Upcoming RPG Risen Smacked by Australian Banhammer
Upcoming RPG Risen Smacked by Australian Banhammer
August 10, 2009
The upcoming role-playing game Risen has become the latest victim of Australia's flawed game content rating system.
Refused Classification reports that Australia's classification board has declined to assign a rating to the game, which is being developed by Piranha Bytes. The board's action makes Risen the third game of 2009 to be RC'd Down Under; the others are 1C's first-person shooter Necrovision and something called Sexy Poker.
In the U.S. market, Risen has been rated M (17+) by the ESRB. Australia, however, has no rating higher than MA15+, which means that any title judged not suitable for a 15-year-old is effectively banned. Australian gamers have been lobbying their government unsuccessfully for an R18+ rating for several years.
The classification refusal might not be the final word, however. Risen could be edited by its creators enough to slip by Australian censors. This approach has worked for other games, most recently Necrovision.
Risen is scheduled for October release on Xbox 360 and PC. The website R18+ is a useful source for information about the ongoing Australian content rating debate.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:22pm
Valdearg: @AE: And that's fine. Official "Church" functions are fine, despite the fact that it's discrimination, it's what I guess I would consider "acceptable" discrimination, despite the fact that I hate to use "acceptable" to define it.
Valdearg: @AE: And that's fine. Official "Church" functions are fine, despite the fact that it's discrimination, it's what I guess I would consider "acceptable" discrimination, despite the fact that I hate to use "acceptable" to define it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:21pm
Valdearg: What's stopping someone from working with the church to declare a Catholic Corporation, that would retain it's "right" to discriminate against non-Catholics?
Valdearg: What's stopping someone from working with the church to declare a Catholic Corporation, that would retain it's "right" to discriminate against non-Catholics?
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:20pm
Valdearg: Let me ask you this. What defines something as "catholic"? There are Catholic Schools, Churchs, Charities, and even law firms.
Valdearg: Let me ask you this. What defines something as "catholic"? There are Catholic Schools, Churchs, Charities, and even law firms.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:20pm
Andrew Eisen: Indeed. You can restrict the membership of your private club however you see fit. However, a business can't refuse to hire someone based on sexual orientation.
Andrew Eisen: Indeed. You can restrict the membership of your private club however you see fit. However, a business can't refuse to hire someone based on sexual orientation.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Wow, that just sucks.
I have a free room for rent if any aussies wanna move to Canada.
I might just take you up on that...
This is the sequel to the Gothic series iirc, isn't it? So, because you can smoke wood reefer and contract women of ill repute for certain services, the game is out...
Fucking Atkinson (the attorney general standing in the way of an R18+ rating) is such a fundie douche pagoda...
Its more like a combo of cryisis/far cry and FO3.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
More like a Myst-ish mod for Oblivion. I hope the narrative excels because by the looks of the video, the combat and the graphics are nowhere near the Crysis-like expectations I had. The little bit of voice acting was well done though.
I'm on dail up till the weekend so I can;t really research it but from the few pictures I saw it had guns on a island thus the cryisis/far cry comparasion.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
No, the original poster was right, this is the spiritual successor to the Gothic games.
where do they get off telling people what they can and cant buy Im not australian but I think they should have the right to buy what they like.
Of course it's going to be edited to pass Aussie censors.
The million dollar question is "will those edits make it into the international releases?"
---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
Hopefully, unlike with Fallout 3, this company has enough sense to not do that.
This will keep happening as more and more companies keep changing the content for different countries. Unfortunately, the dollar signs always win. What will eventually happen is countries will ask for more and more changes that have nothing to do with anything other than the fact they know they have the power to ask for (and get) changes made to game content. "We in the country of Australia do not like the Barbarian class in Diablo 3, change it or we will refuse classification. Oh, and make the art more gothic."
The video game industry is doing a great job of enabling these twits, so don't blame the politicians. It would be refreshing to see companies just not release the games in these countries. I'm sure a few popular enough games would have a nice negative impact on retail sales in Australia. Eventually, they'll expand the ratings. Keep caving in and there is no reason for them to do so. The industry is giving these governments credibilty because the politicians can claim victory in their fight against improper content by forcing the content to change. Not a brilliant long term strategy for the game industry for a few extra bucks today.
The industry "taking their ball home" would be very poor business sense - it's much easier to change the content as required (Taking a few programmers X hours) and get some sales than to give up on a country's classification system (Heck, Mariah Carey has albums in the Middle East, it just required changing the cover art to be more modest). I believe the politicians as in this instance would ultimately agree that the lack of an 18+ rating (You know, the one that most countries around the world have) is poor in the long term and requires effort on their part to correct.
Australia, however, has no rating higher than MA15+, which means that any title judged not suitable for a 15-year-old is effectively banned. Australian gamers have been lobbying their government unsuccessfully for an R18+ rating for several years.
I don't understand why they don't have one. What if there wasn't one for 18 C movies? Did movies not have to fight for one in the past 50 years in some countries?
I hope more games won't be censored world wide to appease one country's censorship board.
I'm surprised we haven't seen MORE levels of censoreship yet. I'm kind of expecting either Germany of Australia to pass a law that says ALL offending video games entering the country may be seized and replaced with the local, censored version.
---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
The game is being made in Germany, by the studio that made the Gothic games, which are insanely popular in Germany. And there, this is rated for 12 year olds and up.
There isn't that much gore in the game, obviously. Just swearing, drug use, and likely some kind of nudity. Brutality is at the normal RPG level. You die by the sword.
Necrovision has gore on the level of UT04 and unreal or undying. I still don't quite get why it got whacked but bioshock passed with flying colors and fallout 3 had morphine removed...
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Odd. I was only saying earlier today how wierd it is that a country should be so shy of violence whilst, at the same time inventing fun and interesting ways of making cane-toads explode...
We've inherited the British trait of being secretly ashamed of ourselves.
And keeping the Queen on your money. We chose slave-owners for the most part.
LOL I think it's more 'embarassed for our Government', since they seem incapable of it, so, we sort of empathically do it for them...
I'll have you know I slaughter Cane Toads on sight for reasons other than the fact that they kinda explode when whacked hard enough. I take no joy in....
You know what, fuck it. It's kinda fun having to knock them off so that they don't kill any animals that originate here.
Mask don't give them any ideas. 0_0
Apparently, in Australia, adults don't play videogames. Or at least their government thinks they don't.
If they do edit they need yto add soemthign ot the opening screen and loading screens.
"This game has been edited because one attorney general in your country believes that even adults do not deserve the right to entertainment suited for them because he believes he knows how to raise other kids better than their own parents". OF course if thewy did that odds are it'd be refused classification still.