Banned Games of 2007

Two games were banned in Australia in 2007.

BLITZ: THE LEAGUE (2006) was Refused Classification in January and SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK (2007) in October.

Blitz: The League

Publisher Midway Games / 2006 / MobyGames

In January 2007, BLITZ: THE LEAGUE was banned because of drug use.

Red Ant Enterprises was the applicant.

January 22, 2007
The Classification Board has classified the computer game BLITZ: THE LEAGUE Refused Classification (RC).

Refused Classification (RC) means the computer game cannot be made available for sale or hire, or be demonstrated in Australia.

“The Classification Board made this decision on the basis that BLITZ THE LEAGUE contains drug use related to incentives or rewards,” said Director the Classification Board, Des Clark. “Under the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games, this is a general rule that means this type of content is Refused Classification.”

Specifically, in the course of the game, the player may access what are purported to be both legal and illegal performance-enhancing drugs for the members of their team. Choosing to use these drugs, which each have different characteristics, will have effects on team-members, such as improving their speed while also making them more susceptible to injury. Fake urine samples may also be acquired for avoiding positive drug tests.

While the game-player can choose not to use the drugs, in the Board’s view there is an incentive to use them. By using them judiciously, the player can improve the performance of their football team (while managing the negative effects) and have a better chance of winning games, thereby winning bets and climbing the league table.

The Classification Board is an independent statutory body responsible for the classification of films, computer games and some publications. The Board has representatives drawn from communities across Australia.

– Blitz the League computer game Refused Classification
– Classification Board

January 15, 2007
Board Report TO7/66
Classification (Publications. Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 Classification Board

DETAILS OF THE COMPUTER GAME:
FILE No TO7/66
Processing Date: 15/01/2007
Title: BLITZ THE LEAGUE
Version: ORIGINAL
Format: Multi Platform
Duration: VARIABLE
Publisher: J MIDWAY
Programmer: MIDWAY
Production Co: NOT SHOWN
Country Of Origin: NOT SHOWN
Language: ENGLISH
Application Type: Camp Game Demonstrated
Applicant: RED ANT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

PROCEDURE:
The Classification (publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Classification Guidelines approved by the standing Committee of Attorneys-General, are followed when classifying films.

Item Viewed: YES
Viewing Date: 15/01/2007
Written submissions: NO
Oral submissions: NO

MATERIAL CONSIDERED
In classifying this item regard was had to the following:
(i) The Application YES
(ii) A written synopsis of the item YES
(iii) The Item YES
(iv) Other NO

DECISION
(1) Classification: RC
(2) Consumer Advice:
(3) Key: O(drug use)
(4) Ratified By: (Senior Classifier)

SYNOPSIS:
The item is a computer game based on American football in which the player controls the actions of the members of the team to effect passes and other plays in order to win games against the opposing team. The game is played in 3rd person and may be played in two-player or one-player (against the computer) mode. Cut scenes establish that the team has been going through a bad period and that the role of the player is to win games and ultimately win the championship. Between matches, the player may bet on the outcome of games to accrue money that can be used in the game and the player can also utilise resources, such as training and performance-enhancing drugs, to improve the performance of the team.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
When making decisions, the Classification Board (the Board) follows the procedures set out in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act). The Board also applies the National Classification Code and the Classification Guidelines, while taking into account the matters set out in Section 1 of the Act.

MAJORITY VIEW
In the Board’s majority view, this game warrants an ‘RC’ classification in accordance with Item 1(d) of the Computer Games Table of the National Classification Code.

“1. Computer games that:

(d) are unsuitable for a minor to see or play;”… will be Refused Classification.”

Some Board members holding the majority view also consider that this game Warrants an ‘RC’ classification in accordance with Item 1 (a) of the Code.

“1. Computer games that:

(a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified;”… will be Refused Classification.

The “Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2005″ states that ”as a general rule … material that contains drug use … related to incentives or rewards is Refused Classification”.

In the course of the game, the player may access what are purported to be both legal and illegal performance-enhancing drugs for the members of the team. Choosing to use these drugs (by selecting from a menu) will have both negative and positive effects on team-members, for example, by improving their speed while making them more susceptible to injury. Each drug has different characteristics. Fake urine samples may also be acquired for avoiding positive drug tests.

While the game-player can choose not to use the drugs, in the Board’s majority view there is an incentive to use them. By using them judiciously, the player can improve the performance of the football team (while managing the negative effects) and have a better chance of winning games, thereby winning bets and climbing the league table. In the majority view, therefore, the game contravenes the general rule cited above and should be Refused Classification.

MINORITY VIEW
In the Board’s minority view, the impact of the depiction of drug use is ameliorated to the extent that it is an exception to the general rule cited above and can be accommodated at MA15+ with a consumer advisory for “strong drug references”. Board members holding this view noted that the drugs depicted are fictional; drugs are depicted as stylised icons on a menu with the drug use itself not depicted; and the link between the drug use and the performance of the team is not depicted through visuals.

DECISION
This game is Refused Classification.

– Classification Board report

The distributor speaks

January 21, 2007
Ivone Bozzi, marketing manager at Red Ant Enterprises.
At this stage we haven’t decided if we are going to go ahead and appeal it. Quite a shame, as we did get some fantastic feedback from retail. It was unfortunately one of those games that are touch-and-go.

– Blitz banned in Australia
– article @ gamespot.com

January 28, 2007
Julian White, Managing Director of Red Ant Enterprises.
This is very disappointing for gamers once again due to the antiquated guidelines the OFLC are forced to operate under. The Howard Government needs to amend these guidelines and understand that the majority of gamers are over 18.

White went on to explain that not having a higher rating system, in line with most of the western world, Australian gamers are, in fact, being discriminated against.

By not addressing this issue, gamers are being discriminated against by a few minorities that are just plain ignorant.

– Red Ant comments on Blitz: The League Ban
– ign.com

Des Clark comments

February 8, 2007
I refer to your enquiry of 22 January 2007 regarding the classification of the computer game BLITZ: THE LEAGUE.

On 18 January 2007 the Classification Board (the Board) classified the computer game BLITZ: THE LEAGUE RC (Refused Classification).

An explanation of the reasons for this RC decision and its implications for distributors and retailers is outlined in the media release issued by the Board on 22 January 2006. You may wish to refer to this release on the 2007 Media Releases page of the OFLC website.

I note that you have lodged similar complaints about other computer games in the past. As you would be aware from previous correspondence with this office, the Board is required to make classification decisions using the relevant provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act), the National Classification Code (the Code) and the classification guidelines.

You would also be aware that as the national classification scheme is a cooperative scheme between the Commonwealth, States and Territories, any amendments to the Code or the guidelines would require the agreement of all Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers with censorship responsibilities.

I note that you disagree with the Board’s decision for BLITZ: THE LEAGUE. In particular you have drawn a comparison between the content of this game and other classified computer games which you consider have similar content.

I can advise that each computer game is assessed individually and on its own merits against the Act, the Code and the classification guidelines. The contents of previously classified computer games are not considered during the classification process.

In the Board’s majority view, while the game-player can choose not to use the drugs, there is an incentive to use them. The classification guidelines state that “as a general rule … material that contains drug use … related to incentives or rewards is Refused Classification”.

The Board is an independent statutory body whose members are selected to be broadly representative of the Australian community. In the case of BLITZ: THE LEAGUE, 12 members of the Board considered the computer game before classifying it RC in a majority 10 to 2 decision.

The Board is unable to initiate a review for a computer game that it has classified. The Board can reclassify a computer game at its own initiative after two years from the original decision. The two year period for this film will not elapse until January 2009.

You may be interested to know that the Act provides for review of classification decisions in certain circumstances. The separately established Classification Review Board (Review Board), is the body that reviews classification decisions; however it can only proceed with a review on receipt of a valid application for review.

Applicants for review may include the original applicant for classification, the publisher, a person aggrieved, and the Australian Attorney-General. For all applicants other than the Australian Attorney-General an application must be lodged with the Review Board within 30 days of the original decision. Under the Act, the Attorney-General is required to apply for a review of a classification decision, if he is so requested in writing by a State or Territory Minister who is responsible for censorship.

I have provided a copy of your correspondence to the Board for their information. The Board appreciates feedback from the community on classification decisions and how it is performing its role. Correspondence such as yours is one way in which the Board informs itself of community standards in relation to classification issues broadly.

Owing to the widely differing views held in our community it is not always possible to make decisions which satisfy everyone. I assure you that the Board takes its responsibilities seriously and reflects current community standards when making decisions.

