Syndicate Banned in Australia - UPDATED

[Xangi]

"The game will not be available in Australia despite its enthusiastic response from fans. We were encouraged by the government's recent agreement to adopt an 18+ age rating for games. However, delays continue to force an arcane censorship on games - cuts that would never be imposed on books or movies,"

Surely they mean "archaic"?

Oh wait, this is EA, they're not famous for their brains, and in fact are famous for their LACK of brains.

Silly me.

Mr Xangi, meet [a
href=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arcane]Mr Dictionary[/a].

Silly you indeed.

In common speech, the word archaic, when referring to a law, means that it is antiquated or a relic of a time which is no longer needed. Arcane, in common speech, means magical.

If they'd meant archaic and antiquated they'd have said it.

Arcane makes sense in the sentence it was used, there's no reason to assume they meant otherwise.

In common speech

Good job "reading" that post, now I have to copy part of my last post again so you can "read" it too.

In common speech, the letters "lol" indicate that a person finds something funny, but I doubt you'd find that defined as a word in any reputable dictionary.

Oh, I'll put one more example, just because that's too easy to refute. The word "Derp", in common speech is usually said to indicate stupidity, either on behalf of the speaker or another person. Is THAT in a dictionary? What is said and what words are defined as are often not the same thing.

Also, just in case you were in the vegetarian thread I posted in earlier, I'll refute that argument right now. "Disingenuous" is not a commonly spoken word, and it does mean what its definition is, there is no alternate interpretation due to context or corruption from usage. Nice try though, if you were going to try to sue that.

 

[Jegsimmons]

EA tells australia to get bent?

Well EA you now have more respect from me.

I have no respect for anyone that censors artwork or speech (unless they own it of course, i respect property rights)
Thats why if SOPA passes, im rebelling.

 

[Farther than stars]

"The game will not be available in Australia despite its enthusiastic response from fans. We were encouraged by the government's recent agreement to adopt an 18+ age rating for games. However, delays continue to force an arcane censorship on games - cuts that would never be imposed on books or movies,"

Surely they mean "archaic"?

Oh wait, this is EA, they're not famous for their brains, and in fact are famous for their LACK of brains.

Silly me.

Mr Xangi, meet [a
href=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arcane]Mr Dictionary[/a].

Silly you indeed.

In common speech, the word archaic, when referring to a law, means that it is antiquated or a relic of a time which is no longer needed. Arcane, in common speech, means magical.

If they'd meant archaic and antiquated they'd have said it.

Arcane makes sense in the sentence it was used, there's no reason to assume they meant otherwise.

In common speech

Good job "reading" that post, now I have to copy part of my last post again so you can "read" it too.

In common speech, the letters "lol" indicate that a person finds something funny, but I doubt you'd find that defined as a word in any reputable dictionary.

Oh, I'll put one more example, just because that's too easy to refute. The word "Derp", in common speech is usually said to indicate stupidity, either on behalf of the speaker or another person. Is THAT in a dictionary? What is said and what words are defined as are often not the same thing.

Also, just in case you were in the vegetarian thread I posted in earlier, I'll refute that argument right now. "Disingenuous" is not a commonly spoken word, and it does mean what its definition is, there is no alternate interpretation due to context or corruption from usage. Nice try though, if you were going to try to sue that.

OK, this seems to have gone far enough. And you should know that those examples are new enough to become categorized yet, just like the word arcane was over 2000 years ago. But somehow you say its meaning has been changed? Although so far you have only based that on the hearsay of a perhaps select group of people. Anyway, you seems you've become rather invested in seeing how deep you can dig yourself, so that's why for me the debate ends here.

 

[Xangi]

"The game will not be available in Australia despite its enthusiastic response from fans. We were encouraged by the government's recent agreement to adopt an 18+ age rating for games. However, delays continue to force an arcane censorship on games - cuts that would never be imposed on books or movies,"

Surely they mean "archaic"?

