Joaby took the first major piece of Battlefield 1 DLC for a hands-on spin. Here's how it plays!
Battlefield 1 Frontlines is Coming - We've Played it!
We ask the, err, hard questions in our hands-on time with the long awaited Mass Effect Andromeda
Alien Sex and Mass Effect Andromeda
We sharpen our swords and take to the battlefield in our For Honor review.
And My Axe! For Honor Reviewed
We've taken Prey for a spacewalk and have emerged more than in love with the game, read on to know just why!
Hands-On with Prey - Arkane's Love Letter to BioShock and More!
Post by KostaAndreadis @ 03:54pm 21/03/17 | 8 Comments
For those that know the name David Leyonhjelm, the Australian Liberal Democratic Party Senator who used recent tragedies as a way in which to push an agenda centered around the softening of gun laws, his speech today about the ills of censorship should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Citing the recent classification refusal of Outlast II as an example the Senator went on to state that "Video games do not hurt anybody, and the Government and Classification Board should leave video gamers alone."

Apparently we're being persecuted. But that viewpoint is fair enough, and his note relating to the average age of gamers being 33 is right on the mark. Should censorship in any form exist? An always interesting discussion point. Outlast II which was refused classification due to implied sexual violence, a straight out no-no in Australia, was cited as another example of overreach.

"This video game takes place in a fantasy world involving all kinds of creatures both human and non-human," said Leyonhjelm. "The mere suggestion of an out-of-screen encounter between a creature and a human character was enough to get it banned altogether by the Australian Classification Board. All of this operates on the false assumption that people who play video games are impressionable children who would play out anything they saw."


Up to this point the Senators speech was logical and understandable, but after this he went on to weirdly relate the above with government officials having restricted internet access to certain sites, including gaming publications. A standard corporate practice by a lot of industries that has more to do with productivity concerns than censorship.

In the end though the fact that Outlast II was refused classification in Australia, and therefore unable to be sold, has sparked renewed interest in overhauling our ratings system.



australian classificationoutlastiisenator





Latest Comments
notgreazy
Posted 04:13pm 21/3/17
I would gladly live with the current classification system if it means having tight gun-laws that prohibit easy access to weapons.
niteheh
Posted 07:28pm 21/3/17
Great job using this as a platform to criticise a politician you are ideologically opposed to.
Why can't people decide for themselves what they play? Oh wait, this is literally the argument AusGamers has made on every other refusal of classification, but the moment Old Mate Leyonhjelm - who it's cool to hate on if you're a "progressive" - gets involved, suddenly we're all "Outlast II which was refused classification due to implied sexual violence, a straight out no-no in Australia".
Arpey
Posted 07:53pm 21/3/17
Way to conflate the actual classification guidelines with a political agenda there mate. Those progressives, am I right?
BladeRunner
Posted 08:01pm 21/3/17
It would be nice if the censorship classification laws were loosened up but that won't happen for a while.

As for gun laws, it would be nice if gun laws were loosened a bit too but then I think of all the stupid people with air rifles doing stupid things. Shooting cats and/or peoples dogs out of retaliation for neighborhood disputes and the like. So I am content to live with the current gun laws.
HurricaneJim
Posted 09:01pm 21/3/17
I think it's Leyonhjelm trying to make himself relevant.
trog
Posted 10:34pm 21/3/17
Great job using this as a platform to criticise a politician you are ideologically opposed to.
Why can't people decide for themselves what they play? Oh wait, this is literally the argument AusGamers has made on every other refusal of classification, but the moment Old Mate Leyonhjelm - who it's cool to hate on if you're a "progressive" - gets involved, suddenly we're all "Outlast II which was refused classification due to implied sexual violence, a straight out no-no in Australia".
I think you read a different article to the one Kosta posted and commented in the wrong place
Hotcakes
Posted 11:28am 22/3/17
A confusing opening paragraph to this article to be sure. A sensible upheaval of the censorship board would be a welcome change, regardless of who spearheads it.
KostaAndreadis
Posted 11:50am 22/3/17
Yeah, was a little confusing. Had more to do with the fact that he's latching onto a current event to say X, as he has done in the past. Not trying to push a "progressive" agenda, whatever that may be.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now!
8 Comments
Show