms of wacky censorship laws (which is unfair to say now given how off-the-handle Germany flew after that kid shot up his school). For all the shit the rest of the world likes to give America for having a corrupt/flawed/broken democracy the other countries aren't doing much better if one thickheaded dingbat can forestall something that would actually only benefit the public at large (and yes, I know, healthcare reform but technically that's a lot of people being thickheaded dingbats). With an R18+ rating and ID checks there'd be no reason for anybody to worry. And if underage people did purchase these games there'd just be repercussions in place. M17 has worked as a rating in America, I can't see why Atkinson is so blind to the obvious benefits other than the distinct possibility that he's just an interactive media fearing zealot who doesn't "get it".
Effing retarded, I thought it was stupid for the recall of San Andreas just because of the "hot coffee" crap
the way i understood it, atkinson does not want 18+ ratings for games, because he thinks that too many young people want to play it and get pirated versions of it from the net.AceDiamond said:
but at the same time, i see games here (because i live in australia....unfortunately), like bloodrayne 1+2 at 15+. GTA SA and all that at 15+. ok, i hurd that GTA 4 has bin cut abit. soldier of fortune games, all at 15+ and many other games which should have a 18+ rating.
i always thought germany has stupid politicians but atkinson can keep up with them.
So...you never took a biology class?randommaster said:
I saw blood and gore (not necessarily at the same time) in the class. Most of it hands on.
Likewise I assume you never saw the "Meaning of Life" Video where baby rockets out of the harriest vagina in existence in a scene that cause nightmarish horror to all those innocent souls who dared wonder "What was after the Butterflies."
Oh god...
The memories...
If you separate folks apart it makes it easier to make them look less than human.Samurai Goomba said:
Once they look less than human it makes it easier to treat them as such.
Finally you can do anything that you want to them and generally at this point it isn't pleasant.
A gamer holocaust? Extremely unlikely, but historically this is the strategy used in every war and act of horror across the world. Stripping the humanity from the prey and from the hunter.
Damn I can't believe some governments and their ignorance! Well I feel for Yahtzee on the point that games get released much later in Oz than USA and UK. I live in South Africa and we have the same problem, luckily all our games are Made in EU and our government doesn't give a crap about violence in games, they barely give a damn about real life violence so I guess that's good. We also have nice beaches, not as nice as Oz but pretty close. XD
I wonder if Yahtzee is comforted knowing that the logic they used to ban Left 4 Dead 2 will be the same logic that will have all of Australia taken over by zombies when the apocalypse finally comes - because they can't order military violence against creatures that look so human.