About 2 months ago now, We Happy Few, an upcoming survival game with a big emphasis on story,
was banned by the Australian Classification Board.
The reason for the decision was due to the game containing what they called "drug use
related to incentives and rewards".
This means that, due to the game containing some drug use and despite the extremely strong
anti-drug message the games has, the game was seen as promoting using drugs and so should
be banned.
But, as mentioned, the game's entire narrative is about the drugs being a bad thing that
you shouldn't do.
Due to this, the game's developers appealed the decision, a process that costs $10,000
and, for the first time in history for a game banned due to drug use, managed to get the
decision overturned.
We now have information about why the game was unbanned from both the Classification
Board, as well as Gearbox's legal team, and this video will go into why the game was unbanned
and then some of the far reaching effects this has already seen for the video game industry.
To begin with Gearbox, We Happy Few's publisher, whose legal representative has wrote a detailed
write-up on the appeal process and the methods they used to argue that the game shouldn't
be banned.
This report, which goes into the applicable law for why the game was banned is pretty
lengthy, but can be boiled down to a few different points.
The first argument for the game not facing restrictions was the importance of context.
The legal representative argued that due to the overwhelmingly strong anti-drug message
that the game has, this should be taken into account.
They even say that the classification board's own guidelines explicitly mention the importance
of context.
This line is straight from the Australian classification board:
"Context is crucial in determining whether a classifiable element is justified by the
story-line or themes.
In particular, the way in which important social issues are dealt with may require a
mature or adult perspective.
This means that material that falls into a particular classification category in one
context may fall outside it in another."
The second point was the game's literary, artistic and educational merit.
Comparing it to classic novels like Brave New World, A Clockwork Orange, 1984, Brazil
and Fahrenheit 451, the legal representative argues that works like these play an important
role in public and social discourse and the process of opinion forming.
He also speaks about their educational merit and questions why these novels are allowed
to be read in schools yet a game like this is being banned.
Further arguments were made around the game's unrealistic setting and style, saying that
realistic elements are considered to have greater impact than unrealistic elements and
that the game's sci-fi abstract style should fall under the latter.
And then lastly, the legal representative once again picks apart the Australian law
and highlights that any game that overall and clearly condemns the use of drugs should
not be refused classification, and that this is strongly backed up by the already existing
law.
To summarise, Gearbox's legal representative seems to have gone through the law with a
fine tooth comb and has found huge holes in the way this was handled.
We Happy Few shouldn't have been banned and any game like this in the future shouldn't
be banned either.
The Classification Board's reason for the reversal isn't anywhere near as in-depth,
but they have stated: "The premise of this computer game is for
the playing characters to escape a fictional town where the inhabitants are in a state
of Government mandated euphoria and memory loss.
Although the non-playing characters appear to be happy due to their continual use of
the Joy drug, the computer game quickly establishes that this state is undesirable and the playing
characters are on a quest to avoid the use of the Joy drug."
"The actual use of the fictitious drug as a game progression mechanic, questions the
viability of such a gameplay decision at each stage/level.
The character's action in taking the drug is usually the only viable option given and
while it may enable the character to pass a stage/level of the game, the benefit is
short term and is followed by a loss of memory and a reduction in health points, the depletion
of the body and/or withdrawal symptoms."
As earlier mentioned, this decision has already made huge strides for change in the Australian
video game industry.
Not only has the decision created a bold precedent for future games, but the Classification Board
has even confirmed that they are now in talks about updating the current system.
Speaking to Kotaku Australia, the board has said:
"The Department is currently examining how the National Classification Scheme can be
modernised."
"The Department has commenced discussions with the states and territories, which are
joint partners in the National Classification Scheme, and will consult extensively with
industry stakeholders and community organisations."
This is huge news for gamers and it is very possible that far fewer games will now be
refused classification in the future.
As always, Censored Gaming will be here to keep you up-to-date on all things censorship
and will be sure to let you know of any new developments.
If this is something you are interested in, please consider subscribing to the channel
and, until next time, thank you for watching.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét