Scarface: The World is Yours
Prod Radical Entertainment / 2006 / Canada / IMDb
Vivendi Universal Games had this game rated MA15+ (Strong Violence, Strong Coarse Language, Strong Drug Themes) on 11th September 2006.
A Bonus Disc was passed as MA15+ (Strong Violence, Coarse Language) on 22nd September 2006. According to Vivendi Universal, this DVD contains a "Making of the Game" behind-the-scenes documentary, a game walk-through with producer commentary, cast videos and interviews, a hints and tips videos and game concept art. The full game and the bonus disc was released in a Collector's Edition.
The SCARFACE film that the game is based on was rated R18+ back in 1983.
***
Thanks to Mario for sending in this excellent piece of detective work which confirms that the Australian version of the game is different to other versions. No game play has been changed but it is missing:
1. An advertisement for the Scarface (film) DVD
2. The prologue of the game. that contains violent clips from the film.
Both would seem to have been removed to reduce the risk of it falling outside
the MA15+ category.
Mario
November 2006.
You should know that the pc game Scarface is somewhat censored. I have the retail Australian version and also the net version.
I haven't played the game too long but as far as the game goes in the very beginning there is blood/gore, swearing and general mayhem. I was going to delete the net version since I now have the retail one, I was "evaluating" it before, but after examining some files I noticed a larger size on some of them. Specifically the movies.rcf file. The net version is 335.348.468mb vs. the Aus one at 34.085.620mb. Just by a simple look I noticed that the bigger one has the following files: dolby_51.bik, dvd.bik, prologue_51.bik, radical_51.bik, sierra.bik and thx_51.bik. The Aus version has two missing, the dvd and prologue ones.
These files load during the start of the game, and the prologue one when you begin a game. Most are company logo clips. The dvd file is a regular video that promotes the Scarface DVD. In fact it looks just like one of those short clips found on the apple movie trailers website. The clip is nothing special in that I've seen much worse MA15+ rated stuff.
The prologue.bik is a video montage from the Scarface movie with some extra computer type graphics thrown over it. I suppose they had to remove this because some of the scenes shown, which were taken from the movie which is rated R18+, whilst the game is MA15+. It shows amongst other things, the scene where a guy gets shot in the head (the one from the Hotel scene when he runs down the street with Tony after him and then Tony plugs him). So in fact both these movies, or clips actually, have been removed completely from the Aus version. As far as I can tell the game itself is not censored.
In order to get to the bottom of this I decided to e-mail Radical Entertainment in Canada, the producer of the game. Here is what they had to say.
Radical Entertainment Reply
I checked with someone who worked on the Scarface title, and he said for the Australian version, all or most of the sequences that came directly from the Scarface movie have been edited out. Most of it is from the Intro movie sequence, the Prologue, which is probably why you see the reduction in file sizes for these movies. There were no game play edits taken out.
***
I had also noticed that some of the sound files were different too. So I e-mailed Radical again to try and find out if any profanity had been removed.
Mario
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Subject: Re: Scarface Inquiry
That's what I said. But what is different or removed from the sound files? Was ANY of the profanity removed? And if yes what was the spoken dialog?
because the AU version sound files are:
sound1.rcf = 478.984.443 MB
sound2.rcf = 488.308.896 MB
and the US version:
sound1.rcf = 486.235.919 MB
sound2.rcf = 498.833.568 MB
So why would they also be smaller?? Because the movies are in the movies.rcf file.
***
Here is what I got back.
The reason the files may be different is because the Australian version was not made from the US version, but from the UK version (the sound files are slightly different). There were no game play features removed in the Australian version, except the removal of the Scarface movie recap at the beginning.
***
On a related note, the ad that Telstra ran for the game was reported to the Advertising Standards Bureau. The complaint was dismissed.
Advertising Standards Bureau
Case Report
1. Complaint reference number 296/07
2. Advertiser Telstra Corporation Ltd (Scarface)
3. Product Toys & Games
4. Type of advertisement Outdoor
5. Nature of complaint Violence Other – section 2.2
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 11 September 2007
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed
DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT
This outdoor advertisement announces the release of the new Scarface home video game from Telstra. An image of Al Pacino holding a machine gun from the movie Scarface is depicted, with the words "Live the high life without getting wasted. Buy now on Bigpond games"
THE COMPLAINT
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:
Ad depicts violence and tries to sell by depicting it.
I am appalled that Telstra and Bigpond think that billboards in prominent public places are an appropriate avenue to exploit a game that is fundementally about death and killing. Senseless violence has no place in a public advertising campaign. It desensitises children to, and in effect condones, violence for those too young to interpret this image as an advertisement for a video game.
THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following:
I understand that Section 2.2 of the AANA Advertiser Code of Ethics states that advertisements shall not portray violence “unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised”.
The image used in the advertisement is taken directly from the movie that the game is based on and therefore Telstra believes that the context is self-explanatory and justifiable. The imagery used in the advertisement is the official key art from the Scarface franchise and has already been used extensively in many mediums, for a number of years and by a number of companies, to promote the Scarface film and DVD , in addition to promoting the game since it was originally released by Vivendi Games last year. All of the key art from the franchise is based around the renown image of Al Pacino standing with a gun in his hand.
This Al Pacino image is an iconic image from a well-known, classic film that has been well publicised over decades. The movie’s dialogue and imagery have passed into the vernacular and are instantly recognisable to generations of fans. This image is seen in many places, not just in Telstra advertisements. Indeed, if it were not so instantly recognisable it would not have been selected by Universal as the key image to promote the game in the first place. It would be an odd and restrictive result if retailers did not have the freedom to use such a recognised and commonly accepted image to promote the film and its associated products and paraphernalia.
It should also be noted that the black and white version of the key art as used in the advertising for the game has been designed to be more atmospheric and far less visceral than the colour version used for the movie. There is no visible blood in the black and white version and while Al Pacino is holding a gun it is not at all clear that he is actually firing this.
I note that there appears only to be a single customer complaint about this advertisement despite it having been used by BigPond for several weeks which could be taken to illustrate that the image is widely recognised and generally accepted by the public as simply reflective of a classic iconic movie.
For these reasons, Telstra does not consider the relevant advertisement to be in breach of the Code of Ethics. Further, as the advertisement is clearly not one which, having regard to the theme, visuals and language used, is directed primarily to children, in Telstra’s view the code of Advertising to Children also does not apply.
THE DETERMINATION
The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”).
The Board noted the complainants' concern about the violence used in this billboard advertisement and its effect on children.
The Board noted that Section 2.2 of the Code provides that 'advertisements shall not present or portray violence unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised.' The Board noted that the advertisement is for a game that is for mature audiences. In the context of the particular game the Board considered that the image of Al Pacino holding the gun was justified.
The Board noted that, as a billboard, the advertisement is visible by children. The Board considered that the advertisement was not overtly violent with no depictions of blood or people being injured by the gun. The Board considered that the image of a gun was not per se a breach of the Code.
The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach Section 2.2 of the Code. Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.
***
Classification Board
Annual Report 2006-2007
Computer games: complaints
The OFLC received 57 complaints about computer games. Of the total, 32
complaints were about the absence of an R18+ classification for computer games.
One complaint each was received about the violence in Grand Theft Auto:
Liberty City Stories (MA 15+), Saints Row (MA 15+), Scarface - The World Is
Yours (MA 15+) and Gangs of London (MA 15+).
|
|
Seymore Butts Interactive 2: In Pursuit of Pleasure
Prod Interotica / 1994 / USA
Submitted by the Victorian Police, it was rated RC on May 13th 1997. This includes hardcore sex.
It is described as:
"Interact with 12 Young California Cuties!
Seymore Needs Your Help! His dreamgirl Shane is stuck in Canada! As Seymore's friend, you need to help him find a way to get there, keep him out of trouble, and have as much fun as possible along the way… Make the right moves and you'll get to have sex with a dozen of the hottest babes in Seymore's neighborhood. Make the wrong moves and Seymore will end up lonely and possibly injured. Get to Canada and he'll have the BEST SEX OF HIS LIFE with his girlfriend Shane. StarringL Asia Carrera, Felecia, Shane, Vanessa Chase, Kim Kataine Jordan McKnight, Tiffany Towers, McKayla, and Seymore Butts DVD Features: Interactive Menus Multiple Outcomes Out Takes Multiple Angles Bonus Scenes "Direct to Sex" Feature Playstation 2 & X-Box Compatible."
