Why is it so difficult in Europe?!?

[LoveAngelPMS]

Hi everyone,

It took me a while to join it here because I always felt like it was an initiative for USA and Canada only.
I don't know whether this way of thinking is right or wrong, however, I thought that it would be a nice place to share my feelings with other (European) serious gamers.

Why is it so different and difficult on this side of the ocean?!?

I used to think that it was more a problem concerning the amount of money that the industry makes over here, but despite the late growth, things don't seem to change at all.

Does it have to do with overprotective legislations? Is it because some are making enough money anywa, so why investing on the public? Are we really so few and unprofitable?

I would appreciate to learn your thoughts and maybe facts about it.

*game on*

[Pominator]

I have had the same problem, I wanted to be part of the ECA, but like others here, I am British, so have not had a chance to benefit from the member bonuses given to ECA members, hopefully they will expand into Britain, and maybe Europe (we don't associate ourselves with Europe :-) and allow people on both sides of the pond to have the benefits of ECA membership, that said however, the war is still being faught on their home turf, Jack Thompson and his ilk still stand on their soap boxes causing trouble for the industry and the consumerate, when his lot are taken care of, maybe then they can help us with Keith Vaz and other such trouble makers.

[beemoh]

Why is it so different and difficult on this side of the ocean?!?

I used to think that it was more a problem concerning the amount of money that the industry makes over here, but despite the late growth, things don't seem to change at all.

Does it have to do with overprotective legislations? Is it because some are making enough money anywa, so why investing on the public? Are we really so few and unprofitable?

It's probably more to do with having eleventy billion different governments, languages and cultures to contend with. While a lot of games companies (well, Midway and Ubisoft) are saying that they're making as much money in Euroland as they are in the US, they are probably spending a lot more on localisation and more carefully targeted marketing.

That, and you know what Yanks are like when it comes to looking past their own shores...

[MUTANT SPUD]

Its important for everyone, everywhere to try and change what they don't like, a little headway made in one country can be used as an example for others.

[GamesLaw]

There is a cultural difference between most (not all) European countries and the US regarding freedom of speech. It's got some relation to the "Old politics/New politics" dichotomy that plagues the Continent. EU countries that have been able to purge the vestiges of Old Europe, and pursue a modern and open government, such as some of the scandinavian countries, have significantly better free speech laws.

It comes down to "Does a country treat its citizens as free-willed people, or do they treat them as subjects who need to be protected for their own good?" The countries that do the latter typically have severe regulations on games.

[beemoh]

or do they treat them as subjects who need to be protected for their own good?

/me draws attention to himself

[MUTANT SPUD]

There is a cultural difference between most (not all) European countries and the US regarding freedom of speech. It's got some relation to the "Old politics/New politics" dichotomy that plagues the Continent. EU countries that have been able to purge the vestiges of Old Europe, and pursue a modern and open government, such as some of the scandinavian countries, have significantly better free speech laws.

It comes down to "Does a country treat its citizens as free-willed people, or do they treat them as subjects who need to be protected for their own good?" The countries that do the latter typically have severe regulations on games.I don't know about that, I like being protected, American democracy isn't a one size fits all system, freedom of speech is one of America's supposed assets but its more of an Achilles heel, your constitution prevents the restriction of even the most destructive and divisive ideologies.We have free speech in Australia but only up to a point, we can say to a Neo Nazi for example, that because their ideas are not conducive to the welfare and good order of the community that they should be no longer heard. We have heavy censorship, on games but also on other stuff, hardcore porn is more or less illegal in most states and anything to do with militant Islam or white supremacy is banned. I mean I could go out into the street and start yelling about imposing Sharia Law on society and the police would probably only take my name and tell me to go home, but if I published a pamphlet on the subject I'd probably get a discreet visit from the Intelligence Services . These powers are rarely used but I'm technically accountable under Australian law for anything I say in this country, in any other country or on the internet, so if I came to the U.S.A and started promoting ideas that my government objected to they could theoretically extradite and charge me. Australia is a pretty liberal and progressive country in a lot of other ways so I don't really mind the censorship so much, anyway laws never really stop free speech even at their most repressive, look at Aung San Suu Kyi or Morgan Tsvangirai.