Oh wait, this is EA, they're not famous for their brains, and in fact are famous for their LACK of brains.

Silly me.

Mr Xangi, meet [a
href=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arcane]Mr Dictionary[/a].

Silly you indeed.

In common speech, the word archaic, when referring to a law, means that it is antiquated or a relic of a time which is no longer needed. Arcane, in common speech, means magical.

If they'd meant archaic and antiquated they'd have said it.

Arcane makes sense in the sentence it was used, there's no reason to assume they meant otherwise.

In common speech

Good job "reading" that post, now I have to copy part of my last post again so you can "read" it too.

In common speech, the letters "lol" indicate that a person finds something funny, but I doubt you'd find that defined as a word in any reputable dictionary.

Oh, I'll put one more example, just because that's too easy to refute. The word "Derp", in common speech is usually said to indicate stupidity, either on behalf of the speaker or another person. Is THAT in a dictionary? What is said and what words are defined as are often not the same thing.

Also, just in case you were in the vegetarian thread I posted in earlier, I'll refute that argument right now. "Disingenuous" is not a commonly spoken word, and it does mean what its definition is, there is no alternate interpretation due to context or corruption from usage. Nice try though, if you were going to try to sue that.

OK, this seems to have gone far enough. And you should know that those examples are new enough to become categorized yet, just like the word arcane was over 2000 years ago. But somehow you say its meaning has been changed? Although so far you have only based that on the hearsay of a perhaps select group of people. Anyway, you seems you've become rather invested in seeing how deep you can dig yourself, so that's why for me the debate ends here.

Translation: You weren't arguing against what you thought, but you have to save face. Anyone who knows anything about language knows that word meanings change frequently, and therefore definitions only go so far. Derp is not new enough to not have been categorized, as it has, by online sources only. It hasn't been formally categorized yet, but again, a formal categorization does not always cover every meaning.

I did not base my debate on the "hearsay" of a select group of people, I made my points based on 2 decades of personal experience with 2 provinces and a US state worth of people, and you did not counter them adequately.

The debate does end here, but because one of us has been beaten, and it was not me.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Oh maaaaaaaaaaaaaan!

I was waiting for Yahtzee to tear the game apart!

He can get it through import.

OT: EA, fighting Australia's censorship, and supporting SOPA!

 

[Daget Sparrow]

I thought we were over this...ironically, banning violent games in Australia WANTS me to commit heinous acts.

 

[madster11]

Hey fellow Australians, protip:
You can ask the kind people of play-asia to put a game in a different games box to get it through customs, if you have to.

 

[aaronobst]

Thank god for PlayAsia!

Go suck a dick OFLC

 

[Astoria]

The Australian restrictions on what would be deemed "free speech" in the US and most other democracies are insane.

Cases like these, which have only increased in recent years, simply demonstrate the necessity of mentioning free speech in a democracy's constitution. One would think that the constitution of a true democracy would contain some mention -- ANY mention -- about free speech, but most are surprised to find out that it is not the case. The lack of such a clause is dangerous. If they can go this far, how much farther can they go before the restrictions would be deemed unacceptable?

Also, could someone who lives in Australia please comment on how the general public there views what's going on with videogames? I don't want any biased answers. I just want the truth about public opinion. Anyone know?

Oh and if there is someone out there who can offer such insight, could you please also tell us whether Australia has done this with other mediums (e.g. film, television, literature, etc.)? From what I've gathered through my limited research, it appears that videogames have been the only target.

Half of the majority agrees with the current policy because they buy into the 'violent games make violent people' crap and the other half just doesn't care. They don't try it with other media because they know people would get angry at it so instead they focus all their censoring onto gaming. And with the way things are going here I wouldn't be surprised if they ended banning games like COD for being too violent, they're getting close to banning smoking and pushing for the driving age to be 18.

