DayZ will be banned from Australia after it was refused a rating

[LAwLz]

Just now, leadeater said:

I'd agree with the state being so but the majority of Aussies very much are not prudes, some of the most dirty and vulgar comedians on the planet. The difference between the people and the regulators is rather striking.

To me that sounds like a flawed democracy. The state should reflect what the people want, and from what I know the state is Australia seems very oppressive if it's true that Australian people aren't sensitive prudes. 

Totally agree that a lot of comedians from Australia are quite vulgar, but I assumed that was exceptions rather than the norm. 

[leadeater]

Just now, LAwLz said:

Totally agree that a lot of comedians from Australia are quite vulgar, but I assumed that was exceptions rather than the norm. 

Take a visit to Australia and go to Bathurst on race weekend, that'll redefine what normal is and how much a 'standard amount of alcohol' is. Australia is also the country that redefined the usage of the C word and can be used in every day conversation, same here in a way too.

 

Spoiler

Quote

For the third year running, adult race-goers will be limited to bringing one case (24 cans) of full-strength beer or one block (36 cans) of light or mid-strength beer each day. Restrictions also apply to one case (24 cans) of pre-mixed drinks a day or one cask of wine up to four litres

And that's per day, per person.

 

Australian regulators are just overcompensating for the typical Aussie stereotypes and I know pretty well it actually highly pisses off the people over there.

[Tristerin]

To combat Shitty Australia I have elected to download DayZ and play today - Ive done my part. 

[HWLights92]

13 hours ago, overlord360 said:

The ban was caused by Bohemia Interactive wanting to sell physical copies, but now that it has been give the 'Refused Classification' classification it cannot be sold in australia by any means, including online.

So basically they should have left it as digital only and called it a day? 

[JZStudios]

I had no idea you could smoke weed and rape people in DayZ.

6 hours ago, D13H4RD said:

And Mighty Car Mods + The Skid Factory 

Watching Mighty Car Mods makes me hate Australia even more. Change your cars air filter? Now it's not street legal. The numbers on your personal vehicles shift knob wore off? Illegal.

But hey, I guess it isn't Germany requiring everything to be TUV approved.

[D13H4RD]

3 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Watching Mighty Car Mods makes me hate Australia even more. Change your cars air filter? Now it's not street legal. The numbers on your personal vehicles shift knob wore off? Illegal.

But hey, I guess it isn't Germany requiring everything to be TUV approved.

Yeah, their laws on even small mods are ridiculous 

[JZStudios]

1 minute ago, D13H4RD said:

Yeah, their laws on even small mods are ridiculous 

I was watching Mod Max a few ago, and say the pod filter go in and was like "Oh, yeah, see that's what made it not street legal. That's the real problem."

Meanwhile in America...

[D13H4RD]

6 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

I was watching Mod Max a few ago, and say the pod filter go in and was like "Oh, yeah, see that's what made it not street legal. That's the real problem."

Shame...

[Andreas Lilja]

Inb4 someone connects the dots between the lack of mass shooting over there and having strict video game legislation.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

 

 

Australian regulators are just overcompensating for the typical Aussie stereotypes and I know pretty well it actually highly pisses off the people over there.

I know a few who are pissed with that sort of regulation (usually tech oriented who miss out on the games without pirating), but having spent a few years (15) in construction here in Melbourne it seems most are happy with it.   We are more interested in respect than it seems on the outside (even the C word is used as a term of endearment here),  the quickest way to be disrespectful to your average Australian is show their kids illicit drug use or rape scenes before they are 18.   

[S w a t s o n]

Wait Dayz is still a thing? I got memed into buying this some time ago and I thought the devs cut and run. Longest early access game and failure ever

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, S w a t s o n said:

Wait Dayz is still a thing? I got memed into buying this some time ago and I thought the devs cut and run. Longest early access game and failure ever

I bought it because I had friends who wanted to play,  It was the biggest feeling of being stolen from in a legitimate single purchase I have ever experienced.    I could have put that money into poker machines, lost it all and still felt better about it.

[S w a t s o n]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I bought it because I had friends who wanted to play,  It was the biggest feeling of being stolen from in a legitimate single purchase I have ever experienced.    I could have put that money into poker machines, lost it all and still felt better about it.

And yet the game was important to the industry in effectively being the first proto battle royale game. What a meme..

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

I know a few who are pissed with that sort of regulation (usually tech oriented who miss out on the games without pirating), but having spent a few years (15) in construction here in Melbourne it seems most are happy with it.   We are more interested in respect than it seems on the outside (even the C word is used as a term of endearment here),  the quickest way to be disrespectful to your average Australian is show their kids illicit drug use or rape scenes before they are 18.   

