Left 4 Dead 2 Refused Classification in Australia

[Shawn Zipay]

Left 4 Dead 2, the sequel to Valve's zombie survival shooter of 2008, has been refused classification from the Australian Classification Board. This means that the game, in its present state, cannot be released in Australia.

This is not entirely uncommon for games to be refused classification in various countries or regions. Valve and EA are investigating all of their options in order to have their game granted classification.

No specifics were given on the Classification Board website as to why the game was refused classification.

Update: Community reader, Reason134, found the PDF document explaining why Left 4 Dead 2 was refused classification. Apparently, the melee weapons were deemed to be too brutal for the Board. The gore and blood unleashed from hacking away multiple enemies at once and removing limbs was just too much to bear. Keep in mind that Left 4 Dead was not refused classification in this region.

[raptor552]

Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Refused Classification in Australia

governments with this much control need a severe change in their involvement with peoples lives.

[Linux]

Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Refused Classification in Australia

governments with this much control need a severe change in their involvement with peoples lives.

lol yeah. Thats dumb they feel the melee weapons cause too much gore... The guns are just as bad ~_~.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Refused Classification in Australia

I can understand the distinguishment, though. I think any of us would agree that, in the real world, the degree of separation between ourselves and our targets impacts our willingness to follow through with something. This is why combat pilots rarely if ever have trouble engaging the enemy, while many soldiers in the civil or revolutionary wars, face-to-face with their enemies, couldn't pull the trigger.

Separation is a critical factor, so if shooting someone else is difficult by human nature, then hacking them to bits with some sort of blunt instrument (or sharpened... both exist in L4D2) is definitely taking it to the next, far more intimate and personal level.

For us, with our (well-adjusted) gamer backgrounds and corresponding desensitization to simulated graphic violence, all the blood, severed limbs and screaming is just part of the expected feedback within that simulation. We don't process our actions in that virtual world through the same filter that we process our real world actions through.

I don't think many readers here could stomach taking an axe to a human cadaver, even if it wasn't reanimated by some strange biological event. The key difference is our ability to see an image on a screen, know that it's fake, and have a very different emotional response than those of the reviewing board in Australia are having. For all accounts and purposes, it seems they're viewing this material in the same light as if they had to witness similar imagery in real life--which would be a gory, repulsive sight indeed.

Moral of the story: separating reality from fantasy isn't simply a question of age or if you're a psychotic individual; rather, it's a widespread issue that likely is largely inherent to an individual--driving some of us to play games, and others to desire to stop everyone from playing what they can't fathom being good entertainment.

[Shawn Zipay]

Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Refused Classification in Australia

They approved Left 4 Dead 1. Keep that in mind.

[snkcube]

Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Refused Classification in Australia

Australia's game rating system really blows. They need to establish an 18+ rating or something close to that age. 15+ isn't cutting it.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Refused Classification in Australia

They approved Left 4 Dead 1. Keep that in mind.

Did you read what I wrote?

You have no melee weapons in L4D. None. The only melee option is using your gun to push back a foe, to a distance where you can more safely dispatch them. Yes technically done enough times this can result in them staying down, but generally all killing is done via projectile weapons. This is more removed, sanitized, and less "brutal" of an approach.

Compare that with taking an axe to someone's torso and cutting them into two bleeding halves. Is it really so difficult to see how that implies a much more intimate and brutal level of violence than defending yourself with a shotgun does? Or do you have to stick your bare thumbs through the rupturing membranes of their eye sockets, reach into their mouth and rip their skull apart before you recognize the difference?

It's simply a question of degree. For someone like me, taking a virtual axe to a virtual zombie does not constitute offensive imagery. Some of my close friends, however, would have recurring nightmares from seeing exactly the same thing. They're no less mature than me; they just have more active imaginations that process through the same path as their perceptions of reality, to the point they can't imagine something that is fake without having a real response to it.

The acceptable "crossover point" for most people is in movies, when the main character's life is slipping away as their loved one holds them in their arms, and your girlfriend starts crying next to you. Both of you recognize that it's not real, but she's processing it (and perhaps you are too) through the same emotional filter as if it actually were happening right in front of you both.

Video games are just an extension of this same styles or reaction.

The type of people who are affected by intimate, brutal fantasy violence are more likely to be drawn to work in a field that censors violence. Likewise those who aren't are more likely to be drawn to work in a field that creates these violent images. At the end of the day you've got two personality types facing off, all under the guise of two professions facing off.

It's easy for those of us with the "gamer personality," to criticize those with the "sensitive personality" but it isn't really fair to do--they're different from us, and there never will be a meeting of the minds where they can be okay with what we're okay with. Likewise, it isn't really fair for them to assume that their sensitivities are somehow right, and that they need to prevent us from enjoying the things they could never see as enjoyable. Neither perspective is really one of understanding or fairness, but in my view there cannot be any reconciliation of these two views, so the struggle will continue.