[GamesLaw]

I don't know about that, I like being protected, American democracy isn't a one size fits all system, freedom of speech is one of America's supposed assets but its more of an Achilles heel, your constitution prevents the restriction of even the most destructive and divisive ideologies.We have free speech in Australia but only up to a point, we can say to a Neo Nazi for example, that because their ideas are not conducive to the welfare and good order of the community that they should be no longer heard. We have heavy censorship, on games but also on other stuff, hardcore porn is more or less illegal in most states and anything to do with militant Islam or white supremacy is banned. I mean I could go out into the street and start yelling about imposing Sharia Law on society and the police would probably only take my name and tell me to go home, but if I published a pamphlet on the subject I'd probably get a discreet visit from the Intelligence Services . These powers are rarely used but I'm technically accountable under Australian law for anything I say in this country, in any other country or on the internet, so if I came to the U.S.A and started promoting ideas that my government objected to they could theoretically extradite and charge me. Australia is a pretty liberal and progressive country in a lot of other ways so I don't really mind the censorship so much, anyway laws never really stop free speech even at their most repressive, look at Aung San Suu Kyi or Morgan Tsvangirai.

That's kind of scary that Australia is that authoritarian. By what right does any goverment have to restrict thought and speech, as long as the speech is not inciting immediate danger?

[KN]

That's kind of scary that Australia is that authoritarian. By what right does any goverment have to restrict thought and speech, as long as the speech is not inciting immediate danger?

*is american*

*talks about freedom*

*couldn't protest today because the free speech zone was full*

[MUTANT SPUD]

That's kind of scary that Australia is that authoritarian. By what right does any goverment have to restrict thought and speech, as long as the speech is not inciting immediate danger? People voted for it, more or less, it turned out to be a trade off after 9/11, the Liberal government lowered interest rates ,wiped out national debt and brought in a whole raft of progressive social policies and put the economy into overdrive. So while we have plenty of jobs, a first rate hospital system with socialised medicine, low taxes etc we gave up a lot of what I guess you'd term "freedoms" under the guise of national security. There's even a special set of laws for construction workers, believe it or not, with coercive powers and jail terms for striking or refusing to answer questions about union activities.
What it boils down to is that when governments give people a choice between freedom of expression and some form of financial gain, they take the money.

[GamesLaw]

People voted for it, more or less, it turned out to be a trade off after 9/11, the Liberal government lowered interest rates ,wiped out national debt and brought in a whole raft of progressive social policies and put the economy into overdrive. So while we have plenty of jobs, a first rate hospital system with socialised medicine, low taxes etc we gave up a lot of what I guess you'd term "freedoms" under the guise of national security. There's even a special set of laws for construction workers, believe it or not, with coercive powers and jail terms for striking or refusing to answer questions about union activities.
What it boils down to is that when governments give people a choice between freedom of expression and some form of financial gain, they take the money.

That's very interesting, since our democratic party, who support the progressive social policies like the ones you mention are the ones in favor of protecting civil liberties.

Hmm.

[MUTANT SPUD]

That's very interesting, since our democratic party, who support the progressive social policies like the ones you mention are the ones in favor of protecting civil liberties.

Hmm.Do you think that because Americans have no real experience of socialism that they are pretty rigid about civil liberties? We have a sort of melange of socialism and liberalism that mostly works, it seems to be the only way to have a harmonious, multi cultural society, if nobody rocks the boat it steams ahead just fine,everyone gets their fair share if they play the game.
Look at what's happening in Cologne this weekend,
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvlYcyBfFX7i9aV4SMuG5-YI4G2gD9397BL00
If the general population is against a group like this, as they are in most countries, why should they get to speak at all?
And here's another aspect to the debate http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24373391-23109,00.html
Why should conservatives and religious fundamentalists have their views considered or accommodated by governments when their ideas are divisive and destructive?
Free speech seems to me like fence sitting, I don't want kids playing Manhunt or Postal so I support the ban,even though it infringes the rights of some adult gamers. The reason I'm petitioning my government is because their censorship policy regarding games is inconsistent and out of touch, we have 18+ European games being sold here as 15+ (which is more or less a PG rating) I want all games that feature violence or adult themes in any form to be R18+ and for penalties to apply for their supply to children, that way the rights of adult gamers won't be infringed and mature games won't be targeted at children.

