Sega Australia's general manager, Darren Macbeth, tells Kotaku "It is with great pleasure that we announce the success of our appeal. We are particularly proud that the game will be released in its original entirety, with no content altered or removed whatsoever. This is a big win for Australian gamers. We applaud the Classification Review Board on making a decision that clearly considers the context of the game, and is in line with the modern expectations of reasonable Australians".

The ruling means the game will now be classified MA15+, meaning only those aged 15 years over can purchase the game. It also means no cuts or edits will need to be made to the title in order for it be sold, which is lucky, since developers Rebellion had sworn that's something they weren't going to do.

Like Macbeth says, it's nice to see common sense win out for once in this country.

The paper has been released to canvas public opinion on whether Australia's classification guidelines should be amended to include an R18+ rating. It's not a clear statement of intent, nor a sign that changes are on the way; it's the government simply saying "hey, we're listening, what's up".

Still, this is probably the best chance for Aussies fed up with receiving heavily censored titles to have their opinions heard officially, so if you're an Australian citizen or resident hit the link below and fire off an email if you'd like to contribute.

[An R18+ Classification for Computer Games - Public Consultation]

This morning, for example, I awoke to find Rebellion - the developers behind Aliens vs Predator - saying that they wouldn't be making any changes to the game in light of its failure to secure classification in Australia. Were that simply from a business standpoint (ie, it's too small a market to go back into the code), that's fine. Whatever.

But they went and provided an official statement on the matter, which said "We will not be releasing a sanitised or cut down version for territories where adults are not considered by their governments to be able to make their own entertainment choices."

See that, right there? It's harsh. And it's 100% bullshit.

Whenever a game is refused classification in Australia - a move which effectively bans the game, since it is illegal to sell a game without a Classification Board rating attached - I hear the same old thing being said by publishers and gamers alike. That it's either the fault of the Australian government, the Classification Board, or some underlying moral flaw in the Australian people.

Let me tell you why games are continually "banned" in Australia. It is not, as you may believe, the fault of the Australian "government". Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his cabinet have never broached the subject. They have not passed any laws banning violent video games, nor will they. This is a free, liberal and democratic country.

Nor is there some movement or mass media crusade in this country, like there is in Germany, to crack down on violent content in video games. Newspapers, talk shows and TV hosts have better/more important things to talk about. It's not even on their radar. The Australian people, like people everywhere else, are free to purchase what they like, and since the biggest game of the year down here will be Modern Warfare 2, we clearly enjoy a bit of the ol' ultra-violence.

And it's not the fault of the Classification Board. They review what they're given and have to rate it within the guidelines they're given; they're not some autonomous body, some powerful government force able to lobby for changes. They do what they do within the rules, get paid, life goes on.

So whenever you see or hear a publisher, developer or writer from the US or Europe blaming any of the things above, ignore them. They don't know what they're talking about.

The actual cause of Australia's current situation can be traced back decades, to the time ratings for video games were first introduced. Because at the time games were so simple, childish and crude (they were, after all, still considered "toys"), it was decided that the maximum rating they'd need was MA15+. A mistake, then but an innocent one.

Fast forward to this decade, and suddenly games are incredibly realistic. The Xbox 360, PS3 and PC can depict scenes of shocking violence, and a maturing development scene means sex and drugs now feature prominently in video games as well. Games aren't just meeting the MA15+ rating, they're often exceeding it.

So, it's time for a law change, then! Should be simple enough. Australia has a number of international developers lobbying the government, it's a billion-dollar market, it's a free country. Except...to amend the classification laws, all six of Australia's state Attorneys-General need to unanimously agree to the change.

Five of them do, and have been for some time now. They're reasonable people, who realise that adults should be free to choose their own adult forms of entertainment. But one - South Australia's Michael Atkinson - does not.

An incredibly conservative man, Atkinson vehemently opposes the introduction of an R18+ rating in Australia, as he believes that would make it too easy for children to access the mature content in an adult game. Despite the fact it's legal to sell not only R18+ DVDs in this country, which would presumably allow the exact same thing, but in some territories (like mine) it's even legal to purchase XXX pornographic material.

Despite years of letters, phone calls and industry lobbying, Atkinson has refused to budge. He likely never will, meaning the only way Australia's classification laws are liable to change is if he dies, or loses his seat at the next election (a gaming party is seeking to do just that, but campaigning on such a limited platform, they won't likely be successful).

