Why Fallout 3 was refused classification

PS3 News | OFLC details why the game was effectively banned.

Yesterday we revealed the news that Fallout 3 had been refused classification in Australia. It was initially unclear why Bethesda's highly anticipated RPG had been blocked, but Australian Gamer has posted the report outlining the OFLC's decision.

The Board Report details various laws and guidelines, and consequently, why Fallout 3 was refused classification.

Firstly, the majority of the Board state:

Quote:

"Computer games that ... depict, express or otherwise deal with sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent the that they should not be classified;" will be Refused Classification.

The report says "material that contains drug use and sexual violence related to incentives and rewards is Refused Classification". In applying this to Fallout 3, the Board state:

Quote:

The game contains the option to take a variety of "chems" using a device which is connected to the character's arm. Upon selection of the device a menu selection screen is displayed. Upon this screen is a list of "chems" that the player can take, by means of selection. These "chems" have positive effects and some negative effects (lowering of intelligence, or the character may become addicted to the "chem"). The positive effects include increase in strength, stamina, resistance to damage, agility and hit points. Corresponding with the list of various "chems" are small visual representation of the drugs, these include syringes, tablets, pill bottles, a crack-type pipe and blister packs. In the Board's view these realistic visual representations of drugs and their delivery method bring the "science-fiction" drugs in line with "real-world" drugs.

The report explains that "chems are an essential element of Fallout 3". In particular:

Quote:

The player can also select and use "Morphine" (a proscribed drug) which has the effect of enabling the character to ignore limb pain when the character's extremities are targeted by the enemy.

Ultimately, the Board believes Fallout 3 promotes or encourages proscribed drug use:

Quote:

In the Board's view the drug use in particular the use of a proscribed drug, via means of selection from a menu, is related to incentives and rewards as the incentives to take the drugs is to progress through the game more easily and the reward is an increase in the character's abilities and as such [Fallout 3] is Refused Classification.

The Board also considered the level of violence in Fallout 3, but came to a different conclusion on the issue:

Quote:

The Board notes that the violence throughout the game could be accommodated at an MA 15+ level of classification.

When the OFLC refuse a game classification, the effect is that it may not be advertised, sold, hired or demonstrated within Australian borders.

Comparisons between the OFLC's decision and MA 15+ classified games with similar content are already being debated, but for the time being, the future of Fallout 3 in Australia looks unclear. Whether or not a modified version of the game makes it way to our shores, as will be the case with Dark Sector, only time will tell. However, one thing is certain – the fallout of this decision is likely to be felt far and wide.

Stay tuned to PALGN for further news on Fallout 3 as it develops.

Related Fallout 3 Content

Game over for Fallout 3
18 Aug, 2009 You'd retire too after having five babies.

Fallout 3 Mothership Zeta released
04 Aug, 2009 The truth is out there.

PS3 Fallout 3 DLC coming in September
14 Jul, 2009 Broken Steel will come first.

Page12 Next

34 Comments

mipac

3 years ago

Quote

one thing is certain – the fallout of this decision is likely to be felt far and wide.

Just kidding

. Nice article, but please don't spend the next 5 pages blaming the OFLC. It's Michael Atkinson's fault, not the OFLC.

shiraj

3 years ago

Devastated is what I am ...
Importing is what I have to turn to....

There is an interesting article on IGN Au re importing this game ... is there a Legal Barrier to importing this game??

kartanym

3 years ago

No. Simple as that. They can harp on all they want about how illegal it is, but there's no way of controlling something as simple as a video game from, say, play-asia.com.

This is a disgrace. I'm tired of the OFLC holding my hand and telling me what I can and can't play. Up until now, I've actually agreed with some decisions, especially on overly violent content. But this ... this crosses the line.

bradc1988

3 years ago

The OFLC are just the middle men carrying out what their told to do by the government and, although they're inconsistent at times, they're really not the ones to blame.

I've never imported a game before but there's a first time for everything!

JP2daMC

3 years ago

Customs can control the import of illegal games, the same as they can for illegal movies and illegal drugs. There have been instances where such items have been seized. Rare, but it has happened.

