Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia Government Games

New Aliens Vs. Predator Game Doesn't Make It Past AU Ratings Board 277

Posted by Soulskill
from the gauntlet-thrown dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Australia refused to give Rebellion's new Aliens Vs. Predator game a rating, effectively banning it in the country. Rebellion says it won't be submitting an edited version for another round of classifications, however. (As Valve did with Left 4 Dead 2.) They said, 'We will not be releasing a sanitized or cut down version for territories where adults are not considered by their governments to be able to make their own entertainment choices.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Aliens Vs. Predator Game Doesn't Make It Past AU Ratings Board

Comments Filter:
  • by Shakrai (717556) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @04:03AM (#30333592) Journal

    How do you refuse when they are backed with the full force of law? You can vote the Government out -- but that would require convincing the sheeple that free speech is worth more than "think of the children!" Good luck with that.

    At least here in the US they don't have the power of the state behind them -- yet. Of course it's almost as stupid over here -- there's many games that should be rated 'AO' but such a rating means that most retailers won't stock it and the game isn't commercially viable. The end result is that the boundary of 'M' games (or 'R' movies for that matter) keeps getting pushed further and further and the rating system is rendered useless. This type of self-censorship on the part of major retailers is rather self-defeating in the end, isn't it?

  • by Shakrai (717556) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @04:23AM (#30333662) Journal

    Australian isn't the US, we have a different culture and people in general are quite happy for the government to "protect" us from certain things.

    Unfortunately that attitude isn't unique to your country and there are plenty of people here in the states that would willingly surrender their freedom and liberty in exchange for "protection" from various things.

  • by Mr. Freeman (933986) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @04:48AM (#30333728)
    "How do you refuse when they are backed with the full force of law?"

    You do something illegal. Very simple. Armed rebellion IS a legitimate choice.

    I'm surprised to hear all of this "I want to change the government because it is poor and doesn't represent my interests.... but I won't do anything illegal". FUCKING PICK ONE. Either put up with the bullshit, or do something about it, don't sit there and bitch like a whiney fuck.
  • by zullnero (833754) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @04:57AM (#30333750) Homepage
    If a ratings board bans their game, even if it's a derivative piece of movie-spawned crap, it's pure gold for marketing. There's no way that the Australian government is going to block kids from getting the game...they will find a way one way or the other. But they're definitely doing yeoman's work in promoting the game everywhere by giving it a big "bad" rating. All the ratings system does is provide a free benchmark for a particular genre to strive for because they know that's what will turn heads and sell their product.

    I know that if I were representing the company for this product, I'd be scheduling a big party to celebrate the rating and ban, not trying to make a political/free speech point out of it. The ratings system is an amazing helping hand to this particular venue.
  • by Shakrai (717556) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @05:13AM (#30333806) Journal

    Contrary to the US, most every other civilised country in the world recognises that the average citizen does NOT have some God given right to own a rocket launcher!

    Hyperbole. No civilian in the US owns a "rocket launcher", unless you are referring to one of these [estesrockets.com].

    Unfortunately the American gun culture is now being exported (along with rap and like shit) and we're starting to pay the price with a rise in handgun crime.

    Yes, it's all our fault. Your criminals were honest hard working folk until they caught a glimpse of the American gun culture, upon which they become violent murderers.

    The average American is a sheep being led to the slaughter so some Ruger guy can afford another corporate jet, and the best part is, they have you loving it!

    Ruger isn't that big of a company. I actually met their CEO once upon a time. Guess what? He was flying commercial.

  • by asdf7890 (1518587) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @06:07AM (#30334034)
    Exactly. Even if retooling a bit to make it past the censors would (after accounting for the cost of having an extra version to support if there are problems that need patching and such) increase the profit a bit, the difference is probably much smaller than that gained from free advertising garnered from "standing up to the censors". Also "banned in X countries!" will increase sales to certain demographics, and coincidentally some of these are demographics that an AvP game is likely targeted at.
  • by Shakrai (717556) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @06:16AM (#30334058) Journal

    Thus derailing the whole democratic process.

    What if the democratic process has already been derailed? Just because someone was "elected" doesn't mean that democracy matters for spit. As a random example, in the United States, our politicians get to pick their voters [wikipedia.org]. How is that compatible with Democracy?

    If you could convince a group of men to resist they become terrorists

    One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

    but the fact of the matter is the idea of armed rebellion is quaint and irrelevant today

    Why?

    But all that aside, do you REALLY believe violence is an appropriate response to the banning of a video game?

    No, but it is an appropriate response when the ends of government have been perverted and all other means of redress are ineffectual.

  • Just wait until some console maker decides that Australia needs to be a separate region-locking region.

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Saturday December 05, 2009 @08:29AM (#30334458) Homepage Journal

    there are plenty of people here in the states that would willingly surrender their freedom and liberty in exchange for "protection" from various things.

    However, this "willingness to give up freedoms for safety" only shows itself statistically when talking about terrorism. Harris Interactive did a poll a few days after 9/11 asking the question and by 80%, Americans were willing to lose some freedoms. A second poll in 2007, halfway through the second GWBush administration, showed similar results.

