Getting Under

Are you an Australian who thinks Ryan Davis has no idea what he's talking about? Send him an email and let him know what's really happening Down Under.

While scrambling to recover both mentally and fiscally from the ongoing downfall of humanity in the pursuit of this day, let's not forget our fallen brethren who have also given of themselves for such a noble (and fallacious) cause. Game characters aren't meant to replicate real life; they're supposed to push for ideals beyond the mortal coil. Thus, they go on quests and pursue goals far outside what is mentally comfortable for the average mind to grasp. Saving humanity--or just beating up hundreds of bad guys--for the simple pursuit of love is a thing of chivalry and video games...and perhaps little else in this day and age.

I think most of us can agree that the grand gestures portrayed in video games--be they acts of chivalry, action in the name of justice, or depraved acts that are driven by darker motives--are not intended to be templates for living your life. At worst, they're crude, visceral pleasures, at best they're art...maybe. I'm not interested in throwing my hat into the age-old "but is it art?" debate. I just want to establish that, either way, Grand Theft Auto is not the Ten Commandments. Of course, the detrimental effects of video games on the minds of young Americans have been of great concern to parent groups, crazy lawyers, and public officials up for reelection, and the debate about how much is too much has been raging for years.

Since we ourselves cover the game industry, it's easy and natural for us to take umbrage with what we perceive to be compromises of free press or attacks aimed toward us personally. Whether the other side is motivated by genuine concern for the kids, hysterical reactionaryism, or political posturing is certainly up for debate. What's really important, and quite easy to take for granted, is the fact that we actually get to have this debate. Though broadcast TV and radio have to wriggle under governmental regulations, most other entertainment in the US is not federally regulated, and that includes video games.

But, while Americans age 17 and older can head over to their local video game retailer and pick up a copy of Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure, Australian players will get no such opportunity. This is not the first time that a video game has been "denied classification" in Australia. The Punisher, 50 Cent: Bulletproof, and NARC were all stopped at the border last year, while Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Shellshock: Nam '67 were shut out in 2004, and so on. Although I wish a few of these games had been banned in the US for the crime of being really awful, what concerns me most about this particular ban is the company that Getting Up is keeping on that list. While every other game I've listed here prominently features graphic and often sadistic violence, Getting Up's worst offenses are its glorification of graffiti culture and some harsh language. So, why has it been banned in Australia?

Australia's Office of Film and Literature Classification says it's because of the graffiti, but I say it's because the video game rating system there is straight-up busted. When the OFLC--the government institution responsible for most censorship-related issues in Australia--first took video games into its domain in the early '90s, it established a ratings system with just four different ratings, the most severe of which would keep the games away from those who were 14 years old or younger, and the system has not budged since. So, if your game includes content deemed unsuitable for a 15-year-old, it will not be released in Australia. I personally think it's grossly absurd that they would establish such a limited ratings system for an emergent form of entertainment. But I can easily imagine the group of bureaucrats who, at the time, couldn't imagine video games ever being truly "for adults."

The entertainment landscape has changed pretty drastically since then, and frankly, regarding video games as just a child's diversion is an obsolete perspective. What's even more absurd is that the OFLC has, and has had for years, a relatively functional ratings system for film and print, one which accounts for the concept that adults can look at and listen to whatever the hell they feel like. Survey after survey has shown that the average age of people playing video games is getting older, with the majority being over 18.

Community standards are different all over the world, and I won't deny the possibility that the citizenship of Australia simply has a different notion concerning what's appropriate and what's not in a video game. Personally, I suspect that behind the stubbornness of the OFLC's crippled video game classification system lies a thick wall of bureaucracy. In the US, people on both sides of the "how far is too far" debate like to moan and wail about how ineffective our own video game rating system is. While I agree that the ESRB could definitely use a bit of an overhaul, the idea of turning regulation over to a government organization like the OFLC simply frightens me.

Next Up: Freeplay by Brad Shoemaker