Kartanym - if you agree with other OFLC decisions, this one should make sense. They have often in the past banned games that have drug taking themes, especially real-life drug taking like crack pipes and syringes. Narc and Blitz come to mind.

I bet this game is rated 18+ in the US. Because the OFLC can't give a game an R rating (which is our 18+), they have to ban it, because the highest we have is a 15+ MA rating. It's not their fault that they have to work within the system they are given.

Put simply, people who blame the OFLC are missing the point. It's like saying AFL players should be able to elbow their opponents, or that league players can get away with head high tackles. The OFLC only classify according to the rules already in place. Like a referee, those decisions may vary a little bit, however, they can't themselves change the rules.

Blame the lack of an R rating and the current system, not the classification board who are just doing their jobs according to the rules that are in place.

As far as I can see, this ruling is consistent with the classification of other games. It's just that our classification system is outdated and needs an R rating.

G3ck0

3 years ago

So, what are they gonna do? Change the drugs to chocolate or something? How can they honestly change the game to not incorporate something important.

Toastfarmer

3 years ago

^ But the thing is, it's NOT consistent. People have already named games such as Haze, Bioshock, even the first two Fallout games as all heavily featuring implied drug use. There is some room for interpretation clearly and while I accept that the OFLC simply enforce the rules rather than make them, I can't help but believe they could have just as easily gone the other way with it. Given that the drug use in the game, as stated by them, has negative effects, and yet in their conclusion they determine that because the drugs offer positive effects then the game can't be rated. They could have easily said that because the positive effects have been balanced out with potentially negative effects then the game can be rated.

So my point is that while I do agree that the OFLC is not directly to blame I'm still frustrated by a 50/50 interpretation going against gamers.

To go with your football comparison, different referees police the ruck in rugby league differently but under the same rule set. There is an amount of flexibility in which the ref can make their own interpretation of what they see.

I simply believe OFLC made a grossly incorrect interpretation, especially given Haze, Bioshock etc and the inconsistencies therein.

kartanym

3 years ago

That's the key point here. The system is outdated. The problem is, no-one has been able to update it at all in recent times, due to the fact that there are certain members of the government who do not fully understand the 'adult' market for video games, and who therefore ignore the issue at hand and stand by their decision.

Like I said before, I've agreed with the OFLC in the past on certain decisions. However, there's a fine line between what should be banned and what shouldn't. Blitz, as you mentioned, is another title that failed the test. Let me put it this way, if a player wants to heal the wounds of his or her character, you can either build the game to use bandages or some form of legal drug. If the drugs were illegal and were pushed as a key selling point of the game, then yes, I can understand the decision. But when it's a substance commonly used within scientific studies, legal in some sports to increase the healing process of some sports injuries, and generally not considered to be a drug the community should be concerned about, then no, I don't agree with the OFLC.

To suggest that the game is convincing players that the drug is good for you, then attempting to also suggest that some players may be influenced by that, is a ridiculous remark. Has violent crimes against strippers increased since the release of GTAIV? Has the game influenced kids to sell drugs?

I've said it all along, we live in a world where violence surrounds us, there's no running away from that. Kids, no matter what you do, will get their hands on these things. But why resort to making a laughing stock of the Australian gaming industry by banning or altering titles just to make things 'fit' to an outdated and embarrassing ratings system. It just doesn't make a lick of sense.

JP2daMC

3 years ago

Sambo - I think they can change the name of the drug and get rid of drug taking items like crack pipes and syringes, and that will go a long way to seeing the game released and probabaly won't have a major affect on gameplay or the story.

Does it matter what the drug is called or how he takes it? In Max Payen they came up with a fictional name for a drug, as they did in Robocop 2 and probabaly countless other games and movies. Since it's a science-fiction game, why not a science-fiction drug?

G3ck0

3 years ago

I guess. They could just change the picture, and just change the name of the drug and it is fine. How stupid. The character us still taking drugs and getting benefits!!!

JP2daMC

3 years ago

Kartanym - the R rating for games was passed all accept for the SA Attorney General. It's not the Government's fault, just one person. The way the system is set up is that every Attorney General must agree, and only one doesn't.