Well, that or change the constitution. And that's not going to happen over something so trivial (which, in the grand scheme of things, this is).

So developers, publishers, and everybody else with an opinion on why a game is "banned" in Australia or what's wrong with us if/when it is...try and keep all this in mind next time you go pointing the finger.

It's the reason Fallout 3 had to be edited, and why NFL Blitz has never been released in the region.

Another game effectively banned, blah blah blah, yada yada yada. It's not the first, it won't be the last, and anyone that draws attention to their ignorance by saying "what, Australians don't like violence?" or blames the entire government (it's the fault of near-sighted beaurecrats in the 1980's and a single state attorney-general), please, don't.

Drug Use The Reason For Crimecraft Banning [Kotaku AU]

Seems Sega know that the upcoming Aliens vs Predator is so violent, and packed with so much gore, that they're not even going to bother submitting it to the USK, Germany's classification board.

Rationale being that the USK, with a reputation for being sticklers for the ol' killerspiel, would only force sweeping changes to the game, changes Sega didn't want to part with, so they're instead just going to save some cash and not bother localising or distributing the game in Germany at all.

Aliens vs. Predator: Too gory for Germany? [PC Games Hardware]

Yup, Valve's Zombie shooter has been refused classification, which means it can't be made commercially available in the country. Not quite the same as a banning, but it has the same effect.

We've contacted Valve for comment, and will update when/if we hear back. Previous games to have suffered this fate usually receive an MA15+ rating later down the line after edits have been made to the offending content.

UPDATE - Here's why it was "refused classification":

* The game contains violence that is high in impact and is therefore unsuitable for persons aged under 18 to play.

* It notes that this violence is "inflicted upon ‘the Infected' who are living humans infected with a rabies-like virus that causes them to act violently."

* The report singles out the use of melee weapons as those that "inflict the most damage" and cause "copious amounts of blood spray and splatter (sic), decapitations and limb dismemberment… or even cause intestines to spill from the wounds."

* In conclusion, the Board finds that the "interactive nature of the game increases the overall impact of the frequent and intense depictions of violence. This coupled with the graphic depictions of blood and gore combine to create a playing impact which is high."

* Interestingly, the report also reveals that it wasn't a unanimous decision and that "a minority of the Board is of the opinion that the violence is strong in playing impact and therefore warrants an MA15+ classification" instead. However, the majority voted to refuse classification.

"It notes that this violence is "inflicted upon ‘the Infected' who are living humans infected with a rabies-like virus that causes them to act violently". Remember, kids, these are the people refusing the game classification. People who think zombies with limbs missing and their guts hanging out are "living humans".

The LA Times' Charles Proctor reports that, amidst concerns surrounding China's laws forbidding any reference to the Nazi party, THQ have rebranded the Germans in this new CoH title as "The Federation".

They've also removed any and all instances of the Iron Cross emblem, which fans will know can be found on pretty much every single German vehicle and structure in the game.

Despite these sweeping visual edits, THQ's online boss Steve Dauterman promises the actual game mechanics of the German side will remain untouched.

Now, I'm normally not one to criticise regional edits like this, but...they do know that there already were no references to the Nazi party in the game? And that the Iron Cross is the symbol of the German armed forces, was before the Nazi party, and remains so to this day?

In 1984, the Video Recordings Act was passed in British parliament, resulting in the supposed implementation of a law that would see retailers and individuals punished for providing under-age customers with age-restricted content (including video games).

Only, there was a problem: Britain, as a member of the European Union, never forwarded the paperwork onto the EU. Something every law needs to do in order to be formally passed.

This means that the Act was never actually implemented. And hasn't been for the past 25 years.

Those who have already been convicted of an offence under the act will remain convicted, and can't have their penalties/fines/sentences reduced. But those about to be prosecuted will be spared, at least until the government can enact "emergency legislation" to close the loophole (which we'd imagine won't be long).

And in the meantime? Until said loophole is closed, it's 100% legal for anyone, of any age, to buy anything. Movies, games, porn, doesn't matter. Even if it's media content that was previously banned in the UK, until that emergency legislation is passed, it's all good.

