That seems about right?
Is this meant to be controversial?
A good step, but it's still fucking stupid any game can be banned for drug use.
It was Refused Classification on the based of heavy drug use, but they seem to have granted it clemency as long its labelled as heavy drug use I think
“The Games Guidelines state that computer games that exceed the R18+ classification category will be Refused Classification. If the Games Guidelines did not contain this restriction in its current form, then We Happy Few would have received an MA 15+ classification.”
Whoever said this is....I love you.
I hope this sets the precedent for future Games, at least for rating them.
There should be a classification in australia over 18, no game (except for very extreme cases) should be banned.
No game should be banned period, thats why R18 exists
R18+ is, well, R18+; 18 and over.
18+ is supposed to be the be all end all, but our classifications board are imbeciles
TBH the only way a game should be banned is if it uses stolen assets or contains outright illegal content (ie child pornography) otherwise no matter how depraved it may be (RapeLay) it should be the consumer's decision.
Clearly it isn't since games like this have almost been banned, and many games have been censored specifically for the australian market.
It seems, at least to me, like the people actually in charge of classifying games didn't agree with the creation of the R18+ rating, and seem intent to avoid using it whenever possible.
It feels like half the time the R18+ rating is used for games that could easily have received an MA15+, and the other half it gets banned or heavily censored, with the game receiving an MA15+ anyway, making the R18+ rating entirely worthless.
That's what I mean, what's the bloody point of having an R18+ rating if you are going to ban perfectly legal games anyways.
The reason that the ratings are all over the place probably has to do with the fact that they're interactive. With a movie, it's limited to the run time of the film and the context of the content. With a video game, it relies on user interaction, and the reason the people rating the games give out bans to video games is that they think that someone might be influenced, even in the slightest, by the behavior of the character(s) on screen.
Except they then go and ban for things that happen in cutscenes the player has no control over, like the two actors on a film set simulating rape in Hotline Miami 2.
I'm willing to bet if it was in a film, it would still get an R18+ rating.
That's the point, there's movies that feature sexual assault and get rated, then a game does it in a non-intersctive way and they say it's way worse and refuse to give it a rating altogether, banning it from sale in the country entirely.
I wonder if gearbox had to pay for a review
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