Morphine is a commonly abused drug. Marijuana and controlled forms of heroin are used as pain relievers as well, but that doesn't mean games should promote them and give players benefits from taking them when it's not really true in real life. In real life, Morphine is not really going to help you fight a post-apocolyptic war. It might make you sleepy and more likely to hug the lepers though.

I think it's when a drug is used illegally that gets the OLFC's attention. Eg - in Blitz, you used performance enhancing drugs and you tried to avoid drug detection. Obviously the character in Fallout is not using Morphine safely, so that's probably the issue. And let's be honest - they could call it drug X and remove the direct scenes of drug taking no one would really be misisng much.

Well, GTA games in the past were cut in Australia for violence against women - prostitutes and so on. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

I don't think it's a good enough argument to say violence is everywhere, so we should just accept everything. There has to be a balance between letting adults make their own decisions and keeping kids away from such material. That should be the role of a well-implemented R rating where retailers block sales to minors.

While violence may be more common, that doesn't mean I'll be happy to see a game that promotes punching old ladies for health or taking candy from children for unlockable bonuses. There has to be a line.

JP2daMC

3 years ago

Hi Toastmaster. In Haze and Bioshock, the drugs were fictional and I think that makes a difference because it's science-fiction and not real world. I have no idea about the drugs taken in the previous Fallout games.

It also makes a big difference about how the drugs are taken. The crack pipes and syringes obviously are an issue as they were mentioned. The OFLC statement makes a point that these drug taking items take the science fiction drugs and give them real world meaning.

From my interpretation of the statement, making the drugs fictional and giving them a delivery method unrelated to real-world drug abusers would lessen the impact.

NeoSanity

3 years ago

Lets look at the facts here, first up the game uses morphine and despite all the complaining people have about it, it is a category A illicit drug, up there with your LSD, heroin and other powerful and abusive drugs.

The OFLC guidelines take a harsh stance on drugs, though it considers material that expresses factual illicit drugs to be far more serious (Hence why Haze fell under the radar).

The OFLC are very much the middlemen in what seems to be a rather illogical legislation. The legislation states that these titles cannot be distributed locally, though there is no amendment or clause in there about international importation or distribution. It'd be like saying to kiddie, yes ecstasy is illegal but it's legal to import and posses you just can't buy it locally, not to that extent but you get the idea. Customs have no right to remove this content from you or intercept and remove any parcel from you. If they do you are fully within your right to claim the item back under customs legislation and point them towards the classification legislation for interactive entertainment and more specifically the clause on local distribution.

So no, the OFLC aren't to blame, the legislation gives them strict guidelines in which to review material with, something which is updated with new amendments every so often. Don't blame Mikie Atkension, yes the guy is a conservative moron who thinks the whole world should succumb to his moral and ethical religious dogma...but that's besides the point.
The man yes haw the power to veto any changes to this classification guideline, though any changes to it would only allow for an R rating to be put forward, it still wouldn't protect a title from being refused classification, all that would happen is more MA games would become R rated and maybe half the current RC titles would be R rated.

Who's to blame, well no one. Sorry guys but society does not dictate to you that you should blame someone for it, it is by a videogamer's perspective outdated legislation. You know, petrol price-fixing, climate change and all those other poll deciding decisions sort of take precedence as they decide elections, not these sort of topics.
Then there are the petitions that always seem to show up, someone ranting about lets lynch this guy or lets abuse our local politician and with a resounding facepalm I quietly sit in the corner,though if you hear a weird slapping sound, that's me pulling off a most epic facepalm. No society does not dictate that you should blame someone. My advice, import the title or deal with it. Unless these often frivolous topics become election deciders no politician is going to take notice nor be bothered to do anything about it.

As for a solution? Well 300 signatures is hardly going to make tomorrow's headlines, but if your the adventurous types that feels compelled to do so consider the following.
- Stand under a heavy falling projectile.
- Write to your local councilmen to discuss current interactive media legislation and discuss a possible amendment to be legislation.
- Reconsider my first proposition.

That's all I have to say.