Shellshock Nam '67
Prod Eidos / 2004 / UK / IMDb
Atari Australia received an RC rating for this game on June 22nd 2004. There were plans to appeal to the Review Board, but this idea was dropped. A revised version was eventually submitted to the OFLC who on August 13th gave it an MA15+ (Medium Level Animated Violence, Adult Themes, Sexual Violence, Drug References) rating. The game was released on September 10th 2004.
Thanks for the following e-mail from Simon G who has attempted to get to the bottom of this.
I was intending on purchasing SHELLSHOCK NAM'67. However after learning that it had been banned, then passed MA15+ I became suspicious as to what version we had in Australia. Soon after it was Refused Classification, I called the customer service of Atari Australia who denied it had ever been banned. They said it was just delayed.
I thought nothing more of it until I learnt this month that a revised version had been passed in August. I called Atari Australia again. For a second time they denied it had ever been banned, and said it had been delayed because the title had to be changed from TOUR OF DUTY. They obviously were not going to give anything away, so I decided to go to the source of the problem and call the OFLC. I was transferred to a man (sorry, can't recall his name) who initially sounded like he knew what he was talking about. He said a rough unfinished version had initially been submitted for rating in June. This version was Refused Classification, though he did not give any reasons. He then said that the full game was submitted in August and passed MA15+. The controversial game play was now seen in context of the finished game, and its impact was reduced. This sounded like a fair answer and would explain why Atari are claiming that it has not been modified. However, he then went on to claim that it was before the Review Board and may have its rating raised to RC or lowered to M. I really don't know what he was talking about as the OFLC have not announced any review for this title. I can only guess that he was getting it mixed up with MANHUNT. Anyway, this statement made me question if his initial claim was indeed true.
I checked the Atari Australia website and found some message posts regarding the game at the Official Atari Australia XBox forum. Several members were questioning what version of the game had been released. The forum administrator posted the following two answers.
September 11th 2004
"The game was not refused classification and is on sale on the 23rd
of september"
September 12th 2004
"The game wasn't changed at all from previous versions. It's all the
same"
A member of the forum then posted this article from Issue 31 of the Official Australian Xbox Magazine.
Shellshock faces the chop
"Shellshock: Nam '67 (read our review
on page 72) was REFUSED CLASSIFICATION by the Office of Film and
Literature Classification when submitted by Eidos Interactive. This
effectively leads to an Australia-wide ban. The reasons for the ban relate
to the game's depiction of drug use during the Vietnam War, specifically
Temazepan (probably a typo I think its Temazepam) and Dexedrine (an
amphetamine). Some concerns have also been voiced about the game's sexual
allusions.
The very latest that's happened as of this writing is that Shellshock is
being resubmitted for evaluation (a $2-4 thousand dollar fee) by the OFLC,
which will determine whether the game is 'fit' for release in Australia
after this issue goes to press. We'll update you with the results of the
appeal next issue."
I am more confused than ever! I am suspicious of Atari because they are not even admitting it was initially banned. Whilst the OFLC are not giving out clear reasons for the RC rating. Speaking of which, why the hell don't they just post the reasons on their site? The result is that I'll delay purchasing this title until I'm sure that we have the full game.
***
The Futuregamez site managed to get this official comment from Eidos.
With regards to Shellshock, nothing has been taken out. We had to represent to the board and explain how some of the more contentious areas of the game were in fact in context and justifiable by actual history. So now Australians get to play the same game as Europe, NZ and America.
***
Whilst issue 45 of Atomic MPC magazine adds to the confusion with this statement from their review of the game.
"....... the souveniring of enemy ears has gone by the wayside at the behest of the OFLC"
***
Classification Board & Classification Review Board Annual Report 2003-2004
The Board classified the game Shellshock Nam67 RC for nudity and drug use related to incentives or rewards. Shellshock Nam67 is a multiplatform shooter game based on the Vietnam War. The distributor has indicated an intention to submit a modified version of the computer game for classification in the next reporting period.
***
Classification Board & Classification Review Board Annual Report 2004-2005
Page 91
Classification Review Board
Applications withdrawn
During the course of the year, the Classification Review Board received a number of applications that were later withdrawn. A determination is not made on withdrawn applications, yet a considerable amount of time is spent by the Convenor and the secretariat on these applications.
