Yes, the problem is who lied. Usually, it's Gamergate.Requia said:It's not a question of 'saying things they don't like' but outright LIES.
Yes, the problem is who lied. Usually, it's Gamergate.Requia said:It's not a question of 'saying things they don't like' but outright LIES.
Out of interest, which part of the "gamers are dead" articles would you consider to be 'lies'?Requia said:It's not a question of 'saying things they don't like' but outright LIES.Zachary Amaranth said:Neither do I, but I was talking about gamergate, the group behind a boycott against multiple publications who said things they didn't like.cthulhuspawn82 said:I don't understand what a discussion on ethics in gaming journalism has to do with boycotts/censorship.
I mean, if you want to talk ethics in gaming journalism, that's fine. But I asked about Gamergate, so stop changing the subject.
That's the funny thing. If you listen to the Aussies, virtually nobody buys games at Target anyway.renegade7 said:Can't you just buy it somewhere else?
Oh man, that would be awesome. I wonder if everyone would still be compared to Hitler on the internet if all he did was not stock video games we want in countries we don't live in.The Wooster said:I would love to live in your version of history where the Nazis actually just ran a chain of retail shops rather than a government.
Isnt that what people wanted Steam to do because they couldnt find themselfs by watching reviews and videos online on some mystery box called a computer?NuclearKangaroo said:why dont we let the market decide if the game is bad or not?
Uh, yes it does. The R18+ rating is functionally the same thing as AO. The only rating above that is X18+, reserved pretty much for pornography (itself only legal to sell in the ACT and Northern Territory) and limited to adult shops and internet ordering. Once the OFLC pass it with R18+, it's sale to minors becomes a criminal offence.The Wooster said:I hate that the word censorship is fucking meaningless because people use it to refer to anything they don't like. Target also doesn't sell AO games.Deathfish15 said:I hate that censorship has become a thing where we can excuse just solely on "private company" excuse.
You and others are so behind the times on this it isn't funny. Australia is actually kinda infamous for banning games because its classification system is really strict. Not just one or two stores deciding not to stock a game, but banning and even altering the content of games. Any negative precedent has long since been set. So this is nothing, this is a store making the choice to sell whatever it wants to sell.Arean said:Censorship, as defined by the ACLU:
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.
While you can argue that that's not what happened here, I would consider it a technicality at best. Yes, it is of course incredibly hyperbolic to compare it to Nazi germany, but that doesn't make it A-OK.
What worries me more than this particular incident is the precedent it sets, and the slippery slope it represents. That ball is already rolling, first with a similar store chain in New Zealand pulling all R18+ material from their shelves, and, last I heard, with the Norwegian Women's Front (claiming to speak for all women no less) publically petitioning for the game to be banned from all stores in Norway, spouting the same fabrications and unsupported claims of real-life consequencs as the original petition did.
Frankly, although I absolutely concede to the fact that Target were (of course) well within their rights to do what they did, I'm surprised by the sheer number of gaming culture personalities defending this situation, and I very much wonder if the reaction would have been the same if, say, it was a fundamentalist group petitioning to have Dragon Age: Inquisition pulled from shelves because all the homosexual relationships were "offensive".
The Grand Theft Auto series has caused controversy in Australia. In 2002, Grand Theft Auto III was withdrawn from sale for allowing players to have sexual intercourse with virtual prostitutes; the game was later reinstated when this action was removed. Specifically, the player could solicit intercourse from a virtual prostitute, and then kill her. The ability to solicit sex from prostitutes in the game was the action that was removed, but the player could still violently murder them. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was also pre-censored for the same reasons. Though, in 2010 Vice City was classified uncut again receiving a MA15+.[29]
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was withdrawn from sale in July 2005 following the revelation that interactive sex scenes were included in the content files on the game's disc; one could not ordinarily access these scenes, but a third party modification, known as the Hot Coffee mod, allowed the player to access these scenes within the game itself, and the inclusion of the scenes on the game disc took the game outside the MA15+ category. The MA15+ rating was re-instated after a modified version was released worldwide by Rockstar Games, removing the content files for the sex scenes.