Benc82

3 years ago

If NZ dont get the uncensored game because of us (like GTA4) then I will have to order from the UK.

So do UK Pal versions of games generally work on AU x360s?

If so what are some reputable UK online game stores?

renegadesx

3 years ago

I am importing regardless of us getting a censored version or not (just like GTAIV). This is the govt overstepping their boundaries because of one small minded idiot.

Fetidchimp

3 years ago

neo.sanity wrote

As for a solution? Well 300 signatures is hardly going to make tomorrow's headlines, but if your the adventurous types that feels compelled to do so consider the following.
- Stand under a heavy falling projectile.
- Write to your local councilmen to discuss current interactive media legislation and discuss a possible amendment to be legislation.
- Reconsider my first proposition.

That's some good advice, don't like a govenrnement decision, then go home and die. *slow hand clap for most bull **** thing written on forum*

Censorship is a frivoulous topic? wow

lapzod

3 years ago

Toastfarmer wrote

even the first two Fallout games as all heavily featuring implied drug use.

I remember there being controversy with the second game. (I can't really remember the first one)

Quote

To go with your football comparison, different referees police the ruck in rugby league differently but under the same rule set. There is an amount of flexibility in which the ref can make their own interpretation of what they see.

Now here's the question that will keep you awake. If someone else reviewed the game, would they have banned it?

kartanym wrote

Has violent crimes against strippers increased since the release of GTAIV?

Just the other week there was a story about kids playing out GTA in real life.

Spanca

3 years ago

lapzod wrote

Quote

Now here's the question that will keep you awake. If someone else reviewed the game, would they have banned it?

Probably. The OFLC is a panel of people who 'review' the content from a far more factual standpoint. There isn't that much scope for interpretation compared to a football game, and it isn't one person's opinion that determines the outcome.

NeoSanity

3 years ago

Fetidchimp wrote

neo.sanity wrote

That's some good advice, don't like a govenrnement decision, then go home and die. *slow hand clap for most bull **** thing written on forum*

Censorship is a frivoulous topic? wow

Frivolous, yes, considering that climate change, economic stability, petrol prices and corruption are the policies that change the outcomes of elections. Not the illogical legislation that bans these games.

If you want censorship hit up the dozens of other countries that have no qualms about arresting you, beating you and then possibly executing you for insulting their monarchy. There are different degrees of censorship, this just happens to be about as gentle as it gets.

Infested Jibbs

3 years ago

Man, why do i do my lolly over stuff no one gives a **** about(d3 'KiDs') and then on the flipside not give a rats arse about this announcement, which everyone has starting literally taking up arms against.

Just import you babies.It's not as if i have that option if d3 stays it's course.

DrTim

3 years ago

To be honest it seems from what they said there (the OFLC) that the game would have probably been RC'd even with an R18+ Rating.

"

PALGN wrote

That could be just a stipulation that exists because there is no R rating, in any case, more than anything the whole dam system needs to be changed and updated for today's Adult gamers, not stuck in 1970s world of pong and pack man.

ObsoletE

3 years ago

Jibbs wrote

you could choose not to play it.

grow up yourself. (i just ordered it from the UK, for the record.)

RXWAG

3 years ago

Jibbs wrote

with jibbs on this one, why do we always need such a lengthy discussion about the refusal in classification of games when it happens?

yes we have heard all the reasons about why it sucks and of course your free to voice your opinions about the topic but no one is really brining anything new to the table and you all have the option to import the game so maybe you should take up that option?? thats the way the cookie crumbles im Bruce Nolan.

Benza

3 years ago

What gets me is this has had what, 5 diffrent topics now? Two in here, and three in the general games discussion.

But when shellshocked got RCed everyong just went "Eh"

Page12 Next

View as forum topic

Add Comment

Like this news?

Share it with this tiny url: http://palg.nu/xq

| More

Fallout 3

Pre-order or buy:
PALGN recommends: www.Play-Asia.com

Australian Release Date:
  31/10/2008 (Confirmed)
Standard Retail Price:
  $109.95 AU
Publisher:
  Red Ant
Genre:
  RPG
Year Made:
  2008

Read more...