PC, Xbox 360 and PS3 game, F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin, has been refused classification because of high-impact violence. It brings the total number of banned games this year to five, making 2008 the worst year for game bans according to Refused-Classification.com (and it’s not even over yet).
GameSpot obtained the ACB’s report:
“The violence is considered highly impactful in such scenes as where Michael uses his sub machine gun to explicitly bisect an enemy, the two parts of the body lying separately on the ground, with copious blood spray. There are also a number of explicit close range decapitations involving both human and mutant creatures. The decapitations are the result of close-up throat slashing from behind and close-up gunshots to the throat,” the Board report says.
“All violence results in large blood spray: there are blood-stained interiors and blood sprays onto objects, including the camera lens. With weapons such as sniper rifles, bodies can be torn apart at close range, limbs are seen flying off and the wounded flesh is reduced to a bloody pulp. The use of nail-guns pins victims to a wall before they fall to the ground in a bloody mass. The scenes often have blood soaked walls and floors and the victims’ bodies do not always disappear.”
As Clive Hamilton said earlier this year, there is no censorship worth noting in Australia. Yeah, right Clive.
16 comments
Josh Stewart says:
Dec 2, 2008
Man, now I really want to play this game!
Australian video game censorship: Does it work? - The Technology Liberation Front says:
Dec 2, 2008
[...] about censorship developments on the other side of the globe!) This week, Mike reports that another video game (”F.E.A.R. 2″) was refused classification by the Australian government’s Classification Board. Apparently, the “refused [...]
alphamone says:
Dec 2, 2008
Something tells me that Clive Hamilton doesn’t erealy care about video games at all.
Spikeles says:
Dec 2, 2008
Huh, sounds like F.E.A.R, GTA3(shooting heads off with sniper anyone?), Soldier of Fortune 2(go use a pistol on a dead person), heck, what about Fallout 3?
I don’t mind violence in games, as a seemingly well adjusted 20 something year old gamer i very much doubt that a violent game is going to make me suddenly go postal and kill everyone Port Douglas style, but still.. the question in my mind is.. “Is this violence required to tell the story in a compelling way?”.. Probably not. You don’t need gory violence to tell a good story, so i wonder why it was put in there?
Bob Bain says:
Dec 2, 2008
With regards to violence in games remember this once a person turns 18 years old they can be enlisted into the armed forces sent to an overseas destination and be told to kill (or be killed).
This has been the fate of many over the years from at least World War I where many recruits into the Air Force were young and inexperienced and many of them died in combat unpreprared for the realities and horrors of war.
To suggest that an 18 year old should be “protected” from images of violence in games ignores the realities of what their government can require them to do for real.
In VietNam it wasn’t an option – either in Australia nor in the United States.
Bob
Dylan says:
Dec 2, 2008
@Spikeles – Sometimes the gore is needed… the whole point of the game is how scary it is. Without that kind of visual horror/gore then the game looses alot of its impact. It’s the same kind of stuff you see in horror movies however they are free to pass through without being banned.
I partly agree with the OFLC’s decision though, the game definitely should not be allowed through when they don’t have access to a R rating. Definitely doesn’t fit into the M category.
d.
Jarrod says:
Dec 2, 2008
I have lost all respect for the OFLC they are so inconsistent when rating games and movies. Ninja Gaiden 2, is probably one of the most goriest games i’ve ever seen and it still crept through unaltered with a MA15+ rating. Plenty of horror films rated MA15+ (Saw series for example, is way more violent/gruesome than some of the games that had been banned). The big controversy according to the OFLC about Fallout 3 was not the graphic violence but rather the fact that they named a drug in the game after the real life drug Morphine.
We need this R18+ Rating more then ever and also the OFLC needs to be replaced with more competent and consisent raters.
I never really got into FEAR but how long will it be until a game i like (Resident Evil 5 maybe) gets banned.
Icaria says:
Dec 2, 2008
Spikeles: ““Is this violence required to tell the story in a compelling way?”.. Probably not. You don’t need gory violence to tell a good story, so i wonder why it was put in there?”
To be honest, I don’t really understand your reasoning. Asking ‘do you need … ?’ of a writer or designer is ultimately moot as we don’t *need* what they’re creating at all.
Attaching necessity to justify content is ultimately a personal judgement of the subjective qualities of the art-form. As such, asking ‘do you need gore to tell a good story?’ is no more or less relevant than asking ‘do you need to tell a story?’ or ‘do you need to make a videogame at all?’.
Prukinski says:
Dec 2, 2008
Spikeles: ““You don’t need gory violence to tell a good story, so i wonder why it was put in there?”
Because the F.E.A.R. games draw heavily upon the visual language and ideas found in Japanese horror films, which are often chock full of gore and huge sprays of blood. So, really, your question is like asking why you need to make a western with guns, a drama with conflict, or a comedy with jokes. It’s part of the genre, and it’s a genre that is suffering more and more thanks to our lack of an R18+ rating. They already refused classification for Silent Hill 5 this year and you can bet they will refuse it for an increasing number of horror titles in the future.
Also: stories are only one aspect of computer games. Games will often tell a story, but if their primary purpose isn’t to be a story telling medium. If it was we’d all have a hard time trying to explain the existence of puzzle games.
Leroy says:
Dec 3, 2008
For Christ’s sake… This is just plain pathetic. The OFLC are so bloody two-faced.
I’d hate to see what they would do to the censored version of Manhunt 2.
SkipEU says:
Dec 3, 2008
Why just not introduce R18+ rating? Australia is one of the rare developed countries that iin 21st century still ban games and movies to protect adults.
Joyce says:
Dec 4, 2008
SkipEU: We almost had an R18+ rating introduced. Except one guy voted against it. Sucks, huh?
AileenWuornos says:
Jan 12, 2009
““The violence is considered highly impactful in such scenes as where Michael uses his sub machine gun to explicitly bisect an enemy, the two parts of the body lying separately on the ground, with copious blood spray. There are also a number of explicit close range decapitations involving both human and mutant creatures. The decapitations are the result of close-up throat slashing from behind and close-up gunshots to the throat,” the Board report says.”
Well, what do they seriously think someone shot with a submachine gun is going to look like? A couple of red dots and a nice little period sized puddle of blood? I don’t think so.
I find it HILARIOUSLY frustrating that games like this are banned and yet the Australian Defense force is able to spend billions of dollars on advertising to get people to do this kind of thing FOR REAL.
erik speers says:
Jan 13, 2009
you guys should just move to america we can actually play these games w/o all the bans.
3lood says:
May 11, 2009
Well i will just say that i’ve senn a 14 year old boy play this game completely F.E.A.Rless :p and he never got any kind of mental unstability…take me as an example too, i haven’t reached the age rated to the game…18 and stores who sells these games don’t care about the age of their customers…they just want the money…rating the games are a waste of time and money ‘cuz sellers just go for the money and not by age ratings.
3lood says:
May 11, 2009
By the way…if they can’t get them down under they will just order it over the web…