Shorty

Eh, why not? ShortyAU.

Request sent.

ShortyAU on Xbox Live.

Happy birthday, Ryan.

I'm having a nip of Glenlivet 12 while I crank out his REALEST SUMMERJAMS on Spotify.

We miss you, man.

@humanity: I think it's more like in the case of movies, where the trailers would often contain cuts or dialogue that are significantly altered or even missing from the final cut because the trailers themselves were made well before the film was finally done. So if the scenes in that preview are different than the released game, it's probably because they were changed after that preview was made.

I think the point of calling it "progressive" was to point out that in a medium where most developers either get it wrong or, worse, don't even try, it is deserving of praise when a developer gets it right. In the same way that a toddler is praised for taking their first steps unassisted because up until that point they weren't capable of doing that. It's the steps taken towards a goal that count.

So we're supposed to notice it, but not let anyone else know that we've noticed it? Doesn't that sound a tad ridiculous?

@eskimo: Pretty much. The Classification Board is bound to enforce the rules set by the National Classification Code and it's this Code that dictates what content can and can't be in media. Changing the Code would require an Act of Parliament, which is probably not going to happen anytime soon considering there's likely to be a Federal election very soon.

It's a government body that has made a legally-enforceable decision strongly restricting or effectively preventing my access to an item of media (bearing in mind that importation is not legal, just laxly enforced; Source: http://www.classification.gov.au/Guidelines/Pages/FAQ-import-export.aspx). That is practically the definition of censorship. Not only that, but it's censorship by a government body that has demonstrated itself to be far too inconsistent (Destroy All Humans had an anal probe gun that ends in the victim's head exploding, which was passed by the ACB without incident), arbitrary (the film Salo has yo-yoed between banned and unbanned over last 20 years or so) and vulnerable to political interference (at least two banned games had their classification "reviewed" on the recommendation of Government Ministers) to deserve continuing legal power. At this point, I can barely trust their opinion even if they were a purely advisory body (i.e. if they couldn't legally ban games from being sold) if only because their rating a game would be utterly redundant by the time it reached Australia.

I'm totally fine with you deciding that this game isn't for you because it has an anal probe rocket gun (which is basically what this weapon is), if that is your decision. I'm not fine with someone else making that choice on my behalf. I don't much care if it "goes against the values of the Australian government". That's not what games are for. They're for playing. If we don't want to play those games, we can not buy them and eventually they won't be made anymore.

I know this is mostly Jeff's gag but Ryan totally helped out here, too. One of the all-time funniest Bombcast moments.

@selfconfessedcynic: Agreed, but the relative lack of diversity and representation of actual gamers on the Classification Board has been pointed out before (source: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3755220.html), so again, I don't really trust them to make those decisions on my behalf. Personally, I don't think media classifications should be mandated in Australia, anyway. People have the right to be informed about media content, but that kind of information is readily accessible these days (young parents are pretty Internet-savvy, these days; certainly moreso than our leaders assume). Given that the vast majority of content has already been rated by about a dozen other agencies before it arrives here, I have yet to see the CB find anything *important* that everyone else has missed.

And as a general note, I would like to know what the CB found so objectionable they felt it should be initially banned, given that both Europe and the US passed the game UNCUT.

Except that if Koch Media don't appeal this or their appeal fails, none of us will be able to buy the game in Australia, so we can't really know if the game does actually "trivialise violent sexual acts" or even what they mean by "implied sexual violence". We can only speculate. Or download the demo or import the game.

So I can't be fine with the judgement being made because, like @goatmilk, I don't take kindly to being told what I can play. I have no problem with people having played some or all of the game and deciding that it's not for them because at least that decision comes from direct experience. I just don't want those kinds of decisions made for me.