Grand Theft Auto IV has also prompted editing in the Australian (PAL) version, as Rockstar was worried it might get a RC rating. In the American release, sexual encounters with prostitutes occur inside the player's vehicle and the player has the ability to rotate the camera for a clearer view of what transpires. In the censored Australian version, the camera is fixed behind the vehicle, which rocks from side to side with accompanying audio effects. It is impossible for the player to view the inside of the car.[30] Rockstar later decided to rate the uncut version of the game which went on to receive a MA15+ and a patch was later released for the PS3 and Xbox 360 to uncensor the game.
In 2005, 50 Cent: Bulletproof was banned for encouraging gang violence (a version removing the game's Arcade Mode, cutting down on gore and with an automatic Game Over for killing innocents was given an MA15+ rating), while Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure was also banned for glorifying illegal graffiti tagging, and Reservoir Dogs was banned because the Australian government disliked the fact that the player was able to shoot the heads off of hostages during a bank heist. The highly violent and controversial Postal and its sequel, Postal², have also been banned in Australia for similar reasons.
On 4 July 2008, Fallout 3 was refused classification by the OFLC[31][32] due to the "realistic visual representations of drugs and their delivery method (bringing) the 'science-fiction' drugs in line with 'real-world' drugs."[33] A revised version of the game was resubmitted to the OFLC and reclassified as MA 15+ on 7 August 2008 after drug names were changed.[34] It was later clarrified that the only change done to the final version of the game was the name Morphine changed to Med-x. This change was done to all versions worldwide, thus Australia got the same version of the game as other countries uncut with a MA15+.
The lack of R18+ and X18+ ratings for games has been the subject of complaint in the gaming community, particularly on the basis that there is no reason why adults should not be able to see content in games that they would see in a film. One of the main opponents to the introduction of a R18+ rating for video games was the former South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson who has vetoed every attempt to induce one. Following his resignation after the 2010 South Australian elections there appears to be no likelihood of a future veto in the face of public opinion supporting the new classification.[35][36] Although recently Australian video game show Good Game announced that a meeting of the Attorneys-General in March 2008 resulted in a decision that the Australian public would be consulted before a final decision on the status of a R18+ rating for video games would be made.[37]
On 15 September 2009, Left 4 Dead 2. was refused classification by the OFLC[38][39] with the reason being "The game contains realistic, frenetic and unrelenting violence which is inflicted upon "the Infected" who are living humans infected with a rabies-like virus that causes them to act violently". The game was edited and released with an MA15+ classification two months later. This was due to the games creators and an online petition that began circulating shortly after the public became aware of the game being banned.
Around December 2009, the video game Alien vs Predator was refused classification due to graphic gore, with the developer refusing to modify the game.[40] However, the ban was later[when?] overturned by the Classification Review Board, with the Board giving it an MA15+ rating with the warning "strong science fiction violence".
On 11 August 2010, at a public forum Tony Abbott was asked a question about his views on the absence of an R18+ rating for video games and whether he has any policies relating to the subject. His reply was if the Coalition won the upcoming election he would be happy to examine the issue of an R18+ classification rating for video games. Although he admitted he did not know there had been a debate on the issue "If what happens with video games is not roughly analogous to what happens in other areas, that seems silly," he said. He added "Instinctively I'm with you, and it's something I'd be happy to look at, if we are in Government," finishing off with "If you think there is a problem, I would be happy to look at it."[41][42][43][44] However the Liberal/National coalition led by Abbott did not win government, the Australian Labor Party retaining power through a coalition with Green and Independent members.
As of December 2010, Attorney General Robert McClelland appears to be moving on this issue following the release of telephone poll results conducted by the Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O'Connor, showing roughly 80% in support of a R18+ classification.[45]
On 22 July 2011, at a meeting of State and Territories' Attorney-Generals, An agreement was reached by a vote of 7?0 with NSW abstaining from voting for the introduction of an R18+ classification. It is planned to introduce it towards the end of 2011.[46]
An R18+ rating for video games was introduced on 1 January 2013.