You won't get support for that kind of thing anywhere really. I've known a fair few Australians and pretty much all of them feel that the internet filtering and restriction on games is not necessary, bad parenting is bad parenting and banning a few games won't counter that.

 

I wouldn't say people are happy with it I'd say they tolerate it, as it's not so overbearing that anyone wants to really do anything about it. 

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

You won't get support for that kind of thing anywhere really. I've known a fair few Australians and pretty much all of them feel that the internet filtering and restriction on games is not necessary, bad parenting is bad parenting and banning a few games won't counter that.

 

I wouldn't say people are happy with it I'd say they tolerate it, as it's not so overbearing that anyone wants to really do anything about it. 

 

The support is pretty strong in the circles I work (and in research on the topic).   Many people don't like the idea of censorship as a whole, but many people see this as normalizing drug use and thus they don't have an issue.  Just like smoking and hitting hysterical woman in films, it used to be common but you don't see it anymore because society as a whole changed it's mind on what it wants portrayed as normal behavior.     

 

People can moan about this all they want (mostly only gamers though as discovered by a review into the effectiveness of classification in 2014), but the classification board in Australia largely reflects societies expectations both in classification and procedure.

 

http://www.classification.gov.au/Public/Resources/Documents/Classification-ratings-research-with-the-general-public.pdf

 

 

[leadeater]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The support is pretty strong in the circles I work (and in research on the topic).   Many people don't like the idea of censorship as a whole, but many people see this as normalizing drug use and thus they don't have an issue.  Just like smoking and hitting hysterical woman in films, it used to be common but you don't see it anymore because society as a whole changed it's mind on what it wants portrayed as normal behavior.     

 

People can moan about this all they want (mostly only gamers though as discovered by a review into the effectiveness of classification in 2014), but the classification board in Australia largely reflects societies expectations both in classification and procedure.

 

http://www.classification.gov.au/Public/Resources/Documents/Classification-ratings-research-with-the-general-public.pdf

The problem a lot of people point to around it is the inconsistency it's applied for the reason given. You're getting games banned for 'high impact bloody violence' yet for example Saw movies are still allowed. The same classification system and review panel is used for both film and games yet films are allowed to depict what games are not allowed to. That's what actually annoy people, when the bar is at different heights depending on who or what it is.

 

Edit:

And the people I was talking about weren't saying the classification system wasn't useful and did not support it either, and reading the report no questions around the above issue were actually asked either.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

The problem a lot of people point to around it is the inconsistency it's applied for the reason given. You're getting games banned for 'high impact bloody violence' yet for example Saw movies are still allowed. The same classification system and review panel is used for both film and games yet films are allowed to depict what games are not allowed to. That's what actually annoy people, when the bar is at different heights depending on who or what it is.

The classification system specifically treats games differently.  Games are interactive and thus considered to have a larger impact than a movie.    The interactivity of games has been well established to be more stimulating than movies (both positive and negative).  Many articles illustrate that an interactive video game stimulates the brain a lot more than an equivalent video which is why some math and strategy games educate and help develop academic functioning more than just watching a video. But the flip side is also true, there are studies out there that show video games also have a negative effect that is much more pronounced than just movie watching.  So a video game with an M15 rating could be just as affecting on someone as a movie with an R18.

 

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mental-wealth/201408/dumb-dumber-interactive-screentime-is-worse-tv

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/technology/active-video-games-are-actually-better-for-kids-than-watching-tv-study-finds/news-story/6f793fb23b91d81894ed1374d3eabc5c?sv=cbcd43d2fbb762367ea19574d23095b1

 

Please excuse the daily telegraph, I can't find the original study it was talking about.

 

 

 

[leadeater]

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Please excuse the daily telegraph

lol

 

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The interactivity of games has been well established to be more stimulating than movies (both positive and negative).  Many articles illustrate that an interactive video game stimulates the brain a lot more than an equivalent video which is why some math and strategy games educate and help develop academic functioning more than just watching a video. But the flip side is also true, there are studies out there that show video games also have a negative effect that is much more pronounced than just movie watching.  So a video game with an M15 rating could be just as affecting on someone as a movie with an R18.

That's the problem with tying stimulation and immersion with negative impacts to human behavior. Certain groups of law makers love to try and point to games as a cause of violence in society but there isn't actually any proof of that. When you can prove something is more stimulating for the brain that doesn't actually mean it has more or less impact. Watching a movie is an inactive activity, playing a game is an active activity. That's akin to saying playing rugby is more stimulating to the brain than watching it, I'd have to say that is pointing out the obvious. You can read about or watch a film or play a game on how to catch or throw a ball but it's not a replacement for doing the action.

 

We have been able to show how games can improve things like motor control and cognitive decision making but as yet no one has been able to prove psychological damage from playing a game compared to watching a movie.

 

Kicking a ball and developing that motor control doesn't make you more likely to kick a person etc etc.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

lol

 

That's the problem with tying stimulation and immersion with negative impacts to human behavior. Certain groups of law makers love to try and point to games as a cause of violence in society but there isn't actually any proof of that. When you can prove something is more stimulating for the brain that doesn't actually mean it has more or less impact. Watching a movie is an inactive activity, playing a game is an active activity. That's akin to saying playing rugby is more stimulating to the brain than watching it, I'd have to say that is pointing out the obvious. You can read about or watch a film or play a game on how to catch or throw a ball but it's not a replacement for doing the action.

It seems the APA disagree.

 

https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.

 

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

We have been able to show how games can improve things like motor control and cognitive decision making but as yet no one has been able to prove psychological damage from playing a game compared to watching a movie.

 

Kicking a ball and developing that motor control does make you more likely to kick a person etc etc.

From the above article:

 

Quote

five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior.

 

 

 

The whole article is a look at many studies to try and put perspective to many smaller studies that people like to cherry pick.  Yes there is a study out there that shows some games make people more calm, there is another study out there that shows after playing violent games some people sleep better.  But all the studies combined paint a very different picture.  As I said before, the same  interactive nature of video games that makes the learning games more effective (because the incentive and goal is developing reasoning skills and problem solving) also has the same downside in behavioral stimulus if the games goal and incentive is violent.

 

 

 

[Dabombinable]

40 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The problem a lot of people point to around it is the inconsistency it's applied for the reason given. You're getting games banned for 'high impact bloody violence' yet for example Saw movies are still allowed. The same classification system and review panel is used for both film and games yet films are allowed to depict what games are not allowed to. That's what actually annoy people, when the bar is at different heights depending on who or what it is.

 

Edit:

And the people I was talking about weren't saying the classification system wasn't useful and did not support it either, and reading the report no questions around the above issue were actually asked either.

Low level cause language=The Dish being rated M (someone getting called a Galah once).

 

Medium level coarse language=Kids movies getting a PG rating (full on swearing).

[ravenshrike]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

I bought it because I had friends who wanted to play,  It was the biggest feeling of being stolen from in a legitimate single purchase I have ever experienced.    I could have put that money into poker machines, lost it all and still felt better about it.

Never play Fallout 76.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, ravenshrike said:

Never play Fallout 76.

nope, although I have to say I was very tempted, did I dodge a bullet?

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Low level cause language=The Dish being rated M (someone getting called a Galah once).

 

Medium level coarse language=Kids movies getting a PG rating (full on swearing).

Are you old enough to remember before they had pg13 and M ratings?  tits, swearing and people being eaten by sharks (PG).   Mind you, we were a lot tougher in the 80's.  We watched Galipoli and jaws in primary school.   Take home lesson: stay away from sharks and respect war veterans. 

[leadeater]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The whole article is a look at many studies to try and put perspective to many smaller studies that people like to cherry pick.  Yes there is a study out there that shows some games make people more calm, there is another study out there that shows after playing violent games some people sleep better.  But all the studies combined paint a very different picture.  As I said before, the same  interactive nature of video games that makes the learning games more effective (because the incentive and goal is developing reasoning skills and problem solving) also has the same downside in behavioral stimulus if the games goal and incentive is violent.

Link is 500 error atm btw.

 

Does the study show that it is more so than films? The same effects from violent films has been linked as well. It's very difficult to show if either is greater than the other, the differentiating factor is activity time. Games are played for longer and more often so it may be more accurate to reason that is the issue and not the medium itself.

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

The Dish

Great movie, even if it's Australian 

 

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Are you old enough to remember before they had pg13 and M ratings?  tits, swearing and people being eaten by sharks (PG).   Mind you, we were a lot tougher in the 80's.  We watched Galipoli and jaws in primary school.   Take home lesson: stay away from sharks and respect war veterans. 

Were you tougher in the 80's because you were actually allowed to watch things like that . I mean you can't now, boy the blow back today would be huge if you show Jaws or modern day equivalent of it primary school lol.

 

Not actually serious, I don't think showing Jaws back then was a good idea either. Not sure what year level it was but we watched Jurassic park, some opted out heh. It was only PG.