Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-06-27 06:01:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:atari, australia, banned game, oflc, reservoir dogs

Australia Bans Reservoir Dogs Months Before Release

Australian gamers can now add another title to the list of games they won't be playing.

As reported by APC, Australia's Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) has refused to rate Atari's upcoming Reservoir Dogs, effectively banning it Down Under.

The game, which was scheduled for release later this year, mirrors the plot of the 1992 film, which itself received an R18 rating from the OFLC.

Although games and films use the same rating system in Australia, no R18 rating exists for games; anything stronger than MA15 is simply banned. Though the OFLC cites "medium level violence" and "medium level course language" in their rating of the film, no justification has yet been given for the games failure to achieve a rating. Blitz Games, developer of Reservoir Dogs, have said in the past that it's possible to complete the game without killing anyone.

Atari's PR and Promotions Manager, David Wildgoose, suggests to APC that the publisher will not seek to resubmit an edited version of the game, commenting, "That's the end of the matter."

It certainly seems that way for Australian Reservoir Dogs fans.

- Reporting from increasingly-less-sunny Hobart, GP Australian Correspondent Alex "Mr Ferret" Morris

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...




(Post a new comment)


[info]cooked_sashimi
2006-06-27 01:26 pm UTC (link)
HAHAHAHAA [cough]modchip[cough]import[cough]piracy[cough]

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dustin1986
2006-06-27 05:45 pm UTC (link)
How can you say such a thing! I can't imagine anyone stooping to something so low! ...arr.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]cooked_sashimi
2006-06-28 02:13 am UTC (link)
what do you mean so low? the fact that these are probably the only means that Australian gamers will be able to get their hands on this game?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]chenry
2006-06-30 02:13 pm UTC (link)
it was sarcasm, i believe.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]terminator44
2006-06-27 01:44 pm UTC (link)
Soooooo, it's okay for Austrailians to watch the movie, but not the game (BTW, is the movie very popular over there?)? This anti-game bullshit makes me glad my country has a built in right to free speech, making it harder for moralists to try and ban stuff they don't like.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

it's technically not a ban... sort of
[info]jabrwock
2006-06-27 03:00 pm UTC (link)
Australia doesn't *have* an R18 rating for games, so if it's gorier than M15, the film board can't rate it. And you can't sell it if it hasn't been rated.

So it was more a "we can't classify it" type of situation. Blame the Aussie government rather than their ratings board. The government merged all the ratings systems for movies & games, but refused to allow games to use the R18 & X18 classifiers.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: it's technically not a ban... sort of
[info]ianc14
2006-06-27 03:13 pm UTC (link)
Blame the Aussie government rather than their ratings board. The government merged all the ratings systems for movies & games, but refused to allow games to use the R18 & X18 classifiers.
And everytime the ratings board try to let games get a R18 rating, it gets shot down by the goverment, iirc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: it's technically not a ban... sort of
[info]anticron
2006-06-27 05:29 pm UTC (link)
..because adults can't have adult games.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: it's technically not a ban... sort of
[info]terminator44
2006-06-27 07:23 pm UTC (link)
That they are able to get away with that without huge protests from the public is nothing short of apalling. I mean, the government is showing a blatant double standard for games and nobody is doing anything about it. Like I said before, I grateful for the 1st Amendment.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: it's technically not a ban... sort of
[info]mattaugamer
2006-07-04 03:10 pm UTC (link)
Sigh. Thank you, Mr Ignorant.

First of all, you can be as grateful as you want for the First Amendment. The right to Freedom of Speech is NOT a United States Bill of Rights exclusive, it's a standard world wide civil right. And one Australia does enjoy.

The Right To Freedom Of Speech does not guarantee the Right To Actually Be Listened To, though.

The constitution of neither the United States nor ANY other country guarantees the Right To The Law Not Showing Double Standards In Censorship Issues.

There IS protest from the public on this issue. More specifically, there is protest from gamers. However, many people in the public will never know this game never came. Because... it never came.

The media will not rock the boat on this issue for two reasons. First of all, it's just not interesting. Secondly, it's just not interesting. Mainstream Australia, much like mainstream US, simply does not care.

Finally, the issue here is far more complex than what you have boiled it down to "them" "getting away with" it. The OFLC (which my website AustralianGamer.com interviewed on a similar rating issue with the Hot Coffee mod) does not establish the rules under which games are banned. They simply allocate the classifications within the existing classification system. There is simply no classification that they can apply.

There would need to be a whole new rating created for games. There IS provision for that to be done. I've been trying to find the exact guidelines, but I haven't been able to, so I'll go from memory. Basically, the decision to add the rating has to be approved by five out of the seven state governors, and then finally approved by the governor general, who has veto powers.

If you can imagine a proposal in the US to allow video games to be MORE violent being passed by 43 of the state governors and THEN ratified by the President... think it through.

What sort of "huge protests from the public" do you expect to see here? People carrying placards saying "We Want Mr Pink", or "Australian Gamers Getting Up". (Mark Ekko's Getting Up was similarly refused classification.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: it's technically not a ban... sort of
[info]nigel_aus
2006-06-28 06:15 am UTC (link)
Its a ban, if it refused classification, its banned for sale.

As for the ratings board, the just do their job, there are rules set down for what is allowed and what isn't. If you are getting peeved by this, write your politicans and senators (good luck with Family First holding the balance of power) and let them know. It was Johnnies call after the last review when the rating board said they needed an R rating, so as the voting public we brought it on ourselves.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]chenry
2006-06-27 02:51 pm UTC (link)
I like how the game website says that it will answer the unanswered questions from the movie; like what happened to Mr. Blue, where are the diamonds... etc...

What about "who shot nice guy eddie"??!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

The answer is... (SPOILERS!)
[info]dog_welder
2006-06-27 06:51 pm UTC (link)
Mr. White.

I had to freeze frame and slow motion the final scene multiple times to see it all, but here's how it all breaks down...

1. Big Joe shoots Mr. Orange.
2. Mr. White shoots Big Joe.
3. Mr. White wheels around and shoots Nice Guy Eddie at the same time Nice Guy Eddie shoots Mr. White.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: The answer is... (SPOILERS!)
[info]dog_welder
2006-06-28 01:59 am UTC (link)
I forgot to point this out...

There are many people who believe that there was a "mystery shooter" who actually shoots Nice Guy Eddie. This is due to a technical problem they had during shooting when Chris Penn's blood squibs fired off a bit too soon. According to those in the know, there was no mystery shooter.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: The answer is... (SPOILERS!)
[info]chenry
2006-06-30 02:09 pm UTC (link)
lol i knew all that alreayd :P

(Reply to this) (Parent)

At least they...
[info]elricbrother3
2006-06-27 02:52 pm UTC (link)
Did'nt tie it to a chair, put gas on it and cut a corner off while the song "Stuck in the middle with you" was playing. :p

(Reply to this)


[info]crimson_mage
2006-06-27 02:59 pm UTC (link)
Did the OFLC misspell "coarse" as "course?" Is that just how they spell it down under or is it a typo? If not either of those, I guess it makes them illiterate as well as fascists. Censorship is disgusting.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]glassandahalf
2006-06-28 01:46 am UTC (link)
no, its a typo from the reporter, we spell it coarse here too

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Told ya so!
[info]andrew_eisen
2006-06-27 05:25 pm UTC (link)
GP's Eisen Names E3's Most Controversial Games

Reservoir Dogs - If you've seen the movie, you know there's going to be a lot of violence towards cops. And 25 to Life showed how politically disastrous that can be for the game industry. Based on E3 previews, Reservoir Dogs has two play styles: psycho (kill everyone in your path) and professional (don't kill anyone). Check out Gamespot's preview for a gameplay video detailing all of the ear-slicing fun.


Andrew Eisen

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Told ya so!
[info]dustin1986
2006-06-27 05:47 pm UTC (link)
The Reservoir Dogs film can be bought in any store in Australia without a problem, but the game based on it is banned from the entire country. Wow, Australia, you're logic is absolutely flawless.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Told ya so!
[info]semperar
2006-06-27 07:32 pm UTC (link)
Outright bans, too. Do we have many of those in the US? We have restrictions, but rarely BANS.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Told ya so!
[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-27 08:00 pm UTC (link)
First Amendment sort of gets in the way of governmental bans on expression.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jaketheelf
2006-06-27 06:50 pm UTC (link)
Damn you, censors! I was looking forward to that game! Back to piracy.

(Reply to this)


[info]theshroomguy
2006-06-27 07:09 pm UTC (link)
Realy im not surprised they are the ones that banned gta after all.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]glassandahalf
2006-06-28 01:46 am UTC (link)
they just made gta get modified for release.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

It's just as well...
[info]terminator44
2006-06-27 07:20 pm UTC (link)
Considering that it's a movie tie-in game, the odds are that it will totally suck.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: It's just as well...
[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-27 07:33 pm UTC (link)
THAT is true.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]chenry
2006-06-30 02:11 pm UTC (link)
from the gameplay videos i've seen, it doesn't look very good. The movements are kind of clunky, weapon handeling looks about as realistic as pamela anderson's breasts (yes i went there)...

maybe if they have the actors do the voices. But even then. Meh.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]i_love_catgirls
2006-06-27 07:59 pm UTC (link)
Why is the Australian government so socially conservative? I read on Wikinews that they're planning some sort of internet censorship program to help "protect families" and some sort of anti-gay marriage movement.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kyhwana
2006-06-27 11:01 pm UTC (link)
They've had the internet censorship program for a while now.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]terminator44
2006-06-28 01:36 am UTC (link)
Internet censorship? What's that about, and how would they be able to regulate the Net?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

There is NOT an internet censorship program.
[info]darkbhudda
2006-06-28 02:05 am UTC (link)
No they haven't.