Still, even if we disagree with the conclusion of this rating board, I don't think we should immediately treat it like it's illogical and baseless. They have clear, well-defined reasons for their decision, pertaining to the intimacy and brutality of the additional actions made available in L4D2 to players which were not available in L4D.

I personally still think L4D2 is fine, but you really have to be willfully blind to not be able to see where they're coming from.

[Renegade[CSR]]

Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Refused Classification in Australia

MadWorld, which was absolutely brutal in its display of violence, was approved for classification in Australia. Inconsistent much?

[Shawn Zipay]

Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Refused Classification in Australia

So... in the first game it's ok to dismember the Infected using bullets, but the moment melee is introduced it's taboo?

Gears of War featured a chainsaw attached to a gun that can cut enemies in half... and was also approved there.

There's a huge deal of double standards going on with that Board.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Refused Classification in Australia

Does your copy of L4D allow dismemberment? I've honestly never seen that with mine that I can recall.

I completely agree that it's a double-standard compared to those games. Just not in context of L4D. I am curious how they justify that... is it just because your enemies in Gears of War are less humanoid? Or is it that common household items are being used in L4D2, and they fear it will inspire similar acts among the populace? Hard to say...

Either way, I think we all disagree with their decision, but it does make for some interesting debate. [Update: check out [link="http://gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=24795"]this link[/link] about Australia's rating system if curious... goes with what snkcube wrote.]

On a side-note, the "Akimbo Assassin" achievement is actually a lot of fun to get. The whole game felt a lot more like playing "Area 51" or similar arcade shooter, probably in part due to having to be a little more careful with my aim than I am with my typical weapon loadout. Have you guys tried that one yet?

[Sintra]

Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Refused Classification in Australia

I think Nighthawk said everything that was needed to say.
You put to words that which I have always felt about this issue.

[K-16]

Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Refused Classification in Australia

MadWorld, which was absolutely brutal in its display of violence, was approved for classification in Australia. Inconsistent much?

I'm surprised you unintentionally answered my question as I was going through every comment here. With L4D2 refused in Australia, and reading -:Nighthawk:-'s opinion regarding a possible (and extremely likely) reason behind their judgement, I wondered if MadWorld passed judgement... Shockingly, you're telling me it did... Are you ****ing kidding me? The only possible way I can imagine this being "more appropriate" than L4D2 would be the fact that MadWorld isn't in full color (and even designed as a comic book style), and therefore is less likely to have a negative psychological impact (no, I'm not talking about insanity, I meant -:Nighthawk:-'s understandable version). Still... Are you ****ing kidding me?...

And as for Zip's comments regarding L4D, I have to admit the violence was cleaner than the brutal melee introduced in L4D2. While the up-close and personal effect is in L4D1 through pistol-whipping (etc.), it's not as graphic as slicing someone in half or smashing their head in, and seeing that less than half a meter away from you. I can't remember if you can shoot off limbs, but assuming you can, you're still sort of far enough to not be that emotionally affected (again, not in terms of insanity) in the sense that a bullet is less "personal" than a cricket bat. However, your point about Gears of Wars given classification confuses me... By that I mean the Board is a hypocrite. I mean, yeah sure, -:Nighthawk:- provided another possible reason behind that judgement, but I call bull**** either way.

I'm going to finish my post here with some questions. Are customers unable to tell which games are not suited for them? Perhaps box art is far too misleading? Do customers not deserve the choice to purchase the game? Is the Board going beyond rating games really necessary? (Although I do hope North America's ESRB would refuse a game if it was too much such as for example, slaughtering/raping women and children for no reason and with no other objective aside from that. And please don't say GTA3 onwards, because I don't believe that counts.)

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Re: Left 4 Dead 2 Refused Classification in Australia

A clarification on Australia's rating system versus America's:

In America, for films, we have 5 groups: G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17
For games we have 6 groups: EC, E, E10+, T, M, AO. (3+, 6+, 10+, 13+, 17+, and 18+)

By law, video games with the M rating cannot be sold to persons under the age of 17, and AO titles cannot be sold to persons under the age of 18. That doesn't mean it never happens obviously, but that's the official stance.

Australia has a 5-tier system as well: E, G, PG, M, MA15+

The difference is that their M rating is a "suggested 15 or above" but not actually restricted; only their MA15+ rating is restricted sales.

Australian films have the R18+ and X18+ (both restricted to 18+ audiences, but the X specifically for sexual content) ratings available, but games are denied access to these ratings currently. Thus a game like L4D2, even if it's viewed as appropriate for 17-year-olds, could not be sold in Australia because of not being viewed as appropriate for 15-year-olds, the oldest minimum age required.

If legislation goes through to allow the R18+ classification on video games, then titles like L4D2 could be sold there. Currently, though, this is not the case. With that in mind, I would view their lack of legal ability to properly classify games as the biggest issue in this whole mess. That's something the Australian populace will have to pressure their politicians into fixing if they want to enjoy this medium of entertainment.