Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia Censorship Games

Duke Nukem Forever Not Edited For Australia 156

Posted by timothy
from the so-you'll-need-subtitles dept.
dotarray writes "In case you still somehow didn't believe yesterday's news that Duke Nukem Forever had been given an MA15+ rating in Australia – effectively evading the notoriously strict censors, GamePron now has confirmation that the Duke has not been edited in any way for an Australian release. Hooray!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Duke Nukem Forever Not Edited For Australia

Comments Filter:
  • by grantek (979387) on Friday February 11, 2011 @03:28AM (#35171310)
    What about all these 15-18 year old kids who'll think it's okay to throw pipe bombs at a mutant pig cop!?
    • by drolli (522659)

      Uhm... You mean the 18+12 year waiting time old children?

    • There is little to no danger that 15-18 year old kids throwing pipe bombs are real cops, even if that were in the game.

      The dominate paradigm in the humanities, and much of psychology, is called Social Constructionism [wikipedia.org]. This has come to define feminism (unfortunately) and much of the academy. While no doubt profound, social constructionism has been taken way to far, and has turned into environmental determinism. The humanities are scared silly at any thought that biology may have an important role to play
      • by grantek (979387)
        Yeah, the point is, regardless of the complex issues on what media a society can and does accept into itself, Australia has a "restricted to 18+" category for everything except games, as if sane, mature adults don't play them. This is the reason some very good games had to be artistically neutered for the Australian market (to water it down to the MA15+ category), and why there is a pressure to shoehorn games (like DNF) that are fit for an 18+ categorisation into the MA15+ bin.
  • by iYk6 (1425255) on Friday February 11, 2011 @03:43AM (#35171358)

    This joke is going too far. They have official ratings now? Can they get in trouble for submitting something that they have no intention of finishing?

    • by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Friday February 11, 2011 @04:01AM (#35171406) Journal
      It is actually rated for 8 year olds, but that is because they'll be ten years older before the game releases.
    • Ummm...Gearbox is working on it now. Guys who did borderlands. I was down at their party they did here in Vegas Monday. First six levels fully playable. Of course the event was held at Deja Vu Strip Club too XD
    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday February 11, 2011 @09:59AM (#35173262)

      Hush! Do you want to ruin one of the greatest April Fool's Day jokes of all time?!?!?

  • I don't get it. Duke Nukem Foerever? Rating? You kidding me?
  • If you're going to go Duke, you better go full Duke.

    • by jack2000 (1178961)
      Lo and behold in the end days he would descend from the sky to face the wicked one and his decadent followers.

      Praised be his holly jetpack and his cigar for he is the king of the heavenly kingdom as well as the earthly realm. Hail to the king baby.
  • Duke Nukem won't allow you to censor him, he'll just kick your ass.

    • by bronney (638318)

      Boogie man checks his closet for Chuck Norris.

      Chuck Norris checks his closet for ... he who must not be named~

  • by acehole (174372) on Friday February 11, 2011 @04:08AM (#35171434) Homepage

    Duke Nukem 3D back in the early 90s was refused classification and had been re-released as a censored version.

    There is next to no consistency with the classification board, no logic. The only consistent thing is that most of their reasoning makes little to no sense when they've previously waved through worse games than the one they are classifying at the time.

    Not long after the "Atomic" edition of Duke-3D was released in all its glory. No censorship, same game just with 'more'. Makes sense doesnt it?

    • by deniable (76198)
      Well, to be fair, most of the original board has probably died by now.
    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      There is next to no consistency with the classification board

      Nonsense! Like the MPAA, they consistently get a bunch of 90-year-old women together to decide what naughty bits we shouldn't be allowed to see.

    • by evilgrug (915703)

      The funny thing is that it was released uncensored first. The Shareware version was uncensored and got an MA15+ in Feb 1996. Unfortunately the Port Arthur massacre in April got the new right-wing government in hysterics about violent media.

      By the time of it's full release in late May, it was apparently unsuitable for MA15+, but rather than making changes to the code, the distributor decided to force the game's in-built parental control mode on. The uncensored game was still on disc, and within days of its r

  • I remember Duke Nukem 3D having an adults only rating. That title for the time was pushing boundaries. With interactive strippers, heavy profanity and hell, he rips off an aliens head and shits down its neck. Thats what made it great. If even Australia gives this game a 15+ rating how watered down will it be.
    • by dadioflex (854298) on Friday February 11, 2011 @04:18AM (#35171492)
      Probably similar to Germany in that they're okay with killing non-humans and nobody outside of the US hates tits.
    • by totally bogus dude (1040246) on Friday February 11, 2011 @04:39AM (#35171588)

      The problem with our current video game rating system is that MA15+ is the highest we have. The only other option the classification board has is to refuse the game classification altogether, thereby preventing it from being sold in Australia. This results in things that shouldn't pass a MA15+ rating getting one, because they're not so bad they should be refused classification altogether.

      It's also why the idiotic "gotta protect the children!" crowd who oppose a higher rating for video games are showing themselves to be unthinking hypocrites who have zero interest in actually reducing the ease of access to violent or 'harmful' games by minors, and are instead interested only in shoving their own particular moralities down the throat of every adult in the country.