They are talking about ISP content filtering, but besides trialling it in Tassie, they aren't actually doing it. There is some discussion whether there is an opt-in option or not. It is very costly and technically unworkable solution.

Doesn't surprise me though, in Canberra where all the federal politicians live, marijuana, pornographic movies and escorts are all legal. They'll probably end up being the only place unfilterted internet is legal too.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: There is NOT an internet censorship program.
[info]terminator44
2006-06-28 11:48 am UTC (link)
Doesn't surprise me though, in Canberra where all the federal politicians live, marijuana, pornographic movies and escorts are all legal.

Are you fucking kidding me? Even though these politicians are banning all kinds of things to "protect the children", they get to have that stuff anyway? Time for a revolution.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]grimm24
2006-06-27 09:27 pm UTC (link)
Can't say im suprised considering how Austrlia has picked up the whole liberal censorship task over the years.

(Reply to this)

wait... what?
[info]vansau
2006-06-27 09:33 pm UTC (link)
I thought Eidos was publishing this game. It was in their showroom at E3...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: wait... what?
[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-27 09:49 pm UTC (link)
it is Eidos' game. But apparently Atari is handling the Aussie distribution.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: wait... what?
[info]vansau
2006-06-27 10:09 pm UTC (link)
Man, Atari just can't seem to catch a break down there, can they? First Marc Ecko and now this...

*snicker*

I'd feel bad for them if the games were actually any good... :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]chenry
2006-06-30 02:11 pm UTC (link)
yeah... maybe they should stop picking lousy games lol.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Hey blame the govt. not us
[info]holdenrulz
2006-06-28 01:46 am UTC (link)
Firstly can you stop with the whole bagging of all of australia, it's more the fact our prime minister John Howard(similar to the U.S president)has been in office I believe since the 1980's(5x 4 years terms I believe and I believe he's now into his 70's) and his political party hold the majority in the senate so they've changed into useless rubber stampers,

And that is the problem as we are having all this bull legislation passed through the senate like removing unfair dismissal laws, The problem is our constitution(yes we have one)protects the right to political speech only, frankly our constitution has very little protected rights and we have no bill of rights as it was assumed by our founders that nobody would be stupid enough to try anything like this or would be stopped by the public but sadly the other policital parties are no better :(

@crismon_mage that was a typo by the OFCL as we spell things both the english way being part of the commonwealth and the "american way" e.g. both colour and color are acceptable ;)

Stupid Little Johnny censoring my video games

And the whole gay marriage thing was because the state where the federal govt. is, decided to enable "homosexual union laws" basically John Howard and his conservative buddy's decided it was a threat to the sanctity of marriage and as federal laws overrule state laws he passed a law against it, Ironic considering he's a member of the "Liberal Party" which is conservative compared to the liberal "Labor Party"

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Hey blame the govt. not us
[info]terminator44
2006-06-28 11:59 am UTC (link)
I hope you're not refering to my posts. I am not blaming the Australian people for their situation, I agree that it is the government's fault. However, not drawing up a bill of rights was short-sighted and irresponsible, as it leaves no deterrent to fundamentalists to enact such bullshit once they seize power (and eventually they will at one point). Look at America. Sure, politicians try the same stuff regularly, but they are always stopped because we have a built-in right to free speech that cannot be circumvented. Also, Australia has states?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Hey blame the govt. not us
[info]holdenrulz
2006-06-29 11:36 pm UTC (link)
no it wasn't directed just at you but the generalisations in general(that sounds weird) As on the bill of rights thing yeah it's a bad idea at the moment not to have one but we've never needed one before, I think the assumtion by our founders was that should it get to the point where we need one we'll enact one rather than setting up a bill of rights that could become outdated and not protect all. And yes Australia does have states: Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania + 2 territories The Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory
Shocking I know :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Press release is avaliable
[info]nigel_aus
2006-06-28 06:24 am UTC (link)
Press release is now avaliable http://www.oflc.gov.au/resource.html?resource=858&filename=858.pdf

It seems like the fact that you can take/excute hostages and torture them didn't go down to well with the OFLC. I'm guessing they have a problem with the fact that they are "innocents". You can blow enemy heads off in Soldier of Fortune 2, you can torture people in the Punisher, but together this leads to a ban.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]chenry
2006-06-30 02:13 pm UTC (link)
Yup. You can use innocent bystanders as human shields, smack their heads into things (like plate-glass windows), and blow their brains out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]themanymasks
2006-06-28 07:23 am UTC (link)
Stupid Liberal Party. Stupid John Howard not allowing a R18+ rating for games. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Not that I particularly care about this game, but I still think it's downright stupid.

Hey... David Wildgoose is Atari's PR guy? Sweet... I see he went on to bigger things after leaving as PC Powerplay's editor. At least, I think that qualifies as bigger. He probably gets paid more.

And yes, it is getting less and less sunny down here in Hobart. Damn this island state, and its lack of sun...

(Reply to this)


[info]here7ic
2006-07-05 09:57 pm UTC (link)
Well that sucks ass...

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…