SEGA’s Managing Director, Darren Macbeth, was overwealmed that the game was lowered to MA15+.

“It is with great pleasure that we announce the success of our appeal. We are proud to confirm that the game will be released in Australia in its original entirety, with no content altered or removed in any way. We were confident of successfully appealing the board’s original decision to refuse classification, and appreciate that the Classification Review Board has made a decision that complies with the current guidelines and framework.”

While HOtD fans may share the good news amongst themselves, it still highlights the need of an R18+ rating for video games, which hopefully is introduced by the end of the year. But as it is, games like this one, along with F.3.A.R. and Dead Island are available to minors while these games recieve adults-only ratings overseas.

House of the Dead: Overkill – Extended Cut goes on sale in Australia October 27th.

“The “Hardcore” game mode allows players to play in a manner that exceeds strong in impact,” claims the report, “engaging a headshot-only mode which results in frequent, detailed blood and gore as the zombies and mutants [sic] heads explode into bloody pieces that spread around the environment and onto the screen. The game also contains an “Extra mutants mode” which increases the amount of mutants the player must kill to proceed, resulting in an increased intensity and frequency of violence. In addition the game contains a baby mutant that jumps onto the screen and explodes into bloody chunks when killed.”

In response to the ban, SEGA’s managing director, Darren Macbeth, had this to say:

“There are far worse titles currently available in the marketplace which involve more than shooting down mutants in humorous circumstances. We will do everything we can to prove that House of the Dead: Overkill is worthy of an MA15+ rating in Australia.”

The company had three choices on its hands: edit the game’s content so that the game is passed MA15+, challenge the RC rating, or don’t release the game in Australia. They chose the second option, and the Review Board will meet on September 26 to review the decision.

This game contains a series of mini games which provide a single player (or a multiple of players up to four) with a variety of tasks. These mini games, which are randomly available to players based on a choice of ‘moods’, include dance moves and activities, which may require interaction with other players. There are no sexual references in actual game play. Text boxes, which contain miscellaneous facts about gender differences and interactions, randomly appear whilst a mini game is loading. Some of those text boxes contain mild sexual references. The text boxes contain no interactive elements.

Banning a game that features extreme violence and “over 90 fatalities” is one thing, but making an adult party game available to minors is ridiculous. The game should have been given a least an M rating.

The applicant was Federal Home Affairs Minister, Brendan O’Connor, who may challenge this decision if he wishes.

Read the full media release here.

A member of the web site Collective Shout has written a review of the game, slamming the Classification Board for making the game available to minors. What’s unique about the review is that it encourages its readers to e-mail department stores as well as the Classification Board and the Attorney-General.

Judging by the comments, enough people made complaints to warrant a review.

We Dare is already released in Europe under a PEGI 12 rating, but it has attracted criticism in North America, with Ubisoft removing a trailer of the game and plans for a North American released shelved.

People may be entitled to file an application for a review of a computer game, but doing so after the game gets released is pointless.

The Review Board will meet on June 18 for the review.

The Classification Review Board met on Friday to confirm its RC status, possible due to excessive violence. WB has issued the following statement:

We’re obviously extremely disappointed that the Refused Classification decision has been upheld by the Classification Review Board. We want to thank the thousands of Mortal Kombat fans in Australia and around the world who have voiced their support during the appeal process.

They have two options here. They modify the game, removing the offending content and resubmit the edited version to the Classification Board, or simply not release the game at all.

After F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin was slapped with an RC rating in 2008, WB launched a successful appeal, meaning that the game could be sold with a MA15+ rating.

A three-member panel of the Classification Review Board (the Review Board) has unanimously determined that the computer game Aliens vs Predator is classified MA 15+ with the consumer advice ‘Strong science fiction violence’.

In the Review Board’s opinion the violence depicted in the game can be accommodated within the MA 15+ category as the violent scenes are not prolonged and are interspersed with longer non violent sequences. The violence is fantastical in nature and justified by the context of the game, set in a futuristic science-fiction world, inhabited by aliens and predators. This context serves to lessen its impact. The more contentious violence is randomly generated and is not dependent on player selection of specific moves.

Although this looks like a win for gamers, it clearly means that the game will be available to 15 year olds, despite the game specifically targeted at adults.

This is the same Review Board which previously refused to overturn the ban on Left 4 Dead 2. Their reasons for Refusing Classification to an uncensored L4D2 were that the game featured:

• Realistic, frenetic and unrelenting violence
• Insufficient delineation between the depiction of general zombie figures and the human figures
• Close-in attacks that cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore

And yet only a month later, the Review Board has granted an MA15+ rating to a game which, according to the Classification Board, features:

…close-up depictions of human characters being subjected to various types of violence, including explicit decapitation and dismemberment as well as locational damage such as stabbing through the chest, throat, mouth or eyes. Characters can be stabbed with a Predator’s wrist blade or an Alien’s tail in depictions reminiscent of impalement.

The Predator collects “trophies” by explicitly ripping off human heads, their spinal columns dangling from severed necks. Heads can be completely twisted around in order to break a character’s neck. Eyes can be stabbed through or gouged out, leaving empty, bloodied eye sockets. It is noted that a player is able to combine manoeuvres together in quick succession, which further increases impact; for example, a Predator can stab a character through both eyes with its wrist blades and then rip off their head, with spinal column still attached. Extensive post-mortem damage, including decapitation and dismemberment, is also possible.

Depictions of violence such as the above are accompanied by copious amounts of blood and gore, including ample wound detail and visible skeleton.

So, according our Federal ratings body, it is okay to perform gratuitous violence displayed in graphic detail upon realistically depicted humans, but it is not okay to perform the same sort of violence upon mindless zombies who just happen to look like humans.

With this sort of constant inconsistency surrounding what is and isn’t appropriate for an MA15+ rating, it is more important than ever that Australia joins the rest of the world in having an R18+ rating for video games.

Make your submission today to the discussion paper and help bring about this change as soon as possible.

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.