Oh, to be a 13 year-old British boy right now...

Error leaves children unprotected under 1984 Video Recordings Act [The Times]

In Australia and Germany, two markets where classification authorities (for varying reasons) run a tight ship, Blizzard will "have to change blood if [they're] going to sell there". We'd presume that means either tone it down or, like other games have done recently, change its colour.

For China, though...things aren't as easy. In fact, they're so hard the game may never be released there, Blizzard's Jay Wilson telling Wired "China's going to be hard for us. Because a lot of the restrictions there are really… we may not be able to do them. It may not be possible."

Why Designer of Gory Diablo III Lets His Daughter Play [Wired]

But it's one the German people are beginning to hit back against, as evidenced by this protest in the German city of Karlsruhe, which attracted an estimated 400 gamers.

Sure, 400 people may not sound like much, but this is a protest, not a cosplay event. Do any of you know 399 other people who would be willing to stand outside and wave placards and get angry at anything?

German Gamers Stage Protest March Against Govt. Crackdown on Violent Games [GamePolitics]

Some background: the Australian government, in an attempt to pander to conservative, ignorant family types, believes that a mandatory, nation-wide internet filter is the best way to bar access to things like online child pornography.

Sounds good in theory! Except, opponents take the line that if the government puts said filter in place, what's to stop them slowly increasing both the number and flavour of blocked sites?

Nothing. Especially when you consider an announcement made today by a spokesperson from the office of Stephen Conroy, Federal Minister for Communications.

This announcement says that the government's proposed web filter will not only include illegal, immoral stuff like child porn and terrorist-related shenanigans, but also cover some video games. Specifically, any and all video game material that exceeds Australia's current MA15+ rating.

So if a website hosts questionable content that the Classification Board believes exceeds our MA15+ rating, it gets blocked. If an MMO involves content that it's deemed exceeds MA15+, it gets blocked. And, most threatening of all, if an overseas online retailer is found to be selling material that exceeds our MA15+ rated content, it'll be blocked.

Translation: if a game is barred from sale here because our classification board is unable to rate it higher than an MA15+, then any online retailer found selling the game to Australians could also be blocked for Aussie consumers. Doesn't matter if it's a legitimate retailer selling legitimate products that have been cleared for sale in the United States and/or European Union. If it's selling 18+ content to Australians, it could be blocked at the ISP level.

This. Is. Insane. I've long defended the government here over game classification, because the necessary changes to allow games to be rated 18+ were supported by five of the nation's six state attorney generals (only a constitutional "quirk" allowing the sixth, conservative Michael Atkinson of South Australia, to veto such progress).

But this? Blocking Play-Asia because it's selling me, a 29 year-old male, an adult video game? Madness.

It's important to note that, as I began this piece with, this proposed legislation is wildly unpopular here. And has been proven by net security experts time and time again to be unworkable. But so long as the bill is in the pipeline, there's a chance it could be passed. Let's just hope it's not.

Web filters to censor video games [Sydney Morning Herald, via Kotaku AU]

I've got no idea where, exactly, but it's been revealed that during a playthrough of the game for its classification last year, the British Board of Film Classification "discovered an apparent recipe for the manufacture of the drug crystal meth", which prompted "crisis talks with Rockstar" over their inclusion.

It was only after Rockstar informed the BBFC that the recipe was "inaccurate" that it was allowed to stay in the game, and the title could go on sale to the public.

Any of you ever find this? I'd be curious to see what the recipe actually does cook up (if it cooks up anything at all). Brownies, perhaps?

Three men get sole rating power for computer games [The Times]

Those in the know will know that, in Australia, MA15+ is as high as the ratings for video games go, with no legal grounds (yet) to rate a game "adults only" (or, as it would be known here, R18+). So the game hasn't technically been banned, but it may as well have been, since it's the Board's way of politely saying "well, we'd have given this an R18+ if we could, but we can't, so stores aren't allowed to sell it under Australian classification laws".

There's been no explanation from the Classification Board as to why, exactly, the game was knocked back, but being a game about the undead in the First World War, it's most likely go to do with gore and/or violence.

For the record, the game was released earlier this year in Europe on the PC to a decidedly lukewarm reception.