I hope this information assists you.

– To: Mick M.
– From: Des Clark, Director, OFLC

R16 in New Zealand

Soon after the Australian ban, New Zealand’s OFLC passed BLITZ: THE LEAGUE as R16 (Contains drug use, violence and sexual references).

March 21, 2007
The game BLITZ: THE LEAGUE was classified R16 in New Zealand. Earlier, it had been refused classification (banned) in Australia. The Australian Classification Board made this decision on the basis that BLITZ: THE LEAGUE contains drug use related to incentives or rewards and under the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games, there is a general rule that means this of content is Refused Classification.

… does not promote or encourage criminal acts. While the in-game feature of taking legal and illegal sports enhancing drugs to improve a player’s team’s performance is a component of the game it is not a particularly significant one.

– Game Classification Update No. 21
– New Zealand Office of Film and Literature Classification

Complaints to the OFLC

September 28, 2007
The Classification Board classified two computer games RC during the reporting period. The computer game BLITZ: THE LEAGUE was classified RC by the Classification Board because it contains drug use related to incentives or rewards.

The OFLC received 57 complaints about computer games. Of the total, 32 complaints were about the absence of an R18+ classification for computer games. The OFLC received…four about the RC decision for BLITZ: THE LEAGUE.

– Classification Board, Annual Report 2006-2007

Soldier of Fortune: Payback

Publisher Activision / 2007 / MobyGames

In October 2007, SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK was banned by the Classification Board because of high impact violence.

Activision was the applicant.

October 2007
T07/4979
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995
Classification Board

DETAILS OF THE COMPUTER GAME
File No T07/4979
Processing Date: 16/10/2007
Title: SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK
Version: Original
Format: Multi Platform
Duration: VARIABLE
Publisher: ACTIVISION
Programmer: ACTIVISION
Production Co: Not Shown
Country of Origin: USA
Language: English
Application Type: Comp Game Assessed Level 1
Applicant: ACTIVISION

PROCEDURE
The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Guidelines and the Classification Guidelines approved by the standing Committee of Attorneys-General, are followed when classifying films.

Item Viewed: YES
Viewing Date: 16/10/2007
Written Submission: NO
Oral Submission: NO

MATERIAL CONSIDERED
In classifying this item regard was had to the following.

(i) The Application YES
(ii) A written synopsis of the item YES
(iii) The Item YES
(iv) Other NO

DECISION
(1) Classification: RC
(2) Consumer Advice:
(3) Key:
(4) Ratified By:

Board Report TO7/4979

SYNOPSIS:
The item is a computer game in the first-person shooter genre. The player controls a character named Mason who is a mercenary and must complete 14 missions spanning 5 locations in which the player combats mercenaries belonging to a sinister organisation called the Varangian Group. The game may be played in single or multiplayer mode.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
When making decisions, the Classification Board (the Board) follows the procedures set out in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act). The Board also ‘applies the National Classification Code and the Classification Guidelines, while taking into account the matters set out in section II of the Act.

In the Board’s view this game warrants an ‘RC’ classification in accordance with item 1(d) of the computer games table of the National Classification Code:

1. Computer games that:

(d) are unsuitable for a minor to see or play;” will be Refused Classification.

The game contains violence that is high in impact and the game is therefore unsuitable for persons aged under 18 years to play. The violence takes place in the context of confrontations between the player’s character, Mason, and the opposing mercenaries encountered in each of the game’s missions.

Mason uses a variety of firearms, including shotguns, automatic rifles and pistols, to kill the enemy mercenaries. Successfully shooting an opponent results in the depiction of’ blood spray. When the enemy is shot from close range the blood spray is substantial, especially when a high-caliber weapon is used, and blood splatters onto the ground and walls in the environment. The player may target various limbs of the opponents and this can result in the limb being dismembered. Large amounts of blood spray forth from the stump with the opponent sometimes remaining alive before eventually dying from the wounds.

Blood remains on the ground as do the dead bodies. Dead bodies on the ground may be repeatedly attacked. The limbs may be shot off, resulting in large amounts of blood spray and the depiction of torn flesh and protruding bone from the dismembered limb. Shooting the head of a body will cause it to explode in a large spray of blood, leaving a bloody stump above the shoulders. Bodies will eventually disappear from the environment.