[GamesLaw]

Look at what's happening in Cologne this weekend,
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvlYcyBfFX7i9aV4SMuG5-YI4G2gD9397BL00
If the general population is against a group like this, as they are in most countries, why should they get to speak at all?
And here's another aspect to the debate http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24373391-23109,00.html
Why should conservatives and religious fundamentalists have their views considered or accommodated by governments when their ideas are divisive and destructive?

Why should the government decide that any one group gets to speak, and another shouldn't?

And who really believes that whether the general population is for or against something should have any bearing on whether proponents of that thing get speech rights? 100 years ago, the general population was against atheists. Should atheists get no right to speak? What about religious strife? Because the general population hates another religion means that religion loses the right to speak as well?

The point of freedom of speech is that you have to protect even things that are distasteful, so that people, rather than the government, retain the freedom of choice.

Due to the very nature of government, as soon as they get the power to discriminate against who may speak or not, they will use that power to suppress dissent, to oppress minorities, and to advance their own agendas. That's a fact of governments everywhere. The only real solution is to eliminate the government's ability to use that power.

[MUTANT SPUD]

=GamesLaw;86103]Why should the government decide that any one group gets to speak, and another shouldn't?

And who really believes that whether the general population is for or against something should have any bearing on whether proponents of that thing get speech rights? 100 years ago, the general population was against atheists. Should atheists get no right to speak? What about religious strife? Because the general population hates another religion means that religion loses the right to speak as well?Yes, democracy is the rule of the majority, equality of equals not equality for all.

The point of freedom of speech is that you have to protect even things that are distasteful, so that people, rather than the government, retain the freedom of choice.We, all of us, don't really have freedom of choice under whatever form of democracy we adhere to, we're just fortunate that our government's are in the main, benevolent.
Due to the very nature of government, as soon as they get the power to discriminate against who may speak or not, they will use that power to suppress dissent, to oppress minorities, and to advance their own agendas. That's a fact of governments everywhere. The only real solution is to eliminate the government's ability to use that power. You'd have to go back a long way to find a western government that pursued an agenda that didn't at least on some level complement the needs of its electorate. I presume you're using third world examples of governments rudely abusing their powers, that's a whole other argument and crosses into even more controversial territory, like who has the right to govern themselves when as a populace they are incapable of implementing the systems and sustaining the institutions of a free and inclusive society.

[GamesLaw]

Yes, democracy is the rule of the majority, equality of equals not equality for all.


Which is why truely democratic systems consistently fail. Instead we have republican systems, which exist to serve the majority while protecting the minority, and we refer to them as "democracy" when they're really "democratic republics".

We, all of us, don't really have freedom of choice under whatever form of democracy we adhere to, we're just fortunate that our government's are in the main, benevolent.

All of us have freedom of choice as a natural human right. It's something that predates the existence of government, and it's something that government can only outlaw, but can never remove.

You'd have to go back a long way to find a western government that pursued an agenda that didn't at least on some level complement the needs of its electorate. I presume you're using third world examples of governments rudely abusing their powers, that's a whole other argument and crosses into even more controversial territory, like who has the right to govern themselves when as a populace they are incapable of implementing the systems and sustaining the institutions of a free and inclusive society.

No, I'm actually referring to all governments. All governments abuse their power in some sort of way. It's inherent within the very nature of having power, and giving it to fallible men.

In fact, the argument is significantly stronger in western governments that exist because of an electorate, rather than third world governments who can exist without even the support of their electorate as long as they control the military.

[KN]

this argument is moot because america is the way it is now and our countries are not

[Thefremen]

Which is why truely democratic systems consistently fail. Instead we have republican systems, which exist to serve the majority while protecting the minority, and we refer to them as "democracy" when they're really "democratic republics".


