Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Aussie Gamers Dress As Zombies To Raise R18+ Awareness 85

Posted by samzenpus
from the know-we'll-get-to-common-ground-somehow dept.
swandives writes "Australian gamers will dress as zombies to raise awareness about the lack of an R18+ rating for video games in the country. The protest will begin at Hyde Park Fountain on March 27 and lumber through Sydney, raising awareness of the need for a higher classification rating and hopefully causing a bit of havoc at the same time! Computerworld Australia has pictures of previous zombie protests in the lead-up to the event. Australia has a long history of lobbying for an R18+ games classification but, even after a decade, video games are banned from sale if they exceed the maximum M15+ classification. So far, the list of banned titles includes 7 Sins, Risen, Left 4 Dead 2 and Dark Sector. Others, like Alien vs. Predator, were initially banned but appealed the rating and are now MA15+."

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Aussie Gamers Dress As Zombies To Raise R18+ Awareness

Comments Filter:
  • Whoa, really? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @01:53PM (#31511910) Homepage

    Dark Sector was banned? That's a shame. I know it amounts to nothing more than a Gears of War/Resident Evil 4 ripoff in terms of overall design, but it's seriously one of the most underrated games of this generation. Personally, I think it looks and plays better than Gears of War, and in some parts even ups the intensity (although it's scale is smaller than GoW). It has its problems, but it is still one hell of a fun game to play.

    Screw the reviews you have read...if you enjoy third person shooting games in any capacity, you are doing yourself a massive disservice by not playing Dark Sector.

  • What we really need (Score:5, Interesting)

    by calibre-not-output (1736770) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @02:01PM (#31512058) Homepage
    is to be done with this ridiculous system of rating and censoring everything. For fuck's sake, forcing every parent to agree with a committee on what is appropriate for their children is ridiculous.

    I'd sooner ban idiots who tell my kids they'll go to an eternal afterlife of torment unless they have the same imaginary friend as the leader Third Twice-Reformed Baptist Church of the Three-Sided Square Circle than a game about a blue hedgehog who likes to jog.
  • by compro01 (777531) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @02:08PM (#31512210)

    I think the point may have been pointing out the "Violent zombie movies? Sure! Violent zombie Games? Banned!" silliness.

  • by jsled (11433) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @02:25PM (#31512590) Homepage

    What we also really need is for people to understand that not only children play video games.

  • by TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @11:08PM (#31518592) Journal

    Content suffers from censorship. People aren't help by censorship. Good games are not purchased because of censorship. Children are not protected by censorship. The only people who win from censorship are the censors, and they are the very people who our society should not allow to triumph. We don't need video game censorship, at least not in its current form.

    Jesus, could you get a more narrow and simplistic opinion?

    OK, imagine if there were no ratings on games. None. Not even just advisory ratings. What would happen? Would we enter a golden age where parents would allow kids to play whatever they want, and stop obsessing over what their kids watched and played? No, what we would get is paranoid parents, refusing to pay for anything that they, a friend, or a trusted reviewer, haven't specifically okayed beforehand. There would be considerably less emphasis on good games, and good games would be less likely to be made, since parents are now trying to minimise offensive content in their children's games, not listen to which games are good. Game companies would work harder to self-censor their content, in case the paranoid chinese whispers known as "word of mouth" shed an unfavourable light on their game. I fail to see how the system would be any better.

    You are living in the libertarian dystopian fantasy (which is only 75-90% imaginary), where the government's censorship attempts are oppressing its people, against their wishes, or if not their wishes, then at least contrary to their best interests. The fantasy also dictates that there cannot be but a single positive effect of censorship. No matter how many negative effects accompany it, no matter how many different and complex situations that censorship can be applied, there can never be a single situation where censorship can help a single person, unless that person is in a position of power, and therefore evil (this was the tell-tale property that tipped me off).

    The fact is that a lot of people genuinely want game censorship (although, the kind of censorship that bans games altogether will most probably go out of favour) and a lot of people believe that adult games do psychological damage to kids. We are currently in the process of deciding this claim, through a series of studies, so it's pointless claiming that they are harmful or not, especially so if you decide to make broad, sweeping statements about their lack of effect on all children.

    Also, another tip-off about your living in this fantasy is the claim that censors "win" from censorship, without any mention about what exactly "winning" entails for a censor. I suppose the censor keeps his job, but that's also a win for many other people out there. Short of censors being part of a truly gargantuan government conspiracy to turn us into slaves, I don't see how censorship being instituted is a win exclusively for censors.

    (Mods: just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's flamebait)

UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch). -- Andy Tannenbaum

Working...