Table 22: Applications to the Classification Review Board withdrawn
Title: Shellshocked Nam '67
Media: Computer game
Review applicant: Eidos Interactive
Reason for withdrawal: Commercial decision
***
Mick has played the Australian version, and here gives some
of his observations.
A few of the controversial moments
include:
1) After your platoon bursts into a brothel, hookers are armed with shotguns and machetes. You are ordered to
kill even the unarmed hookers.
2) Soon you walk into the final room on the level. It then goes into a cut
scene. A member of you platoon has tied a hooker to an upright bed frame, he is literally
punching and beating the life out of her. She is screaming and pleading for mercy. He asks her where a
member of your platoon has been taken. She tells him, but then he shoves a knife into her breast before
slitting her throat. She screams, then blood flows out
of her.
3) You can purchase speed and diazepam from a dealer at base camp. Speed allows you to run faster and get hit
less easily, whilst diazepam assists you in accuracy on the field (shooting obviously).
4) You can have sex with several different hookers at base camp (not at once obviously). Your man and the girl
walk into a hut and you hear them for a while while the hut shakes. This doesn't last for long and provides
no benefits to game play. It's there purely for novelty purpose and to be honest it's quiet boring.
As for the statement in Issue 45 pf Atomic MPC magazine:
"....... the souveniring of enemy ears has gone by the wayside at the behest of the OFLC.
The Australian
version doesn't include this, however no version around the world includes it either. The game was
lightly censored before the worldwide release. For example, the visible drug effects such as the
screen going different colours and so forth was also taken out before release. It has nothing to do with
the OFLC saying its unsuitable.
Having played the game, I believe the Australian version is the same as
that released in the rest of the world.
Silent Hill
Prod Konami / 1999 / Japan / IMDb
This title has been included as AN EXAMPLE OF OFLC POLICY. it has not been censored OR BANNED.
This game was considered to be on the border of MA15+ and RC
GT Interactive Software eventually had this passed MA15+ (Medium Level Animated Violence, Horror Theme) on 15th July 1999.
The OFLC explain the reasons in their Annual Report from 1999-2000.
Silent Hill was also discussed at the MA/RC border. This game is essentially a first person shooter with some puzzle elements included. It has a horror setting with opponents that include zombies and werewolves. The depictions of violence and bloodshed are similar to other games in this genre and with an MA15+ classification. The setting is in a deserted town and the player passes between 'real' and 'haunted' versions of the town during game play. The townscape includes the deserted school which apparently has walls covered in blood.
The minority opinion was that the school setting for some of the violent elements of the game (although no children are depicted in the game) offends against the standards of morality and decency generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that the game should be classified RC, but the majority opinion was that the horror scenario and lack of detail militate against the impact of the violence. The game was classified MA15+, with consumer advice of Medium Level Animated Violence and Horror Theme.
Singles-Flirt Up Your Life
Prod Eidos / 2004 / UK / IMDb
Eidos Interactive had this title Refused Classification on October 21st 2004.
***
Classification Board & Classification
Review Board
Annual Report 2004-2005
Page 40
Classification Board
Computer Games
The Classification Board classified the computer games Singles Flirt Up Your Life and Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude RC for sexual activity related to an incentive or reward.
Sorority House
Submitted by the NSW Police, it was rated RC on 22nd April 1996. The Victorian Police also received the same rating on May 15th 1996.
Spin the Bottle: Interactive DVD Game
2005
Imagination Licensing Pty Ltd had this Interactive DVD Game Refused Classification on October 12th 2006. Although it was not a computer game, the interactive nature of the DVD saw it was classified as such. Had it been viewed as a film then it would have undoubtedly been passed.
The game describes itself as:
A new slant on 'Spin The Bottle' without using an actual bottle! This party game has over 500 different actions with thousands of different results. All at the touch of a button.
Get ready to laugh as your friends find themselves in compromising situations and reveal their most intimate secrets.
Put your next party into overdrive with Spin The Bottle, a DVD Game of shocking truths and outrageous dares sure to set your heart racing!
With more than 500 different actions and thousands of possible outcomes, this DVD Game knows how to party!
All you need is a DVD player! Just grab the remote and some friends, then sit back and let the DVD do the work.
So get ready to get this party started with the Spin The Bottle DVD Game.