Wait a minute, I thought we had a system that served Corporate interests while protecting the Christian majority?

[MUTANT SPUD]

this argument is moot because america is the way it is now and our countries are notYeah but what we sell to the rest of the world as democracy isn't quite the real deal, nevertheless I'm glad I'm in the position that I am, getting edited copies of video games is a small wrong compared to other impositions placed by governments on their peoples.

[KN]

Yeah but what we sell to the rest of the world as democracy isn't quite the real deal, nevertheless I'm glad I'm in the position that I am, getting edited copies of video games is a small wrong compared to other impositions placed by governments on their peoples.

these are things that are easily corrected by a peaceful change of government as time goes on (and old people die).

America's problems are much more severe

[GamesLaw]

these are things that are easily corrected by a peaceful change of government as time goes on (and old people die).

America's problems are much more severe

America's problems are what exactly?

[Hannah]

America's problems are what exactly?

Your government keeps reducing its own people's freedom in order to keep them "safe" from the terrorists who spring up as a direct result of that same government's enthusiastic (and thoroughly unnecessary) actions overseas.

Oh, and you folks seem determined to drag the rest of us down with you.

[MUTANT SPUD]

Which is why truely democratic systems consistently fail. Instead we have republican systems, which exist to serve the majority while protecting the minority, and we refer to them as "democracy" when they're really "democratic republics".

All of us have freedom of choice as a natural human right. It's something that predates the existence of government, and it's something that government can only outlaw, but can never remove.


No, I'm actually referring to all governments. All governments abuse their power in some sort of way. It's inherent within the very nature of having power, and giving it to fallible men.

In fact, the argument is significantly stronger in western governments that exist because of an electorate, rather than third world governments who can exist without even the support of their electorate as long as they control the military.I think my attitude differs because Australia is a constitutional monarchy not a republic, our head of state is the Queen of England. We have legislation to protect minorities but there's no constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, no bill of rights either, any rights we have are for the most part implied, as in; if you meet the standards of the majority you are eligible for inclusion in society. Its quite sobering to have to be accountable for everything you say, makes people think before opening their mouths.
Its really not a big deal for most people, the minorities are largely out of sight and out of mind, beetling away and making decent lives for themselves.

[KN]

Your government keeps reducing its own people's freedom in order to keep them "safe" from the terrorists who spring up as a direct result of that same government's enthusiastic (and thoroughly unnecessary) actions overseas.

Oh, and you folks seem determined to drag the rest of us down with you.

requoting because this is it


o, you're also rabidly nationalistic

[GamesLaw]

I think my attitude differs because Australia is a constitutional monarchy not a republic, our head of state is the Queen of England. We have legislation to protect minorities but there's no constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, no bill of rights either, any rights we have are for the most part implied, as in; if you meet the standards of the majority you are eligible for inclusion in society. Its quite sobering to have to be accountable for everything you say, makes people think before opening their mouths.
Its really not a big deal for most people, the minorities are largely out of sight and out of mind, beetling away and making decent lives for themselves.

It also tends to hold minorities down from doing anything other than beetling away in menial jobs, instead of making significant gains for themselves in terms of wealth and power.

[GamesLaw]

Your government keeps reducing its own people's freedom in order to keep them "safe" from the terrorists who spring up as a direct result of that same government's enthusiastic (and thoroughly unnecessary) actions overseas.

Oh, and you folks seem determined to drag the rest of us down with you.

Is that america's problem? Or is that George W. Bush's problem?

[Hannah]

Is that america's problem? Or is that George W. Bush's problem?

Through the magic of democracy, it's both.

[GamesLaw]

Through the magic of democracy, it's both.

It's not when only 30% of the nation supports him, and it's contested as to whether he even was properly elected. And again, we're not a democracy, we're a democratic republic.

[Hannah]

It's not when only 30% of the nation supports him, and it's contested as to whether he even was properly elected. And again, we're not a democracy, we're a democratic republic.

That doesn't absolve the American public of any responsibility. He's still your leader, and he still represents you and your countrymen to some extent.

