Half-Life 2 rated R

just because a game is given a R rating in other countries does not necesarily mean it will here in australia, but yes, Half Life 2 will NOT be R in australia, Doom 3 got released as MA 15+, so will HL2. i for one, have written a letter strongly opposing the lack of adult classification for games in Australia.

The only reason we don’t have the R rating is that the religious ‘family’ groups and organisations have far to much influence on the day to day running of our country, this was highlighted when ‘Manhunt’ was refused classification (after being on the shelves for almost 12months) when a Western Australian religious figurehead voiced his opposition to this game.

RELIGION HAS TOO MUCH POWER IN OUR SOCIETY!!!!!!!

Yes, the OFLC’s website also lists Half-Life:Opposing Force as an MA15+ game. I’d imagine HL2 will follow suit, though because I don’t actually know what’s in the game, I can’t be sure. If it’s more realistic than, say Doom3, than I don’t see why the OFLC wouldn’t classify it more along the lines of Manhunt. I suppose it depends on what Gordon ends up doing in the game.

I know Canada only recently got itself an R rating for games. I can only wonder why it took them so long, and why it’s taking us even longer.

Manhunt was more of an experiment by rockstar, to tests people’s limits with games, and to test the classification systems of different countries, they will have used the information on GTA-San Andreas.

True, we need the R rating within the next few years (at the very least). but as i said, if a religious leader says this game is too violent, or something along those lines, the OFLC will take more notice than if i say ‘give the public and R rating’. which is really quite sad, when the average gamer is 29 YEARS OLD!!!!!

I find it odd how games are rated in the first place. The “board” that rates the games never plays them. The game publisher instead takes select bits of movies from the said game. The movies contain the most controversial or violent aspects of the game. Those movies get sent to the rating company (ESRB in america) who assembles a group of people, much like a jury, to watch and rate the game. Seems a little out of context.

Teehee, as a european, I can tell you no gamestores bother with ages. I played carmageddon when I was like 11 or so

As another European, I can tell you that our stores DO bother with age restrictions (on games, DVDs etc.) - mainly because it’s a legal requirement for them to do so and the penalties are pretty harsh, rather than any form of social conscience.

Seriously Holland… We’re worried about you, man. Get some laws. Any laws.

It’s not so much the rating itself, as whether the game gets one at all. If HL2 gets an RC, or Refused Classification, it will be illegal to buy the game within Australia. Not that it effects us Steam buyers, but hey, it’s still demolishing another bridge on the road of progress.

I think though that realistically the game will get an MA. No-one wants to say they survived the nerd riots of 2004.

Nobody would be able to…

Well, I’m not too worried about either Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 since they take place in a fantasy environment. However, I wonder what the ruling in Australia was on more realistic games, such as Call Of Duty, Battlefield Vietnam or Novalogic’s current crop. Those games actively portray the player as someone killing over humans in a semi-realistic environment rather than blasting zombies from hell (which is somewhat unlikely to happen). Therefore, surely they are a better yard-stick with which to measure societies tolerance to video game violence? Just a thought…

Kelmon, both Vietnam and Call of Duty recieved an MA from the OFLC. They’re both freely available on store shelves.

Well, I think killing during war time is considered very different from the style of killings in Vice City and Manhunt. The OFLC uses the whole “morals” thing. Which is fine up until the point where you ban the games from being sold to adults.

Personally, I would consider it moral to belt a headcrab with a crowbar. After all, it IS trying to turn me into a zombie.

Blow the OFLC they are bunch of fucking wowzers.

No fucking wowzers get my blow.

Europe’s R rating for games is pretty much equivalent to our MA15+ rating, which is why all those games are MA15+. GTA3 was banned but then re-released after the ability to pick up hookers was removed from the game. It wasn’t so much the violence that pissed off the censors, it was simply the fact you could sex hookers then bash them for a refund.

Getting your money back from the hookers was one of the prime selling points of the game!

Recently a lot of the local movie theaters in my area (Upstate New York) have started vigorously enforcing the “Rated R” policies. While this doesn’t effect me currently it is a change from just a few years ago. I remember when I was around 15 or so I could get into an R rated movie without much trouble. It seems to me that it is only a matter of time before the game ratings here are actually taken seriously. I know a few stores have employee policy not to sell GTA to a toddler but its not always followed, esspecially in larger department stores or non-specialized stores.

At least in america the ratings on games really don’t seem to mean much. All games i’ve seen require ID or certain age have had a big sticker aside from the rating that said 17+. MA doesn’t seem to get the message across.

It is hard to set the standard since games differ drastically. Much like movies, all R movies are not the same. It takes a parent or guardian to truly decide what is right in the end. This is more difficult with games though because most parents don’t sit down and play/evaluate their child’s games (although they should).