    It's interesting that of all the dangers in the world, the one that turns Americans into quivering masses of fear is something that is so statistically insignificant as to be nearly nonexistent. We hear conservative members of congress, big tough guys who like to swagger and threaten, worry about the 200 Gitmo detainees as if they were James Bond supervillians who could destroy American with their minds. Khalid what's-his-name, the supposed "9/11 mastermind" is actually so dangerous, they say, that he can't even be allowed to be tried in a court of law. Now that's fear.

    Seriously, if you listen randomly to a segment of any US "conservative" media, one of the most common expressions you'll hear is "I'm afraid..." or "I fear...".

  • by Obyron (615547) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @10:07AM (#30334986)
    Any time people pull this shit, kindly point out to them that since 1993, violent crime in all civilized nations has been on the decline, except in places like Sweden and Switzerland where it has stayed roughly the same, because it was never very high to begin with. This encompasses the era of pretty much all mass market video games. (For reference, Super Nintendo came out in 1992) Australia is actually an exception to this. I'm not saying that's significant, just that it's weird given the story.

    An entire generation has grown up playing Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Doom, Quake, Postal, Carmageddon, Grand Theft Auto Cop Killer Simulator Edition, etc., and violent crime has gone down. The homicide rate in the US is the lowest it's been since 1965, when there were 100,000,000 fewer people.
  • by selven (1556643) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @10:29AM (#30335180)

    They aren't acting on behalf of a sovereign state, so they can't be war criminals. They're common criminals. It doesn't matter how heinous their crime is, everyone deserves access to the civilian justice system. Someone who murders his wife deserves access to the civilian justice system, someone who murders 20 college students deserves access to the civilian justice system, and someone who assists in the murder of 3000 people deserves access to the civilian justice system. It's called rule of law, you can't circumvent it just because you fell like it.

  • by ultranova (717540) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @11:07AM (#30335432)

    I don't think it matters how dangerous he is. Enemy combatants whose only connection to our country is the desire to destroy it are not entitled to access to our civilian justice system. It's patently absurd in my mind to treat these people as common criminals.

    Indeed. Why, if declaring someone "enemy combatant" wouldn't put them outside the normal legal system, and able to be hold prisoner for as long as his captors desired, then how would the powerful get rid of their enemies? Why, the very thought that "everyone is equal before law" might lead someo to question the divine right of the king and the status of the aristocracy!

    Kudos for Khalid, thought; he might be a freedom-hating murdering bastard, but not many people can have freedom die a little bit just by having their name mentioned on an Internet forum.

    They are war criminals and deserve to be treated accordingly.

    Very well, then bring them before a court. You did know that war criminals get sentenced or released on those, didn't you?

  • by Nadaka (224565) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @02:15PM (#30337294)

    nukes are not a valid tool for removing rebellious citizens on your own soil.

  • And before you ask..... I've owned and used firearms since I was about 8, still do. The difference is here you don't mention them in polite society.

    Americans believe that an armed populace is a necessary check on a tyrannical government or foreign conquest. It goes right along with the reason that our soldiers swear to uphold the constitution, and not our rulers or the ruler's laws.

    I'll go so far as to claim that if your country cannot trust its citizenry with effective weapons of rebellion, then you are not a civilized country. (Not that presence of weapons is by any means proof of civilization... but their absence is an indicator of civilization's lack.)

  • by Jedi Alec (258881) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @06:42PM (#30339464)

    "How do you refuse when they are backed with the full force of law?"

    You do something illegal. Very simple. Armed rebellion IS a legitimate choice.

    I'm surprised to hear all of this "I want to change the government because it is poor and doesn't represent my interests.... but I won't do anything illegal". FUCKING PICK ONE. Either put up with the bullshit, or do something about it, don't sit there and bitch like a whiney fuck.

    Bah, you americans.

    What is required is an informed populace that gives a damn. Either people give a shit, and in that case they can use legal means to oust the jackasses, or they don't and in that case what good are guns gonna do them?

    The reason people bitch on /. instead of actually being able to change anything is because as people who care about this particular issue we're in the minority. So are you suggesting that we pick up guns and force our values on the rest of our countries? Maybe start a little dictatorship of enlightened slashdotians while we're at it?

    Guns come into play once a government refuses to leave even though they've been replaced through elections, or elections are getting rigged. And at that point the army gets involved on one side or the other anyway, and either things are over real quick (military sides with the populace) or you're looking at a drawn out civil war(military supports the jackasses).

    But do keep waving that awesome 2nd amendment in our faces. Fat lot of good that AK is gonna do you in the long run.

  • by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @08:10PM (#30340050)

    That's because we are a civilized nation - we don't believe we are the only people in the world who deserve these rights, we believe everyboy does. That's why we tend to get sucked into fights to preserve democracy and such, though our track record lately is only so-so.

    So yeah it sucks that he gets to enjoy our freedoms, but it's the right thing to do.

"Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same entropy to create bugs instead?" -- Steve Elias

Working...