Besides... don't you have a constitution that practically requires you to grab the nearest gun and resolve the situation?

[MUTANT SPUD]

It also tends to hold minorities down from doing anything other than beetling away in menial jobs, instead of making significant gains for themselves in terms of wealth and power.My initial reaction was "yeah..so?" Why are minority rights so important in a system that guarantees the same rights to all citizens, other than to bolster the self esteem of the so called "bleeding hearts"? And power? Why should a minority have any power other than mastery of their own personal lives, attributing power to a small group within a larger whole always ends badly. The notion of the Jews having "power" in Europe, whether it was a fact or not , led to horrific consequences for them, empowering a minority always makes them a scapegoat for the envious or downtrodden amongst the majority.
Here's another example, there's always been a Muslim population in Australia, until 9/11 nobody paid any attention to them, after the attacks the government made a plea for calm and for citizens to treat Muslims with respect. That IMO was right and proper, if the situation had been left to calm down by itself we would have probably carried on as usual. What happened however was that elements from the left of politics began to actively take the side of the Muslims (whether they liked it or not) and tar anyone who wouldn't openly profess their solidarity with the Islamic community as a racist.Under the guise of protecting Muslims from Right wing attacks (of which there was not one incident because there is no substantial right wing movement in Australia) numerous committees were formed, notable Islamic scholars suddenly became media figures and endless column inches were published on the virtues of Islam. This led to critical problems with law and order amongst Middle Eastern Youth, particularly in Sydney, every time the police apprehended them they'd file a complaint of racial discrimination and often target police in revenge attacks, this resulted in a direct order from police command to tread lightly in Muslim neighbourhoods culminating in a humiliating retreat by police in the face of growing lawlessnes among the young of those communities. After a series of horrifying gang rapes by Middle Eastern men and a series of gang attacks on beach goers the situation deteriorated into a full blown anti Muslim riot, it was only the intervention of police that saved several people from being lynched.
What the actions of the police and leftists did, by allowing the customs and sensitivities of one group become a priority over the standards of the wider community was cause resentment and increase racist views among the majority, you can't give anyone special treatment, they either sink or swim.

[BlackIce, British Commie]

That doesn't absolve the American public of any responsibility. He's still your leader, and he still represents you and your countrymen to some extent.

Besides... don't you have a constitution that practically requires you to grab the nearest gun and resolve the situation?

So do all Intelligence Services..

[beemoh]

the sheer fact that your constitution is built around the idea of ousting an overbearing ruler means that the average citizen has a responsibility to do something if Bush does not, as you claim, represent the populace. The fact that nobody has done anything is very telling, I think.

But they have done things- look at all the whiny "Fox News Sucks!" blogs!

[KN]

http://hobobucket.com/sa/emot-obama.gif

[JohnStout]

I think that, instead of waiting for the ECA to expand into the UK and Europe, action needs to be taken by the citizens of the respective countries there. Obviously, America is not the only country where gamers seem to be taking flak and I think that it's important for us to be properly represented like other lobby groups.

[ZippyDSMlee]

My initial reaction was "yeah..so?" Why are minority rights so important in a system that guarantees the same rights to all citizens, other than to bolster the self esteem of the so called "bleeding hearts"? And power? Why should a minority have any power other than mastery of their own personal lives, attributing power to a small group within a larger whole always ends badly. The notion of the Jews having "power" in Europe, whether it was a fact or not , led to horrific consequences for them, empowering a minority always makes them a scapegoat for the envious or downtrodden amongst the majority.
Here's another example, there's always been a Muslim population in Australia, until 9/11 nobody paid any attention to them, after the attacks the government made a plea for calm and for citizens to treat Muslims with respect. That IMO was right and proper, if the situation had been left to calm down by itself we would have probably carried on as usual. What happened however was that elements from the left of politics began to actively take the side of the Muslims (whether they liked it or not) and tar anyone who wouldn't openly profess their solidarity with the Islamic community as a racist.Under the guise of protecting Muslims from Right wing attacks (of which there was not one incident because there is no substantial right wing movement in Australia) numerous committees were formed, notable Islamic scholars suddenly became media figures and endless column inches were published on the virtues of Islam. This led to critical problems with law and order amongst Middle Eastern Youth, particularly in Sydney, every time the police apprehended them they'd file a complaint of racial discrimination and often target police in revenge attacks, this resulted in a direct order from police command to tread lightly in Muslim neighbourhoods culminating in a humiliating retreat by police in the face of growing lawlessnes among the young of those communities. After a series of horrifying gang rapes by Middle Eastern men and a series of gang attacks on beach goers the situation deteriorated into a full blown anti Muslim riot, it was only the intervention of police that saved several people from being lynched.
What the actions of the police and leftists did, by allowing the customs and sensitivities of one group become a priority over the standards of the wider community was cause resentment and increase racist views among the majority, you can't give anyone special treatment, they either sink or swim.