Violent encounters of the type described above are frequent throughout the game and this contributes to the impact.

The Board notes that the game includes a Violence setting. When this is set to “off”, blood and dismemberment depictions are reduced.

DECISION
This game is Refused Classification.

– Classification Board report

Excessive violence for MA15+

October 18, 2007
The game, SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK contained “high impact violence” that was too high to receive a classification from the board, a spokeswoman for the Classifications Board told NEWS.com.au.

“(The decision was based on) the different ways a player could maim and injure (other characters),” the spokeswoman said.

“The violence is seen to exceed the MA classification.”

The Classifications Board spokeswoman said the 50 CENT: BULLETPROOF game, which was refused classification in 2005, contained a similar level of violence.

– Censors ban ‘Soldier Of Fortune: Payback’ for excessive violence
– news.com.au

October 19, 2007
Australia’s current classification regime is ultimately the responsibility of Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, although change requires the unanimous support of state Attorneys-General before a bill can be tabled before parliament.

The full response from Mr Ruddock to questions posed by SMH technology journalist Asher Moses regarding the SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK decision and the need for an R18+ classification is below:

“Decisions on significant classification policy issues such as this must be agreed unanimously by the Australian, State and Territory Censorship Ministers. Censorship Ministers discussed the R18+ classification for computer games at their November 2005 meeting and decided not to introduce an R18+ classification at this time. Further work is being done by officers and consideration will be given at another time.

“I am aware of research into game-playing trends in Australia, including findings that indicate some support for an R18+ classification for computer games. I also understand that industry is making technical advances on platforms that may help to prevent children accessing games suitable only for adults (ie parental locks). However these protections do not yet extend to all the gaming platforms currently available.

“I am aware that on 16 October 2007 the Classification Board classified the computer game SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK RC (Refused Classification). I have been advised that the computer games (sic) features violence that exceeds a strong playing impact and is unsuitable for a minor to see or play.

“Due to concerns about the ‘interactive’ nature of computer games and the impact on, and potential for harm to, minors, MA 15+ is the highest classification.”

– Minor priority
– theage.com.au

Censored for MA15+

In November 2007, a modified version was passed with an MA15+ (Strong violence, Coarse language and sexual references, Gaming experience may change online) rating.

Movie-Censorship has as a comparison between the censored Australian version and the uncut version.

Activision on the modifications

November 2007
…the revised version of the game featured reduced rag doll physics, no dismemberment with enemies (alive or dead), and toned down blood effects.

– Activision Australia

November 22, 2007
Australian gamers will soon be able to battle through some of the world’s most dangerous hotspots as a revised version of SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK has been granted classification by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. This revised version has been classified as MA 15+ (Strong violence, Coarse language and sexual references) and meets the rating requirements as stated by the OFLC.

SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK thrusts players into adrenaline-pumping mercenary combat action after a routine escort mission goes horribly wrong. The game evolves the signature gameplay of its predecessors with refined controls, tension-packed warzones, and an enemy damage system that may be shocking even to experienced FPS players.

Players are armed with an impressive arsenal of more than 30 weapons, including sub-machine guns, assault rifles, and projectile explosives, as they hunt down an insidious enemy that respects neither laws, nations, nor armies. The game also offers individual and team based online modes including: Death Match, Team Death Match, Elimination, Team Elimination, Capture the Flag and Demolition.

– Activision Australia

RC vs. MA15+ violence

Chris reports.
The violence in SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK is very comical and is hard to take seriously, which was the intention of developer, Cauldron. They stated during pre-production they viewed various pieces of footage of real-life shootings and gory moments hoping to bring a much more realistic feel to the SOLDIER OF FORTUNE series while somewhat still maintaining the comical, bloody style of the previous games. However, they eventually determined that doing so would remove the intentionally comical elements and bring the game into a far more disturbing realm. Hence, it is full of ridiculous blood spray and outright stupid dismemberment.

How the OFLC saw fit to ban the game is beyond me as the gore is just downright unrealistic and blatantly comical. It is on par with that seen in games such as DEAD RISING (2006). If anything the OFLC should have banned the previous two games as the gore seen earlier in the SOLDIER OF FORTUNE series is more realistic and disturbing. Although compared to real life, it is still extremely comical.