Includes:
1 Interactive DVD.
8 Character Cards.
1 How to Play Guide.
For 3 to 8 Players.
In the UK the DVD was released in November 2005 by Universal. There it was Exempt from Classification, meaning it was not even considered necessary to rate.
***
Classification Board
Annual Report 2006-2007
Computer Games
The Classification Board classified two computer games RC during the reporting
period. The computer game Spin the Bottle - Adults Only Interactive DVD Game
was classified RC because it contains sexual references that are cumulatively
high in impact and cannot be accommodated at the MA 15+ classification
Strip Blackjack
Prod Dreamedia Technologies / USA
Submitted by the Victorian Police, it was rated RC on June 26th 1996.
This is most probably another game where pictures of naked women are offered as rewards.
Strip Poker
Prod CDV Software GmbH / 1993 / Germany
This was another game that was Refused Classification for offering pictures of naked women as rewards.
The OFLC Annual Report from 1994-1995 goes into more detail.
"The third game was the "adult" CD ROM, Strip Poker, which showed female actors bare breasted. The guidelines state that material depicting "nudity, including genitalia" will be Refused "unless there is a 'bona fide' educational, medical or community health purpose".
Further discussion of the title can be found at Anthony Larme's Banned Games page, and his Games Censorship Collection site.
Strip Poker Three
Prod Artworx / 1991
Submitted by the Victorian Police, it was rated RC on June 4th 1996.
The aim is to win at poker so the female opponents remove their clothes.
Teresa the House Guest
Prod Interactive Girls / 1994 / USA
Submitted by the Victorian Police, it was rated RC on June 14th 1996.
Texas Table Dance
Prod LSU Multimedia / USA
Submitted by the Victorian Police, it was rated RC on May 2nd 1997.
It is described as:
"Your personal Gentlemans Club. The sexiest dancers in the state of Texas! This much live action would cost you hundreds of dollars! And it does, in cyberdollars! But be careful with you dough! You know who wants it and they know how to get it! Play it smart and you'll get to see it all! But watch out for the manager and don't go over your credit limit or you're outta there! Over an hour of original Quicktime movies plus sexy photos!"
Thomas and Tim
Prod ITE Media / 1999 / Denmark
This title has been included as AN EXAMPLE OF OFLC POLICY. it has not been censored OR BANNED.
This game was very nearly Refused Classification. Instead, Jack Of All Games escaped with an MA15+ (Sexual References) on March 17th 2000.
The OFLC explain in their 1999-2000 Annual Report explain the reasons.
Thomas and Tim was the game that perhaps received the most intense discussion by the Board. The debate centred on the interaction of a pirate character and a breast nude mermaid. A minority opinion was that this element depicted sex and violence in such a way that it warranted RC, and a further minority considered it to be a mild sexual reference that could be accommodated at an M15+ classification. The majority opinion of the Board was that this part of the game was a strong sexual reference, and the game was classified MA15+ with the consumer advice Sexual References.
TLC - Tender Loving Care
Prod Softgold / 1998 / USA / IMDb
Playcorp had this Refused Classification on 30th July 1998.
The 1998-1999 OFLC Annual Report explains why.
"....... TLC was also classified 'RC' on the basis of depictions of simulated sexual activity."
Despite containing the same scenes, a DVD version was passed MA15+ on 3rd April 2000. This was due to it being classified under the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Videotapes. At the time of the initial 1998 ban it had been considered under the Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games.
In 2003, Anthony Larme questioned the OFLC about the new computer guidelines. He also asked about how TLC came to be passed as a DVD, but banned as a game.
On 19 May, I sent an email message to the OFLC to ask them a few important questions re: their new combined Film and Games Guidelines.
This was the most important part of my
email:
***
I am intrigued by the possibilities of your revised computer games
guidelines.
They now allow for the presence of nudity and simulated sex in non-medical education situations (providing such scenes are not "rewards").
Previously, such material was rated RC and various games were banned to everyone as a result.
So, does that mean games banned for such reasons are now able to be sold/imported?
If not, then why are these games still banned when newer games with identical content would be permitted? Why such a contradiction for games containing exactly the same material?
Also,
What are some factors that would lead the OFLC to believe a particular nudity/sex scene in a game was a "reward"?