The easiest answer is it had to be done, Minority rights that is it was creating so much fiction in US society that soemthign had to be done.

So we did it and now what well mostly its to help stir the soup of of public discourse with preconceived issues envoling race and creed.

I support it up to a point, after it crosses the line its mindless PC zero tolerance of thought, the ineptitude builds and it all starts collapsing on itself.

Hannah
Tell me oh great Oneesan now many stable for the most part first world nations that have a populace apt enough to revolt and over throw their inept government that has not fallen into full authoritarianship?

The problem is many as the government can destroy any person or group from revolting so you would need hundreds of thousands of supporters to even thick about it, a terrorist attack is simple in comparasion.


JohnStout
There is a diff in how the UK dose things, unlike in the US where the ESRB is just a org running a rantings board the BBFC is a heavily government sponsored org running most or all of their rantings for media.

the BBFC has a much better chance at creating a porn level slot for non porn material but their mindset is censorship is healthy while the US thinks its its bad and they've mostly relegated it to whatever the free market can easily support, hence why AO is dead currently.

Now Australia is a is kind of the same only they have a much more anal retentive system that deals with games, it would be nice if they let in 18+ games and they might in the next 2 years as the issues is getting some press and reason is bond to be grounded into it, the UK is pretty reasonable despite its issues as they don't mind nudity as much as violence or harsh themes.

Its a mess but Auzland is the only place I think things are getting "better", the US and UK are stuck in the mud over the issues.

[MUTANT SPUD]

Now Australia is a is kind of the same only they have a much more anal retentive system that deals with games, it would be nice if they let in 18+ games and they might in the next 2 years as the issues is getting some press and reason is bond to be grounded into it, the UK is pretty reasonable despite its issues as they don't mind nudity as much as violence or harsh themes.
Partly true, we can get European 18+ games here but they come out re boxed with an MA15+ sticker on the case because there simply isn't an 18+ class for the censors to put them in. A game like The Darkness or Condemned can be sold here as 15+ if it doesn't contravene the classification guidelines, the games that have been banned here seem to have stepped over the line with regards to graphic violence. As far as I know nudity hasn't been an issue, the Witcher is freely available and nudity in media will usually not contravene the act as long as there's no perverse or violent connotations.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Partly true, we can get European 18+ games here but they come out re boxed with an MA15+ sticker on the case because there simply isn't an 18+ class for the censors to put them in. A game like The Darkness or Condemned can be sold here as 15+ if it doesn't contravene the classification guidelines, the games that have been banned here seem to have stepped over the line with regards to graphic violence. As far as I know nudity hasn't been an issue, the Witcher is freely available and nudity in media will usually not contravene the act as long as there's no perverse or violent connotations.

Do banned tittles get this treatment?
If not then the the issue wont subside.

[MUTANT SPUD]

Do banned tittles get this treatment?
If not then the the issue wont subside.
No banned titles are banned from being sold at all:confused:

[ZippyDSMlee]

No banned titles are banned from being sold at all:confused:

Well the whole aus ranting system is confusing, I mean its like saying they do not believe in the PG13 level R is ok but no teen flicks allowed..

