As you may recall, the game Velvet Assassin was recently granted an MA15+ rating despite the game’s heavy use of the drug morphine. I contacted the Classification Board at the time to ask for a clarification on this, and received an answer today.

The board notes that the game (Velvet Assassin) contains drug references that can be accommodated within a lower classification. However, the presence of the drug references warrants the additional consumer advice of drug references for the following reasons:

1) The drug references consist of references to morphine and the presence of syringes that can be collected by the players within each mission. The syringes allow the player to have morphine implicitly administered to them a limited number of times. The morphine links back to the reality of Violette being administered the drug in hospital. Although the use of morphine enables the player to better complete difficult parts of the mission, this does not lead to killings being more violent, to the demise of more enemies or a better outcome for the player or the character of Violette.

2) While the general rule in the Classification Guidelines state that “material that contains drug use (…) related to incentives or rewards is Refused Classification”, the Board is of the opinion that the incentives in the game are very nuanced and mitigated by the historical and medical context of the references to the drug. The drug references are no higher than moderate in playing impact. They can therefore be accommodated within a lower classification, but warrant the additional consumer advice of drug references.

The Board also addressed questions regarding the inevitable comparison between Velvet Assassin and Fallout 3:

The use of Morphine in the original version of Fallout 3 was refused classification for the following reasons:

1) The Guidelines state that “Material promoting or encouraging a proscribed drug use” is Refused Classification. The player can also select and use “Morphine” (a proscribed drug) which has the positive effect of enabling the character to ignore limb pain when the character’s extremities are targeted by the enemy.

2) In the Board’s view the drug use, in particular the use of a proscribed drug, via means of selection from a menu, is related to incentives and rewards as the incentive to take the drug is to progress through the game more easily and the reward is an increase in the character’s abilities and as such is Refused Classification.

The Board notes that the revised version of Fallout 3 which was classified MA15+ on 7 August 2008 has been modified to remove the incentive and reward of progressing through the game more easily from the element of drug use. The revised version has fictional drugs depicted as stylised icons which will not alter the physiological characteristics of the characters in the game. In the decision of the Board, there is no incentive or reward to select drug use, however the Board considers these drug references to be strong in impact.

Thanks to Donald McDonald at the Board for taking the time to answer my questions.

I can only feel however, that this heightens the confusion surrounding what the Classification Board feels as acceptable drug use. The morphine in Velvet Assassin puts Violette into a nightgown, the Nazi enemies into slow motion, and allows the player to cut them to ribbons with increased efficiency, but this is not considered an incentive because it is (apparently) justified by game and historical context. In fact the board considers it so negligible they believe it to be suited to an even lower classification.

Allowing a Fallout 3 character to ignore limb pain and keep functioning however, is considered an incentive, even though the drugs in Fallout 3 actually feature realistic consequences for drug use like addiction and withdrawal symptoms, and even though this use of morphine, and its consequences for the player, is contextually far more accurate to the real-world use of the same proscribed drug.

The more questions like this have to keep being asked of the Classification Board, the clearer it becomes that the standards for classifying games in Australia are in desperate need of an overhaul.

You can see the full text of the Classification Board’s response by clicking here.

This entry was posted on Friday, March 13th, 2009 at 5:19 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

4 Comments on Morphine and the Classification Board

1. 
   (link)
   

   Dan says:

   It really puzzles me that they simply do not include a mention of the withdrawal effects of Fallout 3’s drugs at all.

2. 
   (link)
   

   MattR says:

   I have brought this up elsewhere regarding morphine vs Med-X: how is using a fictitious drug (with a fictitious name) any different from using a fictitious drug (with a real-world name), particularly in an overtly fictitious context?

   The more I see these ostenstibly ad hoc decisions, the more I wonder if our classification scheme is based on whether the board members have had their morning cup of coffee.

3. 
   (link)
   

   Karl says:

   I’m not that in tune with Australia’s classification system, but the lack of th R-18 is definitely antiquated.

   The Fallout example of Morphine is a choice in the game where you way up the immediate effects with long term consequences. The fact that it happens to be a narcotic is almost irrelevant. I agree with MattR, it appears they need their morning cup of coffee just to be able to think clearly.

4. 
   (link)
   

   GB says:

   For you

   http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/games/web-filters-to-censor-video-games-20090625-cxrx.html

   Bring your rage.