And what about interactive DVDs? Some of these contain interactive storylines. Are these now "games" or "movies" to you? eg : "Tender Loving Care" (in 1999 banned as a cd-rom game but allowed as MA as an interactive DVD despite the fact it contained exactly the same interactive scenes).
*****
I received this response from Des Clark, the Director, on the 25th of this month:
*****
15803
03/9005
Mr Anthony Larme
Dear Mr Larme
I refer to your email of 19 May 2003 regarding the classification of computer games under the combined Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (the Combined Guidelines). I apologise on the delay in my reply.
The national classification scheme is a cooperative scheme between the Commonwealth, States and Territories. The Classification Board classifies films (including videos and DVDs), computer games and certain publications. When making decisions, the Board applies criteria in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the classification guidelines. Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers with censorship responsibilities agree to the Code and the guidelines.
The Combined Guidelines, which came into operation on 30 March 2003, are the product of a review of the classification guidelines for films and computer games to ensure that they continue to reflect community standards. In the course of the review process, the Office of Film and Literature Classification received 372 submissions from the public, the film and computer games industries, and community and professional organisations. Censorship Ministers noted the sentiment expressed in many of the submissions that both the previous guidelines, and the draft combined guidelines which were distributed with the review discussion paper, lacked simplicity, transparency and clarity.
The Combined Guidelines have consequently been simplified and streamlined so that they can be more workable and transparent. A language consultant, Professor Peter Butt of the Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, has confirmed confirmed that the Combined Guidelines were simpler, clearer and easier to use. I have included a link to the Combined Guidelines for your information.
I note your understanding that the Combined Guidelines now allow for the presence of nudity and simulated sex in non-medical situations. This is not correct. I would like to emphasise that the standards from the previous guidelines have not changed. The Combined Guidelines provide a clearer hierarchy for decision-making by the Classification Board.
Under the Combined Guidelines, the MA classification provides that sexual activity may be implied and that nudity should be justified by context. The impact of depictions of both sexual activity and nudity within the MA classification should be no higher than strong. Computer games including material which exceeds the MA category will continue to be refused classification (RC).
In the previous guidelines, nudity including genital detail was permissible within the MA classification but only if there was a ‘bona fide' educational, medical or community health purpose. While this qualification is no longer specifically listed in the Combined Guidelines, the Board must still consider whether depictions of nudity are justified by context. Interactivity may restrict the circumstances in which nudity and sexual activity is justified by context, for example, if depictions of nudity and sexual activity are related to incentives or rewards.
In your email, you ask about the status of games classified under the previous guidelines. Existing classification decisions stand unless the Board determines a need for reclassification. Reclassification can be undertaken at the initiative of the Board or by the request of the Attorney-General two years after the original classification decision was made.
In your email, you also ask what would lead to a determination that depictions of sexual activity or nudity constitute a reward. This is a matter for the Board to determine on a case-by-case basis. This issue has not yet arisen under the Combined Guidelines.
You also question the difference between an interactive DVD and a computer game and how they are classified. The Classification Act provides a definition of "interactive film" and "interactive game". An interactive game is "a game in which the way the game proceeds and the result achieved at various stages of the game is determined in response to the decisions, inputs and direct involvement of the player". An interactive film "enables a person using it to choose from 2 or more visual images, the image that will be viewed". Both interactive films and interactive games are classified in accordance with the Combined Guidelines.
I note you refer to the game Tender Loving Care. On 30 July 1998 the Board considered a computer game sale/hire application for the interactive thriller. In applying the previous Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games, the Board was of the opinion that the game warranted an RC classification due to the depictions of sexual activity. The previous computer game guidelines provided that material including gratuitous nudity and sexual activity must be refused classification.
On 3 April 2000, the Board considered a film sale/hire application for a DVD version of Tender Loving Care. Under the previous Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Videotapes, the Board was of the opinion that the game warranted an MA classification due to adult themes of a high intensity. The Guidelines provided that within the MA classification, sexual activity may be implied, nudity should not be exploitative and the treatment of themes with a high degree of intensity should be discreet. The content of the DVD falls within the MA classification for films and videotapes.
I hope this information assists you.
Yours sincerely
Des Clark
Director
15 July 2003
*****
My comments:
**So, presumably, interactive movies on DVD such as Tender Loving Care
or Point of View are "interactive films" while inevitably
controversial games such as "Postal 2" are still
"games"?