Necrovision banned in Australia [GameSpot]

Seems that, while every other Dragon Ball game Atari have released in the country was rated a deserving PG (Parental Guidance recommended), Origins - also rated PG - contains a few sexual references, including a pants-down scene that's one layer of cloth away from giving you an eye-full of Goku wang.

So the game's been recalled, and will be back on store shelves once it receives a newer, more mature classification.

It wasn't announced in a "well, that sucks" fashion, like such things normally are. After all, bans result in unhappy customers and a loss in revenue. No, it was announced like this: "Hey, kids, this game is SO BADASS it got BANNED in a buncha places!"

GamePolitics got on the case then, and are still on the case now, reporting that, contrary to EA's statements, the game was never banned. Not in Germany, not in China, not in Japan.

In Germany, it's freely available. In Japan, it was freely available, and the game even had demo units in some stores. As for China, EA don't even officially sell boxed products there, and soon after the original statement changed "China" to "Korea".

So what gives? Seems that, like Gears of War 2, it's part of 2008's stupidest marketing ploy. PR types, do make sure not doing this again is at the top of your new year's resolutions.

EA: Dead Space Wasn't Banned in Germany, After All [Game Politics]

A TV commercial which aired in the UK in August used 360 footage throughout, both gameplay and cinematic. Problem is, between in-game footage, the real Tiger Woods is seen waggling a Wii Remote around, and at the end of the ad, there's a Wii logo. There's the disclaimer text "available on all formats", but the combination of the Wii logo and the Wii Remote use was obviously a bit much.

Following complaints (well, one complaint), the ASA investigated, and EA's response to them went a little something like this:

Electronic Arts confirmed that the footage in the ad was taken from the Xbox 360 version of the game. They pointed out that Tiger Woods was seen using a Wiimote throughout the ad and the only branding at the end of the ad was that of Nintendo Wii. They said, to avoid any confusion, they added text to inform viewers that the game was available on all formats. Electronic Arts maintained that they were demonstrating game action that was possible on all formats and did not show any gameplay that was impossible on a Wii. They explained that Wii footage would not be of broadcast quality, and the originating agency had thought it preferable to use the Xbox footage, which was closer to broadcast definition, than to "up the resolution" of Wii footage to broadcast quality.

They believed the use of the Wiimote throughout, the subsequent Nintendo branding and the format advice at the end of the ad was sufficient to allow viewers to ascertain that the gameplay was representative of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 09 and not specific to any gaming platform. They added that they had never intended to imply that the graphics used were taken from the Wii version.

Clearcast said they had received an assurance from the agency that the footage had been taken directly from actual gameplay. They also said they had understood that the footage was Wii footage but had not obtained a written assurance on that point. They said in future they would ensure that the assurance confirmed, not only that the footage was game footage, but also that it was from the format being promoted.

Yup. Not of broadcast quality. That's just mean.

End result? The ad was misleading, and can't be shown anymore. Score one for truth, justice and the...British way.

Electronic Arts Ltd t/a EA Games [ASA, via Offworld] [Image]

According to Rockstar, the Aussie PC version "is unedited in any way and identical in content to the international version". Why the Office of Film & Literature Classification thinks it's OK to let people bang hookers on a PC but not a console is anyone's guess.

On the bright side, if the OFLC is letting an unedited PC version into the country, it may mean Rockstar can start shipping in unedited console versions as well. Not that you'd care, since the cuts were minimal and you've all finished the game by now, but progress is progress, regardless of how late it's made.

Uncut GTAIV PC coming to Australia [GameSpot]

Know what's so maddening, both as an Australian and a fan of common sense? It's not the fact the country lacks an R18+ rating. That issues been argued to death. No, it's the inconsistency. Silent Hill, and now this, get the chop because (presumably in this case, since we don't know exactly why) they're violent horror games. And yet Gears of War 2 gets the OK when you are at times literally swimming in blood.

[OFLC, thanks Travis!]

Bethesda Pulls Fallout 3 Marketing 'In Connection with ESRB Guidelines' [Shacknews]

That's right. We don't know whether the USK had a say in this, or whether Valve/EA just felt like playing it safe, either way, that's a different box. While every other region's cover art shows a left hand with the thumb bitten off - zombies feast on the flesh of the living, you see, it's a joke - on the German version, the thumb's simply tucked in behind the hand there. No gore. How humourless.