    • by kalirion (728907)

      I'm pretty sure I saw a DNF trailer with a nude (or almost nude) stripper, so I wonder how they managed this...

  • by mjwx (966435) on Friday February 11, 2011 @04:24AM (#35171526)

    effectively evading the notoriously strict censors

    The Classification Board is aware of just how much of a joke it's become. They've figured out that anything remotely popular now has to be given an M15+ rating regardless of content because they've been threatened by state governments to have their mandate pulled if they start trying to censor things. Basically they've become toothless, refuse classification and the media will drag you thought the mud so they'll just rubber stamp any level of violence and nudity even when it should be clearly restricted.

    Basically this was the worst possible scenario for former attorney general Michael Atkinson, as 15 yr olds can now legally buy material that should be in the Restricted (R18+) category ironically because Atkinson opposed the introduction of a restricted category for video games. Hell, a 12 or 13 yr old could get it as they dont really do ID checks for M rated films, not to mention parents who dont understand the content that will buy it.

    Well you made the bed Michael, now you have to lie in it.

    • by deniable (76198)
      Go look at Australian film in the '70s and '80s. They got away with stuff that I had to see to believe. "Not Quite Hollywood" is a good doco about it. Classifications have got a lot tighter since then.
    • by definate (876684)

      They don't and never have done ID checks for R rated films either. I rented Bad Boy Bubby when I was 12, and bought Se7en when I was even younger.

      The ratings are a joke, nobody takes them seriously.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      they'll just rubber stamp any level of violence and nudity even when it should be clearly restricted.

      What level of violence and nudity should "clearly" be restricted? It is not clear that ANY level of violence, nudity, or anything else should be restricted by the government.

      • by mjwx (966435)

        What level of violence and nudity should "clearly" be restricted?

        Bleargh anti-gubbermint rant.

        If you bothered to find out anything, you would have learned that:
        1. the classification board is an independent entity, which is why the Pro R rating government has been able to do nothing about the lack of an R rating for games.
        2. Restricted is the term for the R rating which can only be sold to people over the age of 18. In other words, it does not mean what you think it means.

        But dont let any of that g

    • by microbox (704317)
      On the plus side -- none of the violence causes any harm, or if it does, only in a small portion of individuals. I did a review of media violence research, and was appalled by what I found. Basically, we have two sides. One makes academic arguments, and use the scientific method. Their research does not support the main-stream view. The other side rides on the coat tails of real science, pretends to use the scientific method, but only responds to academic criticism with political arguments. They are almost
      • No, no. Violent media merely makes people aggressive! And, as we all know, those temporary aggressive thoughts always turn into physical violence! Therefore, games should be banned/censored. Also, teenager's brains haven't completely formed yet, so that automatically means that they are so ignorant that they can't tell the difference between fiction and reality (the same goes for children). This is all very scientific, you see...

      • by mjwx (966435)

        Consider that today we have the most depraved violence in history, and the lowest violence rate.

        I wouldn't say that, violence has always been pretty depraved throughout history, we just dont write that bit in the history books. We tend to remember the past with rose tinted glasses.

        But the second part is true, we have the lowest rates of murders, domestic violence, assaults and several other crimes in the last 100 odd years. Personally I put this down to cultural shifts away from the glorification of ac

    • by houghi (78078)

      All these restrictions remind me when wanted to see a movie when I was younger. I was not allowed, do I bought the book and read it instead.

      Many years later when I saw the movie, I realized that the book was way more explicit and specific then the movie. Several pages at the 'level' of Penthouse letters vs not even a nipple in the movie.

      Pretty interesting when you are 15.

  • Now Yahtzee will have to review it for real...

  • by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Friday February 11, 2011 @09:07AM (#35172696)
    Perhaps the entire industry can finally get it through its head that labeling a game with a stronger rating than "M" is a better alternative than heavy censoring and will not be the death knell of sales for that game. Just because Wal-Mart will not carry it does not mean that the entire pool of gamers will ignore it!
    • by rekenner (849871)
      Yes, but it would take the *entire* industry, inclusive of Sony, Nintendo, and MS. They refuse to allow AO games on their systems. So, it's something of a catch-22. If AO games could be proven to sell (and that the negative PR wouldn't be too bad), they might allow AO games. But that can't happen until they consider an AO game...
      • This is very similar to the PC problem of those giant game boxes from a decade ago. The common misconception was that using smaller boxes (like those we see today) would mean that us near-sighted game nerds would become physically incapable of seeing them on store shelves and would stop buying them. Then one game tried it, and proved that not only it sold anyway, but the companies would save money with less packaging expenses and more units per shipment moved, lowering transport charges overall. It just tak
      • by gman003 (1693318)
        I would say "there's always the PC", but even that has problems. Almost no retailers will carry an AO game, and I doubt Steam or other digital distributors do so, either. Not only that, but out of the 24 games [esrb.org] that have actually been given an AO rating, the majority of them are Japanese imports, which seems to indicate that nobody in America is really interested in making AO games.
  • Will Duke wear a cork hat?

"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...