There was a small outcry when the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) had refused classification for the game adaptation of "Reservoir Dogs" a few weeks ago, bringing back the focus on our games rating system yet again. The OFLC deemed that Reservoir Dogs had not met Australia's highest rating for games (MA15+) due to its "frequent depictions of violence that have a high impact".
New Zealand, however, does have an R rating for games, but the New Zealand OFLC board has given Reservoir Dogs a classification of "objectionable", meaning that it is an offence for our kiwi friends to import, possess, copy, supply, advertise, exhibit or distribute the game in New Zealand.
The Office of Film and Literature Classification has classified the computer game Reservoir Dogs "objectionable".The Classification Office made this decision because Reservoir Dogs tends to promote and support the infliction of extreme violence and extreme cruelty by encouraging the player to perform, and then by showcasing in slow motion, the most extreme forms of violence and brutality for the purpose of entertainment.
Now where do we aussies import from :(
It's ironic that the film in both countries passed the same censorship boards. Or perhaps in today's climate, the film would have the same restrictions imposed upon it?
I think national censors and those advocating this high degree of censorship are ultimately fighting a losing battle. National borders increasingly mean little and people are becoming more savvy when it comes to securing material that they as adults, feel they have the right to see or experience.
"The player is able to repeat this violence and cruelty ad infinitum and without penalty for the purpose of entertainment."
That seems to be the fundamental basis of their decision, and from what I remember that was also the main reason given for banning of Manhunt (there's a full report available on that decision somewhere on their site).
I would hazard a guess that to the censors the difference between the extreme violence of the film and that of the game is that in the film is well within the context of the plot (ie simply not violence for it's own sake), is non-interactive, and well.. ends.
I'm probably flying in the face of opinon here but I personally don't believe that the censors have been heavy handed. It seems to me to be a fair and well considered decision to label such content 'objectionable'.
It doesn't sound fair to me, it sounds ridiculous.
So what it the game has violence for violence sake. So what it if is "interactive," it's not going to make everyone that plays the game into a psychopath. The game is meant for adults, not little kids - and I doubt it would pervert their minds into savage uncontrolled antisocial killers or just plain old misfits, if they were to play the game.
This ruling is rubbish, and is nothing more than censorship based on political dogma.
"..it's not going to make everyone that plays the game into a psychopath.."
The NZ decision was that the game..
"...tends to promote and support the infliction of extreme violence and extreme cruelty by encouraging the player to perform, and then by showcasing in slow motion, the most extreme forms of violence and brutality for the purpose of entertainment."
As I read it it's the "extreme violence and cruelty" bit that is at the heart of the ruling. Like I said, Manhunt was banned for the same reason. If the game was less extreme in its depiction of violence and cruelty then it almost certainly would not have been banned, as was the case with the GTA games.
Despite the fact that the censors office is a NZ govt body, censorship here is perceived as a social issue, not a political one. Maybe that's a difference between censorship here and in Australia.
Anyway, like I said, just my opinion. Fair play to you CF. Hell, if a game was banned here because it supposedly promoted tagging then maybe I'd feel the same way you do.
My "political dogma" was in relation to the supposed "social issues" being the basis for such rulings. To cut a long explanation short, it is my opinion that the decision is made or influenced by the right-wing conservative fundamentalists in politics on the basis of their style of "ethics" which is dogmatically based.
BTW: I know that this news comment thread is in relation to the New Zealand ruling, but, it was also banned here in Australia and my comments were more in relation to the Land-of-Oz ;).