Australia Bans Dead or Alive: Dimensions After All

[BabyRaptor]

But, but but, how are lonely, awkward Australian preteen boys going to become men?

What, did Australia ban porn too?

Edited for spelling.

 

[TheAceTheOne]

Meanwhile they have no problem having 13 year olds reading and performing Shakespeare.

Is there a problem with performing classic drama? I fail to see the reason behind this argument, and I was wondering how you got it.

On topic: Yeah, this seems like censorship taken overboard to me.

 

[Callate]

They're rigid, but at least they're inconsistent!

 

[remedyX]

I dunno. I think if Brendan O'Connor and the rest of the Aussie classification board are concerned about panty-shots, they should forbid Australians from ever visiting Japan. Their heads might explode the moment they got off the plane.

(GameSpot [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6318966/dead-or-alive-dimensions-aussie-rating-revoked])

(I fixed your tags edit-Wait no I didn't. This site has some weird b/code. Apologies)

So you're supportive of under-age virtual 'pantyshots' then?

 

[remedyX]

Time to go to ausgameshop, methinks.

Just gotta' get 'dem pantyshots.

They're rigid, but at least they're inconsistent!

Well said.

Meanwhile they have no problem having 13 year olds reading and performing Shakespeare.

Haha, what?

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Time to go to ausgameshop, methinks.

Just gotta' get 'dem pantyshots.

I'm just buying it to stick it to them, to be honest.

 

[Inkidu]

But, but but, how are lonely, awkward Australian preteen boys going to become men?

What, did Australia ban porn too?

Edited for spelling.

Probably.

 

[Speakercone]

Meanwhile they have no problem having 13 year olds reading and performing Shakespeare.

Haha, what?

Shakespeare was one dirty bastard. As an example, Romeo & Juliet is about two horny 14 year olds who want to get married, then do get married, then shit happens. Marriage in Elizabethan drama = sex. It's a comedy about that until Mercutio dies, then it becomes a tragedy. Also interestingly, Juliet's nurse advises her to just marry the guy her mother wants her to and sleep with Romeo on the side. There's plenty more examples of this, (Midsummer Night's Dream contains bestiality ffs) yet we apparently have no problem having this taught in school because it's Shakespeare.

I was attempting to say that if you want to ban fictional representations of persons under the age of consent engaging in sexual activity, you'd have to ban a lot of stuff you didn't intend to. A lot of Shakespeare for instance.

I guess I could have made the point a bit better, but in my defence, it made sense in my head

 

[faceless chick]

go australia!
prove you're the most uptight, conservative, hateful and frigid country on the planet!
it will only work wonders for you in the future.

 

[Trogdor1138]

I know that this post will not stop the knee-jerk reactions so many on this site always have to anything they read about Australia and video games. But this game is not "banned" and it will surely be submitted for reclassification. The whole issue is there is content in the game that wasn't suitable for a PG that they overlooked. I see no problem here and I'm actually for once in support of the ratings board for being able to go back and act quickly from concerns people have about the content. No I am not for censorship, but I am completely for appropriate ratings.

But hey, just blindly hate it when you have no idea what you're talking about. This seems to be what some of you do best in the comments. Thanks for generalizing a whole country without knowing our situation.

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

I dunno. I think if Brendan O'Connor and the rest of the Aussie classification board are concerned about panty-shots, they should forbid Australians from ever visiting Japan. Their heads might explode the moment they got off the plane.

If such a fate is appropriate for those who create such a ludicrous game rating system, then I will help pay for their ticket myself.

It would at least open their minds a little.

how nicely put.

 

[remedyX]

Meanwhile they have no problem having 13 year olds reading and performing Shakespeare.

Haha, what?

Shakespeare was one dirty bastard. As an example, Romeo & Juliet is about two horny 14 year olds who want to get married, then do get married, then shit happens. Marriage in Elizabethan drama = sex. It's a comedy about that until Mercutio dies, then it becomes a tragedy. Also interestingly, Juliet's nurse advises her to just marry the guy her mother wants her to and sleep with Romeo on the side. There's plenty more examples of this, (Midsummer Night's Dream contains bestiality ffs) yet we apparently have no problem having this taught in school because it's Shakespeare.

I was attempting to say that if you want to ban fictional representations of persons under the age of consent engaging in sexual activity, you'd have to ban a lot of stuff you didn't intend to. A lot of Shakespeare for instance.

I guess I could have made the point a bit better, but in my defence, it made sense in my head

I disagree with you for several reasons.
Firstly - in the context of the times the arbitrary age at which society deemed sex as reasonable was lower. Secondly the play can be interpreted and re-told in many different ways to keep it within societies boundaries. If Romeo and [edit]Juliet[/edit] were told by actually having two 14 year old actors have sex on stage it would be banned. So all we do nowadays is tell the story differently.

All this game has to do is remove the ability to look up underage girls skirts.

The other reason I disagree with you is because a play doesn't 'become a tragedy when X happens' the play was always tragic, it is tragic because of X. This is like saying that Saving Private Ryan is all about gratuitous violence until the story happens.

Finally I hardly find panty shots comparable to Shakespearian works in terms of their cultural value. I do take your point, though.

 

[John Funk]

I dunno. I think if Brendan O'Connor and the rest of the Aussie classification board are concerned about panty-shots, they should forbid Australians from ever visiting Japan. Their heads might explode the moment they got off the plane.

(GameSpot [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6318966/dead-or-alive-dimensions-aussie-rating-revoked])

(I fixed your tags edit-Wait no I didn't. This site has some weird b/code. Apologies)

So you're supportive of under-age virtual 'pantyshots' then?

