Left 4 Dead 2 News
Understandably, there’s been quite a lot of reaction to the banning of Left 4 Dead 2. The most notable of course being that Valve are appealing the decision and hoping to get the game passed on an MA15+ rating.
I had the opportunity to speak with the Classification Board as I was commissioned by games.on.net to write them a feature article on the Classification Board’s decision. Below is the full text of my questions and the answers that their spokesperson gave to me.
1) Was Left 4 Dead 2 examined by any of the same members of the Classification Board that examined the original Left 4 Dead?
The Classification Board acts as a body. It does not discuss or speculate on the opinions of its individual members. The Classification Board is broadly representative of the Australian community.
2) Does the Classification Board believe that the level of violence in Left 4 Dead 2 is objectively greater than in the original Left 4 Dead?
The Classification Board determined that the impact of the violence in Left 4 Dead was ‘strong’, and the impact of the violence in Left 4 Dead 2 was ‘high’. The Board classifies each computer game on a case by case basis.
3) Which specific areas of Left 4 Dead 2 would, in the Classification Board’s opinion, need editing in order to meet the requirements for sale and distribution as an MA15+ title in Australia?
The Classification Board does not advise on how material could be edited to receive a lower classification. That is a matter for the distributor of the computer game. The Board’s decision report contains information about the content that caused the computer game to be classified RC.
4) Have the publishers, Electronic Arts, stated or suggested to the Classification Board that they will be seeking a review of the RC rating for Left 4 Dead 2?
I understand the distributors applied for a review of the classification on 25 September 2009.
5) In the case of such a review, would the same members of the board who rated Left 4 Dead 2 as RC undertake the review with Electronic Arts, or would the review panel be composed of different people?
It would be a different board altogether. The Classification Review Board is an independent board, entirely separate to the Classification Board.
6) Is the Classification Board in a position to comment on the Discussion Paper for an R18+ rating for games which was developed by the Attorneys-General, and is the Board aware of any possible date at which the paper will be released to the public?
See answer to next question.
7) Was the Classification Board consulted on this Discussion Paper in any form, or will it be consulted in the future?
The Classification Board’s role is to classify material according to the National Classification Scheme. Changes to classification policy are a matter for Government.
As you can see, the Board was unwilling to provide me with any clarity on their seeming inconsistency with the different classifications with the original and the sequel. It was interesting to learn though that the Classification Review Board are entirely separate to the Classification Board – giving us slim hope that these new people will agree with the original minority decision of the Board to award L4D2 an MA15+ rating.
A big thankyou to everyone who left comments on the last article, the discussion was fantastic to see, and thanks to everyone who emailed in links about the events unfolding after the ban. Let’s cross our fingers and see what happens over the next week.
(link)
Dave says:
It’s interesting that you mention the discussion paper. The discussion paper on the R18+ rating for games was first agreed upon in princple at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-Genreal in March 2008, originally with a view of releasing it in early 2009. It was then confirmed that they were planning on releasing the discussion paper at their November 2008 meeting, and then again in their April 2009 meeting. It’s now practically October and the discussion paper still isn’t ready for public consultation.
(link)
Glenn says:
Remember that Michael Atkinson refused to debate the issue. So not only does he refuse to agree on a R rating, he is now delaying the discussion paper as long as he can. Anyone who votes him back in the next SA election is completely retarded.
(link)
Glenn says:
gamepolitics.com interviews Margaret Pomeranz about the lack of an R18+ rating for games:
http://byteside.com/blog/2009/10/01/margaret-pomeranz-on-r18/
(link)
Pirate says:
Who can we lobby to get this discussion paper going? Does Atkinson have a boss? Surely getting the discussion paper out of Atkinson’s hands is what we should focus on, not the OFLC?
(link)
Matt says:
@Pirate, Atkinson is responsible to the Labor Party of South Australia, although I get the impression he has a fair bit of leeway. (Premier Mike Rann seems to give him a fairly long leash.)
In addition to this, the new(ish) Federal Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O’Connor, has effectively said that the discussion paper is no longer a priority. (Previous Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus was to have released the paper by the end of July after taking over responsibility when the SCAG failed to reach a unanimous verdict. KRudd replaced Debus in a cabinet reshuffle in June.)
So we’re facing opposition (or at least indifference) at both State and Federal levels. (I’m willing to give KRudd the benefit of the doubt in as much as I don’t believe it was a deliberate ploy to stall the discussion paper; merely a beneficial side-effect for him.)
It is probably useless to lobby Atkinson (or Rann) as they’re fairly set in the matter; it may be worthwhile lobbying the SA opposition to get them to bring more attention to the matter, though I cannot say how effective this would be.