I do not understand their thinking. This game is bad for children so no one should play it? Well driving is a bad idea for children so no one should drive and alcohol is bad for children so no one should drink alcohol either. How do idiots who have no idea what they're talking about get into positions of power like this?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Half of the majority agrees with the current policy because they buy into the 'violent games make violent people' crap and the other half just doesn't care. They don't try it with other media because they know people would get angry at it so instead they focus all their censoring onto gaming. And with the way things are going here I wouldn't be surprised if they ended banning games like COD for being too violent, they're getting close to banning smoking and pushing for the driving age to be 18.

I do not understand their thinking. This game is bad for children so no one should play it? Well driving is a bad idea for children so no one should drive and alcohol is bad for children so no one should drink alcohol either. How do idiots who have no idea what they're talking about get into positions of power like this?

Er...if half the majority doesn't care and the other half want these games to be banned, isn't the Australian government supposed to ensure they are banned? They are supposed to represent the people's wishes at best they can.

Anyway, the argument is that games are, or should be, for children, and hence "adult games" shouldn't exist.

Of course, this opinion proves that the majority are incapable of rational, adult, thinking, then they naturally should be protected from video games that will corrupt their feeble minds

 

[SIXVI06-M]

Yes, because Australians simply do not have the maturity or constitution of mind to play a game with gritty content. My government suuuure wants to give its people a good wrap there.

 

[Astoria]

Half of the majority agrees with the current policy because they buy into the 'violent games make violent people' crap and the other half just doesn't care. They don't try it with other media because they know people would get angry at it so instead they focus all their censoring onto gaming. And with the way things are going here I wouldn't be surprised if they ended banning games like COD for being too violent, they're getting close to banning smoking and pushing for the driving age to be 18.

I do not understand their thinking. This game is bad for children so no one should play it? Well driving is a bad idea for children so no one should drive and alcohol is bad for children so no one should drink alcohol either. How do idiots who have no idea what they're talking about get into positions of power like this?

Er...if half the majority doesn't care and the other half want these games to be banned, isn't the Australian government supposed to ensure they are banned? They are supposed to represent the people's wishes at best they can.

Anyway, the argument is that games are, or should be, for children, and hence "adult games" shouldn't exist.

Of course, this opinion proves that the majority are incapable of rational, adult, thinking, then they naturally should be protected from video games that will corrupt their feeble minds

I would agree with that except that people are being told what they should think. No kidding every news story about games only covers the 'think of the children's side and never actually talks to anyone who really knows about gaming. News here is pretty one sided, not that I'm surprised though. People do seem to be dumbing down these days.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I would agree with that except that people are being told what they should think. No kidding every news story about games only covers the 'think of the children's side and never actually talks to anyone who really knows about gaming. News here is pretty one sided, not that I'm surprised though. People do seem to be dumbing down these days.

If people are dumbing down and thinking what they are told, then the government censoring the hell out of everything doesn't seem like a bad idea, though (once you have a government you can trust).

Personally, I don't believe things are getting worse. It's always popular to want to go back to some golden age or other, but I don't believe it ever existed. People have always thought what they have been told to.

 

[Astoria]

I would agree with that except that people are being told what they should think. No kidding every news story about games only covers the 'think of the children's side and never actually talks to anyone who really knows about gaming. News here is pretty one sided, not that I'm surprised though. People do seem to be dumbing down these days.

If people are dumbing down and thinking what they are told, then the government censoring the hell out of everything doesn't seem like a bad idea, though (once you have a government you can trust).

Personally, I don't believe things are getting worse. It's always popular to want to go back to some golden age or other, but I don't believe it ever existed. People have always thought what they have been told to.

True, true but we don't have a government we can trust. They spend more time calling each other names than running the country. I do think that to an extent people need to be told what to do but with things like this they should be able to think for themselves but maybe I've just been playing too much Assassin's Creed.

 

[ultrachicken]

I bet this whole Machine-gun/dismemberment thing is just a smokescreen for the real issue: The Australian government is taking a stand against reboots bastardizing their source material!