Okay, seriously, you shouldn’t be perpetuating this “report”… people are getting all worked up over nothing, the game’s not even on the OFLC website just yet. San Andreas got through. I’m sure Half-Life 2, will. As spootle said, their R-Rating doesn’t necessarily mean a ban. That’s the highest they have, so it generally converts to the highest we have. Resident Evil 2 and Grand Theft Auto are two examples that I recall having the R-Rating in the UK magazines I read, but came here as MA15+ without a stir.

Manhunt was borderline. Larry was a sex romp. GTA3 was the best of both. Though I think that we need an R-Rating for games, I can see why with the current standards, all of those games hit trouble on the road to getting here. But really, the only uproar to really stick has been that Dave Mirra SEXX FARM BIKE RACE thing… and no one cared about that.

There’s no way they’ll ban Half-Life 2.

I’m not so concerned about that, as HL2 isn’t my most anticipated game anyway. And personally, I can only see it coming out as MA aswell. I’m more concerned about the fact that the OFLC has the power to ban games at all. Talk is also about that GTA: San Andreas will start selling here from day one - but we may get a censored version which Take2 already took the liberty of making for us. While Vice City’s censorship was only a small part of the game with the hookers, my understanding is that in San Andreas you can’t do home invasions, which are a more crucial aspect. Despite censoring Vice City, the OFLC lists the game as the “original” version.

Half-Life 2 isn’t so much the issue here, the OFLC is. I guess I put too much emphasis on HL2 to get to my point, as it was what was going around the internet at the time.

I’m probably going to be seen as a bit of a prude on this one, but I do think that GTA is a bit iffy when it comes down to whether it should be allowed (and this coming from the man that owns both GTA3 and Vice City). Half-Life is no big deal in that you are giving it to people/things that quite obviously deserve it while in the GTA series you are happily rewarded for giving it to the innocents. While I have no real desire to go outside now and beat a nun for her money, it does seem somewhat distasteful to reward such actions in a game (although I do kinda miss the Hari Krishna’s from the old 2-D games since they were fun to mow down). The whole idea of breaking into people’s homes and being rewarded for it really does seem wrong to me, much like the rest of the game.
Anyway, I’d be quite happy if they banned the GTA games unless they removed the parts of it where the player is rewarded for beating the crap out of innocent bystanders. Being able to shag prostitutes or machine gun the bad guys, fine, but getting cash for a random beating isn’t really on.
To be honest, I’d think about buying GTA:San Andreas (therefore blowing a whole in my argument) had I not got bored of Vice City too quickly (way quicker than GTA3 that, for some reason, I enjoyed more) and Gamespy’s review (5-stars was great but the comments on the final page makes me wonder where they came from).

I can see where you are coming from. I think Rockstar is either a very experimental developer or they are just masters of excess. What I mean is I am not sure if the results of the GTA games are accidental or on purpose. Is Rockstar just pushing controversy as far as possible to sell? Or do they have more thought behind it.

I am fine with the way GTA is now. None of the missions ever force you to kill innocent people. It is all up to the player. I could blame the game for making it available but I can’t blame the game if I actually do it.

It presents some very interesting results when I play the game. When I was first testing some things out in San Andreas I had gotten a little knife for the first time. I was just swinging it around a bit and hitting a car with it. A woman walked behind me and during one of my swings I somehow turned around (targeting is better but still not perfect) and slit her throat rather graphically. After that I felt a little sick. Its very interesting how things like that can effect you, its just a bunch of polygons that looks like a person, but it triggers a similiar response.

Ever since that incident I have been a lot more careful when on the streets with a weapon. I check my targets to make sure I am blastin’ gang members and not grandmas. I feel like a thug with a little sense of honor.

It is also worth mentioning that you can respond to people now. Its a simple feature just a positive or negative comment but it makes all the people feel more real. So when you walk around on the streets and someone says “Damn homey you stink” you can cuss him out or blow it off. Or if a lady says “Mmm mmm you lookin’ fine” you can say something like “shut up bitch” or “Yeah, i’ve been workin’ out”.

While I hardly ever just beat on random civilians for money, when someone backs into my new car I just spent $5,000 on, (There is a lot more bad drivers in SA) a beat down is pretty likely.

Freedom of choice is important and, while I don’t much like it, being reckless in a game and facing the consequences should be possible. I seem to recall that the Midtown Madness games had pedestrians always leaping out of the path of your car so that it was impossible to actually hit someone even if you ploughed through an outside cafe. However, the GTA games currently lack real consequences for doing distasteful things unless you go nuts enough to warrant the rozzers turning up to arrest you. What might be more interesting is to add something along the lines of a reputation within the community such that if you go out of your way to help or protect that the locals are more likely to assist while the opposite happens if you start whacking random passers-by. From what I’ve read of San Andreas it sounds as though they are going in that direction (i.e. people respond to how much time you’ve spent in the gym or how you are dressed) but I’d prefer to see random acts of violence discouraged.