In June 2013, Saints Row IV and State of Decay became the first video games to be refused classification since the introduction of an R18+ adults only rating, Saints Row IV for "interactive depictions of sexual violence" (one of the weapons in the game is an anal probe) and depicting illegal drugs as a power-up, and State of Decay for depicting drugs as a power-up.
I'm well aware of the Australian governments long and tried history of being a censoring nanny-state, but what's your argument exactly? It was worse in the past, so anything less than that is ok? Let me reiterate that I'm arguing the principle more than this specific situation.mecegirl said:You and others are so behind the times on this it isn't funny. Australia is actually kinda infamous for banning games because its classification system is really strict. Not just one or two stores deciding not to stock a game, but banning and even altering the content of games. So this is nothing, this is a store making the choice to sell whatever it wants to sell.Arean said:Censorship, as defined by the ACLU:
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.
While you can argue that that's not what happened here, I would consider it a technicality at best. Yes, it is of course incredibly hyperbolic to compare it to Nazi germany, but that doesn't make it A-OK.
What worries me more than this particular incident is the precedent it sets, and the slippery slope it represents. That ball is already rolling, first with a similar store chain in New Zealand pulling all R18+ material from their shelves, and, last I heard, with the Norwegian Women's Front (claiming to speak for all women no less) publically petitioning for the game to be banned from all stores in Norway, spouting the same fabrications and unsupported claims of real-life consequencs as the original petition did.
Frankly, although I absolutely concede to the fact that Target were (of course) well within their rights to do what they did, I'm surprised by the sheer number of gaming culture personalities defending this situation, and I very much wonder if the reaction would have been the same if, say, it was a fundamentalist group petitioning to have Dragon Age: Inquisition pulled from shelves because all the homosexual relationships were "offensive".
It kinda makes me feel old for remembering the internet arguments over it when games like GTA 3 was banned.
The association with the death threats of Anita Sarkeesian. There was nothing in the threats to suggest this, and we know that no investigation of any kind was carried out prior to doing it because no reporters called the local police. When investigation *was* done in response to this being uncovered it turned out the death threats had started in March.IceForce said:Out of interest, which part of the "gamers are dead" articles would you consider to be 'lies'?
Perhaps I was a tad sensational but my statement has a strong basis in reality.erttheking said:You got hard evidence to back that up? Because I seriously doubt it. You can make pretty much any crazy claim about someone and it means jack if you can't prove it. That'd be like me saying that you would stand behind this if people pulled a game from a shelf for having a homosexual main character. It means nothing because I can't prove it.Ickorus said:This shit from the same people who would go fucking batshit if people tried to pull a game from shelves for having a gay character.
Well done, hypocrites.
And neither can you.
If it had a strong basis in reality, you would be able to get me hard facts.Ickorus said:Snip
No, that it was worse than this so talking about this as if its a sign of anything worse is unnecessary. Australia is not going to go back to the way that it was. This is nothing more than an isolated incident, one that could only happen with a store like Target. If the petition had reached out to, and succeed to, persuade a company like EBgames then I could see the concern. As is, while its sweet of Americans and the rest to care, this move by Target doesn't even negatively effect Australian gamers.Arean said:I'm well aware of the Australian governments long and tried history of being a censoring nanny-state, but what's your argument exactly? It was worse in the past, so anything less than that is ok? Let me reiterate that I'm arguing the principle more than this specific situation.
While I have no first hand experience, being from the literal opposite side of the world, it was impression that Australia was finally coming around on the Gaming front? A relatively recent addition of an R18+ Rating for games, after a recent push from the Australian gaming community, was a huge step forward iirc.
I was pulled because a bunch of soccer moms found it morally offensive.Eric the Orange said:What is morally wrong about it?Deathfish15 said:that doesn't make it any less morally wrong.
Not so strange given that when the story broke it was being pulled from certain stores in Australia and New Zealand, and now there's a "women's" group trying to have it banned in Norway, and a petition to have it pulled from stores in Canada.thaluikhain said:(Though...seems odd that this is international news.)
Kaulen Fuhs said:snip
The Wooster said:Snip
IceForce said:snip