PAYBACK utilises the well-known ragdoll physics and implements a “calibre” based gore system. Meaning the bigger your gun, the more gore and blood spray. You can choose from a variety of weapons all of which trigger pretty much the same type of damage. For example, if you are shooting at someone with a conventional assault rifle, quite a lot of blood will be spurting out. Hit their leg or arm and it will fly off, hit their head and it disappears in a cloud of blood spray. Keep shooting after they are dead and eventually nothing but a torso and blood will be remain.

If you choose to try out a shotgun expect blood and limbs flying everywhere. One blast will knock a guy across the street. When you start blasting a dead body; you can just keep shooting it down the street or around a room until there’s a huge trail of limbs and blood. It will flop around like a ragdoll while bleeding all over the place. But due to the comical nature of the violence, none of the deaths appears painful or distressing in any way. It’s just well…pointless gory violence.

The game’s violence consists only of running from point A to B shooting and causing lots of blood spray/dismemberment. There are not any gory cut-scenes or scripted moments to speak off. Head-shots merely consist of the head in question disappearing in a blood spurt like the GRAND THEFT AUTO series. Using an explosive weapon such as a grenade or an RPG will cause your enemy to become nothing more than a bloody torso. Limbs will fly off, blood will splatter on the sidewalk and nothing will be left.

Different weapons produce different amounts of gore but the core of the violence is still identical in every possible scenario. Whether it be a pistol, a sniper rifle, a submachine gun or a heavy machine gun. Occasionally you will notice a bone sticking out of the stump where an arm or leg used to be.

Unlike in the previous SOLDIER OF FORTUNE games, you cannot throw knives at people. All you can do is swipe. There will be a little blood squirt before they flop to the ground. No actual wounds or bullet holes are visible. A dark red patch of blood will merely fill wherever you shoot someone.

I fail to see why a version removing dismemberment and containing less blood spray was even submitted to the OFLC. The game is bad enough as it is, but without the gore, it would be horrendous.

Overall the banning seems to highlight yet again just how inconsistent the OFLC can be in making decisions. DEAD RISING (2006), GEARS OF WAR (2006) and previous SOLDIER OF FORTUNE games are all about on par with the violence in SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK.

Classification Board on violence in games

August 28, 2008
Kotaku AU: Regarding the portrayal of violence in video games – it appears dismemberment, decapitation; post-mortem damage and blood pooling are major issues for the Board, under the classification guidelines. Can you elaborate on what factors make these elements acceptable in the MA15+ category? For example, it appears to be acceptable in FALLOUT 3, but was deemed not so for SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK.

Classification Board: The Classification Board is of the opinion that the violence in FALLOUT 3 which includes large blood bursts, dismemberment and post-mortem damage is strong in impact. Strong impact violence that is justified by context can be accommodated at the MA 15+ classification.

The Board is of the opinion that the violent depictions in SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK exceed strong impact. In SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK blood spray is substantial and blood splatters on the ground and walls. The player may target various limbs of the opponents and this can result in the limb being dismembered. Large amounts of blood spray forth from the stump with the opponent sometimes remaining alive before eventually dying from the wounds. Additionally, dead bodies and blood remains on the ground. Dead bodies on the ground may be repeatedly attacked. The limbs may be shot off, resulting in large amounts of blood spray and the depiction of torn flesh and protruding bone from the dismembered limb. Shooting the head of a body will cause it to explode in a large spray of blood, leaving a bloody stump above the shoulders. Bodies will eventually disappear from the environment.

The impact provided by the amount of blood and detail of dismemberment in SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK exceeds that can be accommodated at MA 15+ (such as the depictions in FALLOUT 3).

– Australian Classification Board speaks on games, R18+ & Fallout 3
– article @ kotaku.com.au

Complaints to the censor

September 21, 2008
The Classification Board received 169 complaints in relation to the classification of computer games. Seventeen complaints were received about the RC classification of SOLDIER OF FORTUNE. These complaints also referred to the absence of an R 18+ classification for computer games.

The Classification Board also received 553 complaints that were specifically in regard to an R 18+ classification for computer games. 550 complaints were concerned about the absence of an R 18+ classification for computer games in Australia and called for its introduction. Three complaints did not support the introduction of this classification category for computer games.

– Classification Board, Annual Report 2007-2008