[MUTANT SPUD]

Well the whole aus ranting system is confusing, I mean its like saying they do not believe in the PG13 level R is ok but no teen flicks allowed..
Its not confusing, its out of step with the rest of the Western world but its pretty clear to me at least. To put it another way, our MA15+ rating for games is very broad, they have to put the bulk of violent games in that category, some games are too violent for that category but lacking a higher classification the censors have no choice but to ban them. As I said in the other thread the guidelines seem based on the level of interactive violence not violence per se, Silent Hill:Homecoming has been banned but the Silent Hill movie was rated MA15+ here. There also seems to be an issue of the realism of the graphical representations of violence, Ninja Gaiden 2 and FEAR both feature dismemberment but the art style makes them seem cartoonish and lowers the impact. I wonder with FO3, if the dismemberment, realistic as it is was passed because of the lower level of interactivity of the VATS system.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Its not confusing, its out of step with the rest of the Western world but its pretty clear to me at least. To put it another way, our MA15+ rating for games is very broad, they have to put the bulk of violent games in that category, some games are too violent for that category but lacking a higher classification the censors have no choice but to ban them. As I said in the other thread the guidelines seem based on the level of interactive violence not violence per se, Silent Hill:Homecoming has been banned but the Silent Hill movie was rated MA15+ here. There also seems to be an issue of the realism of the graphical representations of violence, Ninja Gaiden 2 and FEAR both feature dismemberment but the art style makes them seem cartoonish and lowers the impact. I wonder with FO3, if the dismemberment, realistic as it is was passed because of the lower level of interactivity of the VATS system.
Yes its not confusing its a mess, but hopefully the issues will compile and they are forced to change. BTW how dose Oz land handle nudity? is it more like the UK than the US?

It would be nice if Ozland had a system that mirrored the BBFC.

[MUTANT SPUD]

Nudity in games, or generally? Nudity in games is barely an issue. Movies are rarely affected because we have R18+ and X ratings (though X would refer generally to your Playboy Centerfold videos and such, hardcore is only available by mail order from Canberra and Darwin due to some loophole in the law). In recent years there's been only a couple of movies banned that I can think of, Ken Park being one..there was one other but the name escapes me. Like I said the MA15+ category is pretty broad and most movies in that class are shown on TV uncut, theres just rules about what time they can be shown. TV shows like The Sopranos or Californication are put on at 10:30 PM or later and we have both print and spoken ratings advice spots before every program detailing the content eg "This program contains violence, nudity and scenes of animal cruelty. It is recommended for mature adult audiences only"
I think when we get an 18+ rating they'll probably put similar warnings to movies at the start of every game, it'd make sense. There are penalties for allowing minors to view adult material but its not something that's widely enforced,unless someone complains, the authorities are more concerned with kids being sold cigarettes and alchohol.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Nudity in games, or generally? Nudity in games is barely an issue. Movies are rarely affected because we have R18+ and X ratings (though X would refer generally to your Playboy Centerfold videos and such, hardcore is only available by mail order from Canberra and Darwin due to some loophole in the law). In recent years there's been only a couple of movies banned that I can think of, Ken Park being one..there was one other but the name escapes me. Like I said the MA15+ category is pretty broad and most movies in that class are shown on TV uncut, theres just rules about what time they can be shown. TV shows like The Sopranos or Californication are put on at 10:30 PM or later and we have both print and spoken ratings advice spots before every program detailing the content eg "This program contains violence, nudity and scenes of animal cruelty. It is recommended for mature adult audiences only"
I think when we get an 18+ rating they'll probably put similar warnings to movies at the start of every game, it'd make sense. There are penalties for allowing minors to view adult material but its not something that's widely enforced,unless someone complains, the authorities are more concerned with kids being sold cigarettes and alchohol.
So basically a more mature on most things sex/nudity euro dirivied culture.

Any movies banned for violence? I ask because the BBFC has banned a flick or 2 in recent years because its to graphic. If Australia has not then whats up with the assault on gaming(besides no nothing no everything politicians)?

[MUTANT SPUD]

So basically a more mature on most things sex/nudity euro dirivied culture.

