IMPORTANT UPDATE TO MORTAL KOMBAT BANNING

[Omega Supreme]

I have been a huge fan of the MK series since it started and am always keen to give a new addition a try, its such a shame that ill probably never get that chance. I'm very interested to see what is so bad they cant rate it, I mean there is some pretty messed up stuff in movies, take the Saw series for example its just a constant over the top blood and guts fest. Something like that is fine to be stocked in every video shop in Australia, yet the latest MK game is too much? We live in such a strange world.

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

The world is indeed strange, but the ratings in Australia are just ridiculous. If you want to know what the hoo-hah is all about, just have a look at the gameplay footage.

This MK has a super move of sorts that has an xray effect and you can see bones breaking etc. That, along with the fatalities had this baby in the red zone from the start.

Hurry up R rating I say!

[SGB]

Utterly freaking ridiculous.

Great way to encourage people to download the game instead, you Govt and Customs ninnies!

[The_Damned]

so i guess by all this they are promoting piracy.

on another note is it coming to the PC?

[1AZRAEL1]

Well that's a complete load of crap. The people on the classification panel are a bunch of old fashioned idiots who think that the world is flat.

[5FDP]

on another note is it coming to the PC?

Just PS3 and XBOX 360 ATM.

[5FDP]

So... I've been looking into this a fair bit to determine what our rights are in regards to importing and possessing Refused Classification material.

I have provided some information and links to sources below.

Is "Refused Classification" material illegal to access/possess?

Source

Generally, no, but with some exceptions. Refused Classification ("RC") material is:

* legal to possess for private/personal purposes in all States/Territories except in Western Australia and in 'prescribed areas' of the Northern Territory (see Classification Enforcement Acts); and
* legal to access/obtain using the Internet in all States/Territories except Western Australia and the Northern Territory, (see Classification Enforcement Acts - sections titled "Computer Services" in W.A. and N.T. Acts);
* unless the material falls within the sub-set of RC that is defined as child pornography/abuse/exploitation material in the C'th Criminal Code, or in the relevant State's/Territory's Criminal Code/Crimes Act and/or in their Classification Enforcement Acts, etc.

Each state differently defines who is allowed to posess Refused Classification material.

Source

In Queensland, you can posess RC games if you aren’t going to sell them or exhibit it in a public place.

In New South Wales, you can posess RC games if you aren’t going to sell them. Part 4 of the act defines many additional clauses, including not exhibiting RC material to minors or keeping RC material in a place where other material is sold. The safest bet is to keep it at home and play it yourself.

In Victoria, you can posess RC games if you aren’t going to sell them. Like the New South Wales legislation, Part 4 defines many additional clauses.

In South Australia, you can posess RC games if you aren’t going to sell them. Part 6 contains additional clauses.

In Tasmania, you cannot sell or deliver RC computer games. However, as noted earlier, the postal service is exempt from this law in the Commonwealth act. The Tasmanian act does not contradict this in any way.

In Western Australia, it is explicitly forbidden to posess or copy RC computer games. Sorry, guys, you’ve got the short straw.

In the Northern Territory, you cannot posess or hold a RC computer game at premeses where games are exhibited or sold. A further clause that interests me is that you can’t posess a game likely to be refused classification if you intend on publishing it.

As you can see, for the average person in states and territories excepting Western Australia, it is not illegal to posess games that have been refused classification. However, there is a customs regulation that defines games as unsuitable for people under 18 as an objectionable good that is subject to prohibition from importing. Whether digital delivery of computer games is covered by this law is currently unclear.

So to summarise, you can own it but you can't import it

[Hursticon]

Well done 5FDP, that no doubt would've taken quite a bit of sifting but I for one thank you for the effort you've gone to.
So it seems that our only stumbling block is the ambiguity of a bloody Customs Regulation? - Why am I not surprised by this in the slightest?

It's ridiculous this situation, just like Cigarettes and Alcohol:
(NSW) You can legally own Cigarettes and Alcohol at 16, you just can't purchase it yourself of have it bought for you!?!
It's the same here, you can legally own Mortal Kombat, you just can't purchase it or have it bought for you!?!
This is pure stupidity on a bureaucratical legal front!

The question is though, is it worth it to import this game and risk a stupidly over-the-top fine?