They fight for good under the veil of evil! It's true!

I'm probably going to really regret opening up this can of worms, but here goes: changing gameplay genre does not make it a "bastardization" of the source material. If the reboot turned around and changed the overall message to, "corporations have our best interests at heart," or made the player a force of good, or pulled a Farcry and made it have absolutely nothing to do with the original whatsoever, I would call that bastardization.

Anyways, I'm surprised that the minigun is what earned the ban. What about the part where the player walks in on a man being tortured, then hijacks the mind of one of the torturers, has him brutally gun down his friend as he begs for mercy, before unwillingly shooting himself in the head? That shit was infinitely more disturbing than some ludicrous gibs.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

EA's "response" to the situation is to more or less tell the Australian government to get bent.

You my good sir, have just won the Internet.

I got The Witcher 2 (uncensored version) via import, don't see why I can't do the same with this, if I decide to get it.

 

[maxben]

The Australian restrictions on what would be deemed "free speech" in the US and most other democracies are insane.

Cases like these, which have only increased in recent years, simply demonstrate the necessity of mentioning free speech in a democracy's constitution. One would think that the constitution of a true democracy would contain some mention -- ANY mention -- about free speech, but most are surprised to find out that it is not the case. The lack of such a clause is dangerous. If they can go this far, how much farther can they go before the restrictions would be deemed unacceptable?

I'd disagree. It's all very well to have such things in your constitution, but it doesn't mean anything unless people want to enforce it. And in that case, they'd do it anyway.

The US Bill of Rights, for example, promises all sorts of things that are quietly overlooked when necessary.

Please explain what you mean. Freedom means a lack of enforcement, and when freedoms are infringed, the courts handle it. There is no police force for constitutional infringements, just a person and a court and the court must side with the constitution (unless it interprets it to exclude the person's particular issue, but interpretation can only go so far).

Was the Bill of Rights a constitution or a law? In Canada, our Bill of Rights was a law which therefore needed to be enforced and also had no more power than any other law (a law infringing the Bill of Rights would be just as legitimate). Our Constitution was built off of our Bill of Rights, and as constitutional law it is all up to the courts and not government to interpret.

 

[Woodsey]

"The game will not be available in Australia despite its enthusiastic response from fans. We were encouraged by the government's recent agreement to adopt an 18+ age rating for games. However, delays continue to force an arcane censorship on games - cuts that would never be imposed on books or movies,"

Surely they mean "archaic"?

Oh wait, this is EA, they're not famous for their brains, and in fact are famous for their LACK of brains.

Silly me.

Mr Xangi, meet [a
href=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arcane]Mr Dictionary[/a].

Silly you indeed.

In common speech, the word archaic, when referring to a law, means that it is antiquated or a relic of a time which is no longer needed. Arcane, in common speech, means magical.

If they'd meant archaic and antiquated they'd have said it.

Arcane makes sense in the sentence it was used, there's no reason to assume they meant otherwise.

In common speech

Good job "reading" that post, now I have to copy part of my last post again so you can "read" it too.

In common speech, the letters "lol" indicate that a person finds something funny, but I doubt you'd find that defined as a word in any reputable dictionary.

Oh, I'll put one more example, just because that's too easy to refute. The word "Derp", in common speech is usually said to indicate stupidity, either on behalf of the speaker or another person. Is THAT in a dictionary? What is said and what words are defined as are often not the same thing.

Also, just in case you were in the vegetarian thread I posted in earlier, I'll refute that argument right now. "Disingenuous" is not a commonly spoken word, and it does mean what its definition is, there is no alternate interpretation due to context or corruption from usage. Nice try though, if you were going to try to sue that.

Common speech does not mean "now ignore dictionary definitions entirely" for what people think it means. Words can mean different things in different contexts, their use of 'arcane' is in a different context to the example you gave it in.