Left 4 Dead 3: The Office of Film and Literature Classification

Picture the scene: A board room with a group of people around a table, debating the latest batch of movies and video games heading to our shores. They pick up a copy of "Left 4 Dead 2". "Hmm." ponders one member, with a frown on his face. Another member takes the box from the first and utters some disapproving clucks before shaking his head. Another hand reaches across and extracts it from the grip of the second person. A soft gasp is heard as this person looks at the box. "Zombies? Decapitation and piles of bodies? Splashes of blood? Oh no no no no no, we can't let the Australian population be exposed to such violence. It will warp anyone who sees this, it will destroy our moral values, it will harm our children, we must think of the children!!!!" A couple voices of reason rise up, mentioning the fact that the first game received the MA rating, but these nay-sayers are shouted down, the giant BANNED stamp is hauled out, inked up and the game is now marred by a giant red word across it's face. It is then tossed on a pile of similarly banned titles while the board reaches for the next one, smug in the knowledge that they have protected the people from such evil, as all the while the real world passes them by and heads deeper into the 21st century and slowly they are Left 4 Dead.





The Classification Board has refused classification on the Left 4 Dead sequel citing the following: "The game contains realistic, frenetic and unrelenting violence which is inflicted upon “the infected” who are living humans infected with a rabies-like virus that causes them to act violently"...“The player can choose from variety of weapons such as the pistols, shotguns, guns and sniper rifles. However, it is the use of the “melee” weapons such as the crowbar, axe, chainsaw and Samurai sword which inflict the most damage. These close in attacks 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. Projectile shots to infected humans can cause abdominal wounds which can reveal innards or even cause intestines to spill from the wounds." *makes a wounded motion with my hand over my heart and my other hand pressed to my forehead* Thank you for protecting me from the evils of virtual abdominal wounds, innards and intestines. I mean, the years where I helped with the making of salami and seeing real intestines and innards of animals is nothing compared to the virtual guts of a virtual zombie as I hit them or shoot them with a virtual weapon.



Yes, the game is violent, but it was never intended to be played by underage people. It was meant to be played by adults, who should be free to choose what to they want to view, read and play. If it was meant to be played by children, the guns would be slingshots and shoot flowers and the infected would be bunnies that are holding magical buckets that every time a flower is shot into it, some pollution in the world is cleaned up meaning more happy bunnies to fling flowers at. Some members on the board even pointed out that the first game was given the MA15 rating, but that wasn't enough to save the game from the BanHammer



This rating comes about because Australia's classification system for media is not only one of the strictest in the west, but one of the most archaic. The system does not have a R18 rating for games, even though every other type of media does. This results in games that are deemed too violent, racy, etc to be refused classification, meaning they cannot be sold in the country. I briefly touched on this in an earlier post.



There have been numerous calls for the R18 classification to be brought in, but there is just one problem. To do so, it needs the unanimous support of all the attorney-generals, and currently, all but one is in support of it. Meet Michael Atkinson, Attorney-General for South Australia:



This is the man who believes that the country is still living in the 1950's and the golden age of oppression of basic human freedoms. He is the ONLY Attorney-General who is opposed to the introduction of an adult rating to games. He claims that it is because he is opposed to children being able to get access to this type of media, and that by opposing the introduction of this rating, he is making Australia a shining beacon of moral decency in a world of decay. Nice sentiments I'm sure Mr Atkinson. How's life back there in the 50's? There's only a few things wrong with that stance. First, by standing against the people, a majority of which do want this classification brought it, you are not protecting the children from accessing these types of materials, in fact you're probably making it easier for them to access it. By making it so retailers cannot sell the games in Australia, where they can conduct ID checks on those buying the games to see if they meet the age requirements, you are forcing people who want these games to purchase them online from another country and mailing them to their homes. There are no age checks and so someone of any age can buy these games. Secondly, you're hurting the economy. Game purchases are becoming more and more a part of the spending of the people. I don't have exact figures, for that I'd have to consult one of my most recent issues of Hyper magazine, who did a recent article showing the figures, but the numbers are large, and are gaining ground. By not allowing this classification, any games not meeting the current standards are banned from being sold in the country, taking money away from local retailers and finally, by forcing the game producers to either reproduce their products without the offending material or not be sold in the country, they will eventually just choose not to sell to us. They can forgo the profit of a country of 20 million people in favour of a world with a population of 6 billion sans the population of Australia.
As if his ancient stance wasn't bad enough, in his infinite wisdom, he is also blocking the release of a public paper that canvasses the opinion of the Australian public on whether or not an R18 classification should be introduced. Studies done by Bond University indicate that a majority of people whom they interviewed want an R18 rating to be introduced and many Psychologists back this study and condemn the position of Michael Atkinson.
Electronic Frontiers Australia is running a campaign to have the R18+ classification for games introduced in Australia. Hopefully they can get somewhere and Australia can finally return from being Left 4 Dead.