APC administrator29 June 2006, 7:50 AM
Considering the level of violence present in modern games, the decision by the OFLC to ban the game Reservoir Dogs is a strange one. Is it a political move?
Recently, Australia has been getting a lot of grief from the international games press for being a little trigger-happy when it comes to banning games. First it was Mark Ecko's Getting Up, banned because a local government member in Queensland claimed that it would encourage vandalism (playing it did make me want to vandalise the game DVD, but that could be deemed a public service).
Now it's that time of the month again, and the OFLC has refused to classify the game Reservoir Dogs, based on the Quentin Tarantino film of the same name. And no, it isn't because it's too hard to pick a colour ("I had four guys fighting over Mr. Black!").
The OFLC has deemed the violence in Reservoir Dogs to be too extreme to allow the game to be given an MA15+ rating, and, in the absence of an R18+ rating for games, has no choice but to ban the game. What I'm about to suggest may seem a little crazy at first, but I want you, dear readers, to hear me out.
This is a political move by the OFLC to encourage legislators to create an R18+ classification for games.
My reasoning is simple; the instances of violence which are highlighted in the OFLC statement about the game are not tame by any means, but in the grander scheme of things aren't far beyond what most gamers have seen in current titles which have been given an MA15+ rating.
The most recent review I did for APC was Hitman: Blood Money (H:BM). In it, the player takes control of a hitman going about his business - killing people that is. Methods of execution range from pushing people off tall things, to garroting them with fibre-wire, then all the way to stabbing a set of open hedge-clippers into their back and then closing them, severing their spine.
Nothing mentioned by the OFLC as a justification for banning Reservoir Dogs is any more confronting than the situations presented by H:BM, which leads this tin-foil hat wearing journalist to the conclusion that Reservoir Dogs is just a much more politically significant game.
When the film came out, the usual suspects came out of the woodwork and condemned it for containing some very violent content (Stuck in the Middle with You comes to mind). Of course, it was given the same assessment the OFLC gives any film, deemed to be for adults, and given an R18+ rating. However, the OFLC is not in a position to do this with a game because of the legal situation, and has no choice but to ban it.
As such, it's not hard to surmise that some long-standing members of the OFLC might be getting sick and tired of being forced to ban games without real cause, simply because they can't give them an appropriate classification. Choosing a high profile title like this to use as the poster-child for the movement makes a lot of sense, as it's known amongst people outside of the gaming fraternity.
So don't blame the OFLC for this decision; they are merely doing their jobs, using the set of guidelines and classifications determined by the federal Attorney General. If you are really angry about this decision, and think that as an adult you have a right to decide whether this game is any good for yourself, send our mate Philip Ruddock an email, and explain your feelings.
Please avoid 1337 speak.