** Perhaps the OFLC could reclassify RC games like cd-rom "Tender Loving Care" and "Phantasmagoria" and the censored version of its sequel on its own initiative? Surely, they would pass under the present guidelines? Apparently, the original distributor need not reapply. But, that's still a "limbo" area in that these games are still, strictly speaking, illegal to sell/import even if they would likely be allowed these days.
** These new guidelines are indeed largely untested when it comes to games and similar products. Let's see how they deal with "rewards" and the issue of the same game being released on different formats..... At least they will be forced to consider contextual issues for games - something not permitted under the older guidelines!
** I thank Des Clark for his response!
For more information on this title, see the entry at the Games Censorship Collection.
Vida X
Prod Interactive Girls / 1993 / USA
Submitted by the Victorian Police, it was rated RC on June 14th 1996.
Voyeur
Prod Interplay / 1994 / USA / IMDb
Sega Ozisoft had this Refused Classification on November 19th 1994.
The 1994-95 OFLC Year in Review explains why.
"A CD ROM strategy game called Voyeur uses full motion video and contains a conversation between two adult actors. They had been identified in an earlier scene as uncle and niece. In the dialogue, the woman recalls the uncle's sexual abuse of her when she was 14 years old and uses sexually explicit language during the conversation. The guidelines clearly state that sexually explicit language is to be Refused. The incest context was also taken into consideration by the Board"
Further information on this title can be found at Anthony Larme's Banned Game page, and Games Censorship Collection site.
V-Tech Rampage
Ryan Lambourn / Australia / 2007 / Wikipedia
This game based on the 2006 Virginia Tech Massacre was examined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. They forwarded it to the Classification Board who rated it MA15+.
Outrage over Virginia Tech game. SMH 16.05.07
A Sydney youth who created an uproar with an online game based on the Virginia Tech massacre, says he will remove the game if he receives $US2000 in "donations".
Add another $US1000 and he promises to apologise.
V-Tech Rampage is the work of 21-year-old Ryan Lambourn from western Sydney who goes by the screen name, Master PiGPEN.
"I've done offensive things before but they're not usually this popular," Lamourn said, adding that he made the game "because it's funny".
Lambourn, who grew up in the US, said his friends suggested putting up the ransom demand which he thought was "a hilarious idea".
He posted the demand on his website saying: "Attention angry people: I will take this game down from newgrounds [the games website] if the donation amount reaches $1000 US. I'll take it down from here [his website] if it reaches $2000 US, and i will apologise if it reaches $3000 US."
He described the exercise as "a joke". "They were so adamant about me taking my game down ... I gave them a way," he said.
"The donation thing was just to pull a few more strings and make more people angry. It's worked."
Lambourn said that while he felt remorse for those who had lost friends and relatives in the massacre, he also had sympathy for the gunman.
"No one listens to you unless you've got something sensational to do." he said. "And that's why I feel sympathy for Cho Seung-hui. He had to go that far."
***
No ban on Virginia Tech game. SMH 03.06.07
AUSTRALIAN authorities are powerless to ban a computer game inspired by the Virginia Tech massacre.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) investigated the game, "V-Tech Rampage", after receiving a complaint about it last month.
The game was created by Sydney man Ryan Lambourn, 21, and posted on his personal website, as well as on a popular game portal website.
It features a character based on Cho Seung-hui, who shot dead 32 students at the Virginia Tech campus in April in the worst such massacre in US history.
The ACMA referred the game to the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC), which gave it an MA 15 + rating, the highest classification for a computer game.
"After reviewing it, the OFLC decided that the game could not be prohibited," an ACMA spokesman said. "On the basis of their decision, we are taking no further action."
***
Massacre game creator's website back online. NineMSN 14.06.07
The author of the widely reviled V-Tech Rampage computer game has re-established his personal website and is unrepentant about his creation, despite worldwide condemnation.
Sydney resident Ryan Lambourn's crudely rendered recreation of the Virginia Tech Massacre drew international attention when it was discovered in May this year.
Lambourn made the game available on his personal website, googumproduce.com, as well as popular games site newgrounds.com.
Wander Lust
USA
Submitted by the Victorian Police, it was rated RC on June 3rd 1996.