IGN AU have a report up outlining what was altered for Fallout 3 to finally receive its MA15+ rating here in Australia.

According to the official OFLC report, and as we suspected, the biggest change has come in the renaming of the game's drugs, although from the official wording it would also appear the physical (and visual) act of using said chemicals has also changed.

"The drugs depicted are fictional; drugs are depicted as stylised icons on a menu with the drug use itself not depicted. Whilst navigating a post-apocalyptic futuristic landscape, players can invoke the use of a variety of "chems" listed by fictitious names
which include "Buff", "Rad-X", "Psycho" and "Ultrajet". Within the context of the game's narrative, the player may choose to make use of these "chems" to alter the physiological characteristics of their character in the game."

Another point to make is the minority report still didn't agree with the classification outlining that the board, while wholly approving the game, weren't all in agreement. This statement outlines that portion:

In the minority view of the Board the drug use in the game is in excess of the general rule applied under the Guidelines. The drugs are unambiguous in their visual representations, which include pills and hypodermic needles, and are related to incentives and rewards in that the incentive to take the drug is that progress through the game is achieved more easily and the reward is an increase in the character's abilities. The game therefore warrants and 'RC' classification.

So I guess movies like Requiem For A Dream or Cheech and Chong should never have seen the light of day in Australia either. Ah well, at least we're finally going to see this hit store-shelves this October. (On a side, how much does the character in the pic supplied look like Chuck Norris?!)

Yeah, because Requiem for a Dream really glamourised heroin.

They all crashed pretty hard in that one. That's not to say that there aren't plenty of films that do glamourise drug use though.

Also, both Requiem For A Dream and Up In Smoke were rated "R". So, i think you missed the point.

no, that IS my point - by the OFLC's gaming standard, neither of those films should have been released, but they were because they were GIVEN and R18+ rating, which is why games need to be co-classified alongside films, they're both art

I think crank glorifies drugs and that was a great movie. I still can't figure out what their problem is, because you do something in a game means that you'll go and do it in rl...hell if you banned games in general. With that in mind the crazies will still get their ideas from another source (movies, books, idiots on the street), crazy people is what the problem is...not the games.

Art? That'll depend on your definition I think.

I'm all for an R-rating, but I don't think there is any need for a game to be R-rated. I can't think of a game that has lost anything due to being rated MA, rather than R. In fact I think a lot of the time the R-rated content is more for the controversy than for any artistic vision.

I'm all for an R-rating, but I don't think there is any need for a game to be R-rated. I can't think of a game that has lost anything due to being rated MA, rather than R

I agree that I can't think of a game that has lost any worth due to being rated MA.

To be honest, my main issue with the current system and its lack of an R rating is that too many games are being rated too low.

GTA 4 should not be an MA15+ game, 15 year olds really shouldn't be able to buy it. It should be an R rated 18+ title here in Australia and should be labeled as such so that parents know that it's a game that children should not be playing.

I disagree. Manhunt is a game that won't even be attempted a release here because of the lack of an R18+ rating, and one of the reasons games aren't being treated in the same fashion as movies is because they are not considered art, to which I would also disagree. BioShock was art, Fallout 3 looks like art, Okami was art (and just as is the case in films, you take the art with the crap).

I'm not saying every game should immediately be rated R18+, but I'm saying, if the fall back from a precarious MA15+ is an R18+, then given most gamers in Australia are over the age of 18, there really wouldn't be a problem and games would be released to us, as they were intended to be...

I'm not going to argue the point of if games are art or not, but games are not the same as movies, just like books aren't the same as movies. A Tom Clancy novel can be pretty violent, but a 15 year old can buy it (atleast i've never seen a restriction on one). A movie with that level of violence would be R-18. The whole issue the OFLC seems to have with drug use is to not encourage or glorify it. I think with violence and sex is more to do with whats deemed appropriate for the age group. Plus a movie demonstrating it is a lot different to a game that has the player do something. I'd say that an equivalent level of violence in a game has the potential for far more harm than the equivalent in a movie. And I'd say that goes for other content as well.

I don't think games are art in the same way that movies are, because i think movies can be more than entertainment and I don't think games can be. Or rather no game I've played I'd consider so. I've never put down a game and gone, "wow that was deep". So if games are just entertainment, then they shouldn't be treated the same way. And if games are art, then so is an episode of Wipeout.

Requiem For A Dream shouldnt of been allowed to be released in australia purely on teh basis that a friend told me was awesome and there was this great scene (ass to ass anyone) so i hired it out at the video store. had he told me that the rest of the movie would make me vomit and give me nightmares i would of never of ever gone there.

sure you could blame me for not reading up on it first, or you could blame my friend for not giving me all the details... but lets blame the oflc.

*please note the above contents of this post is slightly offtopic and not intended to contribute to the point steve or others are making in this thread*



on a more "on topic" note im glad the game is getting released in australia even if it is watered down. however ill still be ordering from overseas... stupid oflc wont be ruining fallout franchise for me... i didnt let them ruin fallout 2 and killing children and i wont let them ruin fallout 3.

But by your definition of art you're saying something needs to be deep, I think of a movie like The Matrix or The Killer or Hard Boiled as art for their visual differences to the norm. My definition of art means a game like BioShock or Okami are equally artistic. I think it's unfair to creatively ardent developer or designer to simply backseat their effort as nothing more than entertainment because games aren't passive. If anything, games being interactive should be embraced as art in progression with the right game pushing the boundary

If games are art then you would need to agree that books are art, and that the Rubix Cube is also art.

It depends on what you define as art I suppose.


Anyway, even though the changes aren't all that bad, in some ways renaming the drugs to Psycho and Jet falls in line with the older Fallout series. Does anyone know if you can smoke ciggies in Fallout 3? you could in the Fallout 2, it didn't give any buffs, it hurt and you could get addicted hehe.

Also the drugs in this game do have a negative impact, addiction and negative stats when your coming down, but they sort of skip over that bit and just focus on the 'buffs' you get from them.

Still in the end, with the prices of games sold in Australia compared to those sold elsewhere, it is silly not to import really.

You got extra EVE at the cost of Health in BioShock for smoking or drinking, but you could still do it

But by your definition of art you're saying something needs to be deep, I think of a movie like The Matrix or The Killer or Hard Boiled as art for their visual differences to the norm. My definition of art means a game like BioShock or Okami are equally artistic. I think it's unfair to creatively ardent developer or designer to simply backseat their effort as nothing more than entertainment because games aren't passive. If anything, games being interactive should be embraced as art in progression with the right game pushing the boundary

Does simply having a creative element make it art? Is a movie poster art? Is a billboard for Snickers art?

I didn't say the interactive nature made games not art, I said the fact that they are purely entertainment makes them not art. Bioshock could probably count as art as it wasn't particularly entertaining.

Does simply having a creative element make it art? Is a movie poster art? Is a billboard for Snickers art?

Its a subjective definition but generally, yes.

The people producing the commercial media you note are usually referred to as the 'art department'.

For the record (I think I mentioned it in another thread), they're not called the OFLC anymore, just the 'Classification Board'.

GTA 4 should not be an MA15+ game, 15 year olds really shouldn't be able to buy it. It should be an R rated 18+ title here in Australia and should be labeled as such so that parents know that it's a game that children should not be playing.

This is where the discussion should end. Whether games are art or not has no real bearing on if they should have an R rating and indeed it has no bearing on why movies are given an R rating so it's not even a topic worth discussing.

The reason we need an R rating is to protect kids from the amazing amount of poor parenting that goes on in this country. I know 8 year olds that have GTA4, that's f***ed up.

i think you are getting side tracked by the "games are art" issue.

An R18+ rating is required for games simply because currently there isn't one. Not having one doesn't stop people getting the games, if anything it makes them more popular. any kid can jump on the internet and, if not-savy enough to grab it from a torrent, can easily purchase banned games online.

I purchased GTA4 online and got it posted out to me. When I received it it had been checked by customs and passed on, ie, importing uncensored versions of computer games is currently below their radar.

The lack of rating means that when someone underage gets that game, their parents can't easily identify what it is/should be rated in Australia. Instead we have a system where the uncut version can be purchased overseas cheaper and earlier then it is released in Australia.

In addition, the games rating system in Australia is extremely poorly ran. Game rating recommendations are written by the Australian distributor, whose extremely bias opinion revolving around maximising access to their product results in recommendations that are extremely poor. Further enabling the access of adult content to minors.

Furthermore, with the average Australian gamer age being 28, why shouldn't adults be able to decide what content they wish to consume? I can watch movies, read books and visit websites that show and document illegal behavior. I am old enough to be treated like an adult in all areas of the law, yet I still get handled like a child when it comes with computer games.

last edited by ara at 15:46:51 15/Aug/08

that's because when it comes to computer games, you ARE a child

still slap you around in quake old man.

The reason we need an R rating is to protect kids from the amazing amount of poor parenting that goes on in this country. I know 8 year olds that have GTA4, that's f***ed up.

Actually, thats a one reason to not have an MA15 rating. As in, all games over a M rating should be RC. Prevent them getting into the market in the first place. And probably one reason why there isn't an R rating.

An R18+ rating is required for games simply because currently there isn't one. Not having one doesn't stop people getting the games, if anything it makes them more popular. any kid can jump on the internet and, if not-savy enough to grab it from a torrent, can easily purchase banned games online.

Bittorrent clearly gives access to a lot of unrated material not just games, but I can't see how a kid can purchase a game online.

the government should protect us from our own stupidity and genetic deficiencies!

An R rating won't have a negative impact on an industry though, RC for MA+ titles would be pretty devastating to the gaming industry in this country, particularly local retailers. On top of that the idea is to encourage better parenting, not to further restrict the adult gaming population.

Yeah and then with better parenting you get into the nature versus nurture controversy. But we won't go there.

Why cant our polititions just understand that the game is intended for adults? Not everything created these days are supposed to be subjected to children. If they are so scared that it will find its way into a paw of a child then really why are we worrying? This happens everyday with children and porn, violent movies and drugs and alcohol. Seriously, i dont think a game would hurt.

Even if there was an R rating you would still see local games cut down to match an M15 rating.

No publsher/distributor would want an R18+ if it was available. Beyond the fact you would instantly knock off a massive portion of your market, even if it was released (in a fantasy world of R+ ratings) *every* publisher would ensure their title was M15+ or less. Think about it, beyond knocking off the most profitable market, you now have no retail space - you cannot even show an m15 title let alone sell it. Even if this changes and you can sell R titles you cant show it, and cant show = doesnt sell.

BTW ara has no idea about how things are rated, the people running the system here actually do have a very good grasp of the whole situation, but that is for another thread, be thankful we dont ave esrb here

No publsher/distributor would want an R18+ if it was available. Beyond the fact you would instantly knock off a massive portion of your market, even if it was released (in a fantasy world of R+ ratings) *every* publisher would ensure their title was M15+ or less. Think about it, beyond knocking off the most profitable market, you now have no retail space - you cannot even show an m15 title let alone sell it. Even if this changes and you can sell R titles you cant show it, and cant show = doesnt sell.

You can't show them? What like all the R rated movies they have sitting on the shelves of DVD retailers like JBs? You know, the R rated movies they clearly show and you can clearly purchase? I imagine it costs a lot more to edit a game then it does to edit a movie and when they edit a movie it is usually done for a much broader market then Australia. If they don't have to edit a game for our market then I'm pretty sure they won't bother doing it just to drop a rating.

Not to mention what a lot of people are hoping comes from a higher level of rating is that our current top rating (MA15+) would have much stricter criteria meaning an even bigger effort/cost to meet it.

18 to 24 is the gaming market. R is prime. Below that its mum can i have this for my birthday?

Only way to fix this is to vote with your wallet and import your games. Once local industry begins to suffer then people will listen. Common sense isn't what makes them listen.