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

I think that school bully video there could well be associated with wrestling as well. Which is marketted very strongly to kids anyway.

Personally I support an r rating just so that parents will perhaps look at a game and make the judgement call on whether or not to buy it. I remember being in an EB shop when some kid was looking at Madworld for the wii. The kid wanted to give it a go and the parent thinking that as it was a wii game it was kid-friendly was about to buy it. Being a community minded person, I intiated conversation and managed to swing it around to the game and its contents. Mum just assumed that as it was on the wii, it was a kids game. Luckily she put it back although junior wasn't too happy with me. She thanked me afterwards.

Almost had the same situation with a kid convincing mum to get them GTA.

I've said this before and I will probably say it again. It comes down to the parents/buyer controlling it. At the current stage of technology, In my mind, the classification board should provide us with the correct information as to what a game contains, and let us decide whether or not to play it. they only have it half correct at the moment.

I assume that when the R-Rating gets passed, then we can go about playing MK. Or the MK that comes after this one, knowing how long they have been sitting on their hands so far...

In Western Australia, it is explicitly forbidden to posess or copy RC computer games. Sorry, guys, you’ve got the short straw.

Aaaw Nuts
*sniffs and cuddles up to his legally owned Megatron(s) gun form*

[griffin]

I'm very interested to see what is so bad they cant rate it, I mean there is some pretty messed up stuff in movies, take the Saw series for example its just a constant over the top blood and guts fest. Something like that is fine to be stocked in every video shop in Australia, yet the latest MK game is too much? We live in such a strange world.

There may be pleasure in watching destruction and harm in a movie, but you always remain a powerless observer, a bystander. You don't actively chose the course of action that leads to the violence or destruction as part of the process of enjoying the game. That's the difference between movies and games of similar graphic violence - a game lets you choose to act out the level of violence you enjoy. As the higher functions of the brain are used to decide these processive actions on a more consistent basis, especially before a brain is fully developed at the age of 25, it makes it more habit forming... something that wasn't a problem when graphics used to be so unrealistic that a more developed brain is able to dismiss it easily as fantasy.

We seem to be getting to the point where virtual reality is looking more like reality... which begs the question - how is watching realistic violence on a game and enjoying it, any different to watching real violence and enjoying it? If you have a game that gets you excited about sniper killing an image that now looks like a real human, how is that different to a serial killer getting excited about actually killing a real human?

And at the accelerated rate of realism in games, how far off are we from a gaming format similar to the movie The Matrix, which would have players enter a realistic world to do their killing and destruction (for pleasure), without anything obvious about it being fake? With 3D gaming being the next big thing, is life-like virtual-reality gaming really that far off or far fetched? Does a line need to be drawn somewhere before we get that far, to restrict 'life-like' graphics to non-violent games?

I think perhaps that the latter is what is happening here, with a point of realism approaching (and in some instances, reached), government agencies are stepping in to suggest setting up the boundaries society needs on things it wants (like with drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, etc). As a gaming culture, we may just be too addicted to a finding and playing a 'bigger high' - the next, more intense game that outdoes the last one at stimulating our senses.

For example, playing out the latest Call of Duty, I was put off on a couple of things, most particularly the torture chapter of the game. Why have this as something the player has to do for fun, instead of just being played out as a scene between chapters (or not having it at all)? It wasn't necessary for the plot of the game. Who gets pleasure (the point of a game) from sticking glass into a person's mouth and then punching them in the jaw to make their mouth bleed? What sort of person would choose without hesitation to do that, or why force a player to do that to proceed to the next chapter?
Games are meant to stimulate the pleasure centre of the brain, so why is torturing someone in such a cruel fashion considered 'fun'? I don't mind shooting-type games for improving reflexes, and maybe even roleplaying certain eras of history (like in CoD), but do people really enjoy torturing or mutilating others for them to want it in increasingly life-like games that are supposed to be 'fun'?

I know I have high standards when it comes to things kids (with developing brains) can be exposed to, but why are people enjoying games that allows them to choose to do these increasingly realistic violent things for 'fun'?

Maybe if we didn't have such a violent nature to our species, we wouldn't have a high demand for increasingly violent games, and therefore wouldn't have games so violent that they are refused classification.
(I blame Dinobot and Cheetor for educating our ancestors on how to be violent... )