Any movies banned for violence? I ask because the BBFC has banned a flick or 2 in recent years because its to graphic. If Australia has not then whats up with the assault on gaming(besides no nothing no everything politicians)?
Yeah that's actually a good way to describe it. As far as I know no movie has been banned solely for excessive violence, Saw and Pan's Labyrinth were MA15+. It's movies like Wolf Creek and Hostel, with a real sadistic theme that get the R18+ certification.
I wouldn't say there was a concerted assault on gaming in this country, there's a kind of attitude amongst some politicians that people should be doing things other than playing games and that they're a waste of time and make you fat. Also theres a kind of silly, "wisdom of repugnance" attitude at play as well, the Prime Minister is one for assuming that if he thinks something is bad then everyone else would too because we voted for him. Angela Conway from the AFA has made some rash comments in the past but she's more concerned with "big picture" issues and has a pretty liberal attitude on most any subject, except abortion. The only real letdown for gamers and the gaming industry is the lack of support for the industry generally among politicians, there's all sorts of tax breaks for film makers and I think the game industry wants the same treatment.
Electronic Frontiers Australia http://www.efa.org.au/ is our most prominent advocacy group if you're really interested in the state of play here and why its coming to affect other markets there's a treasure trove of material on their site:)

[ZippyDSMlee]

Yeah that's actually a good way to describe it. As far as I know no movie has been banned solely for excessive violence, Saw and Pan's Labyrinth were MA15+. It's movies like Wolf Creek and Hostel, with a real sadistic theme that get the R18+ certification.
I wouldn't say there was a concerted assault on gaming in this country, there's a kind of attitude amongst some politicians that people should be doing things other than playing games and that they're a waste of time and make you fat. Angela Conway from the AFA has made some rash comments in the past but she's more concerned with "big picture" issues and has a pretty liberal attitude on most any subject, except abortion. The only real letdown for gamers and the gaming industry is the lack of support for the industry generally among politicians, there's all sorts of tax breaks for film makers and I think the game industry wants the same treatment.
Electronic Frontiers Australia http://www.efa.org.au/ is our most prominent advocacy group if you're really interested in the state of play here and why its coming to affect other markets there's a treasure trove of material on their site:)

Oh? So its more a multi headed dismissal of gaming as a medium than politicians saying its kids stuff or what not and what to censor it because of ze children(even if thats a part of it its not the main reason why for)?

[MUTANT SPUD]

Oh? So its more a multi headed dismissal of gaming as a medium than politicians saying its kids stuff or what not and what to censor it because of ze children(even if thats a part of it its not the main reason why for)?Politicians don't have a role in censorship other than passing laws, and in this country most of the people criticizing games are lobbyists not elected officials. Below are the links for two of the more conservative groups in Australia, no need to read the whole lot but if you scroll through the headings it gives you an idea of their priorities, cloning,abortion,problem drinking,gambling.
Family First Party
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/html/mediarelease.htm
Australian Family Association
http://www.family.org.au/
Youngmedia seem to have their hats on too tight most of the time, but reading their submission to the Minister they seem to have no idea that 18+ games are being sold as 15+ here, and gaming isn't as big on their list as fast food advertising or the sexualisation of kids in the media.
http://www.youngmedia.org.au/whatsnew/inthenews.htm

[ZippyDSMlee]

Politicians don't have a role in censorship other than passing laws, and in this country most of the people criticizing games are lobbyists not elected officials. Below are the links for two of the more conservative groups in Australia, no need to read the whole lot but if you scroll through the headings it gives you an idea of their priorities, cloning,abortion,problem drinking,gambling.
Family First Party
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/html/mediarelease.htm
Australian Family Association
http://www.family.org.au/
Youngmedia seem to have their hats on too tight most of the time, but reading their submission to the Minister they seem to have no idea that 18+ games are being sold as 15+ here, and gaming isn't as big on their list as fast food advertising or the sexualisation of kids in the media.
http://www.youngmedia.org.au/whatsnew/inthenews.htm

SO its more a fundamentalist movement like our neocons only more impotent? :D

Freeman and to answer your question we that system is one created and maintained mostly by the neo cons and their dim reaper spys :P