You'll see a whole lot worse in Japan, is my point.

 

[remedyX]

I dunno. I think if Brendan O'Connor and the rest of the Aussie classification board are concerned about panty-shots, they should forbid Australians from ever visiting Japan. Their heads might explode the moment they got off the plane.

(GameSpot [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6318966/dead-or-alive-dimensions-aussie-rating-revoked])

(I fixed your tags edit-Wait no I didn't. This site has some weird b/code. Apologies)

So you're supportive of under-age virtual 'pantyshots' then?

You'll see a whole lot worse in Japan, is my point.

No, that was your statement, seeing as its tangential to the topic at hand what was the implication of it?

So what if there's 'immoral' stuff in Japan? You included this for a reason and I hardly think we can point and shout "BUT LOOK THEY DO IT!"

They can always simply remove it from the game. I bet none of the fans will mind. They all buy it for the awesome gameplay!.
(I refuse to write my sarcasm in pink)

 

[Forum_Name]

I'm starting to think Australia's policy of banning games is a conspiracy by the Australian Tourism Bureau.

I can't speak for anyone else but I find such wanton use of censorship to be disturbing. I'd feel more comfortable skipping Australia in favour of New Zealand for tourism. Comparisons to other countries under heavy censorship do not a comfortable tourist make.

 

[John Funk]

I dunno. I think if Brendan O'Connor and the rest of the Aussie classification board are concerned about panty-shots, they should forbid Australians from ever visiting Japan. Their heads might explode the moment they got off the plane.

(GameSpot [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6318966/dead-or-alive-dimensions-aussie-rating-revoked])

(I fixed your tags edit-Wait no I didn't. This site has some weird b/code. Apologies)

So you're supportive of under-age virtual 'pantyshots' then?

You'll see a whole lot worse in Japan, is my point.

No, that was your statement, seeing as its tangential to the topic at hand what was the implication of it?

So what if there's 'immoral' stuff in Japan? You included this for a reason and I hardly think we can point and shout "BUT LOOK THEY DO IT!"

They can always simply remove it from the game. I bet none of the fans will mind. They all buy it for the awesome gameplay!.
(I refuse to write my sarcasm in pink)

Well, if you want to get technical, my point was that it was a game developed in Japan where they obviously have different social mores and consider different things to be acceptable and unacceptable.

And yes, I do find it a bit silly to be demonizing a free-camera mode that allows you to take upskirt shots of virtual girls who are ostensibly 17 but who sure as hell don't look it (oh, anime). I mean, what's next - calling the Coppertone girl [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppertone_girl] child porn?

 

[remedyX]

I dunno. I think if Brendan O'Connor and the rest of the Aussie classification board are concerned about panty-shots, they should forbid Australians from ever visiting Japan. Their heads might explode the moment they got off the plane.

(GameSpot [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6318966/dead-or-alive-dimensions-aussie-rating-revoked])

(I fixed your tags edit-Wait no I didn't. This site has some weird b/code. Apologies)

So you're supportive of under-age virtual 'pantyshots' then?

You'll see a whole lot worse in Japan, is my point.

No, that was your statement, seeing as its tangential to the topic at hand what was the implication of it?

So what if there's 'immoral' stuff in Japan? You included this for a reason and I hardly think we can point and shout "BUT LOOK THEY DO IT!"

They can always simply remove it from the game. I bet none of the fans will mind. They all buy it for the awesome gameplay!.
(I refuse to write my sarcasm in pink)

Well, if you want to get technical, my point was that it was a game developed in Japan where they obviously have different social mores and consider different things to be acceptable and unacceptable.

And yes, I do find it a bit silly to be demonizing a free-camera mode that allows you to take upskirt shots of virtual girls who are ostensibly 17 but who sure as hell don't look it (oh, anime). I mean, what's next - calling the Coppertone girl [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppertone_girl] child porn?

There is a difference between that picture, which did seem a bit off, and people looking up skirts.

What artistic, game-play, or storyline purpose does looking up skirts serve exactly?

There's is a difference between things that are obviously pornographic and those which aren't.

Finally, what do you mean they look older than 18? How can you tell?

-edit - Why am I bothering, you have a Gundam avatar.

 

[John Funk]

I dunno. I think if Brendan O'Connor and the rest of the Aussie classification board are concerned about panty-shots, they should forbid Australians from ever visiting Japan. Their heads might explode the moment they got off the plane.

(GameSpot [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6318966/dead-or-alive-dimensions-aussie-rating-revoked])

(I fixed your tags edit-Wait no I didn't. This site has some weird b/code. Apologies)

So you're supportive of under-age virtual 'pantyshots' then?

You'll see a whole lot worse in Japan, is my point.

No, that was your statement, seeing as its tangential to the topic at hand what was the implication of it?

So what if there's 'immoral' stuff in Japan? You included this for a reason and I hardly think we can point and shout "BUT LOOK THEY DO IT!"

They can always simply remove it from the game. I bet none of the fans will mind. They all buy it for the awesome gameplay!.
(I refuse to write my sarcasm in pink)

Well, if you want to get technical, my point was that it was a game developed in Japan where they obviously have different social mores and consider different things to be acceptable and unacceptable.

And yes, I do find it a bit silly to be demonizing a free-camera mode that allows you to take upskirt shots of virtual girls who are ostensibly 17 but who sure as hell don't look it (oh, anime). I mean, what's next - calling the Coppertone girl [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppertone_girl] child porn?

There is a difference between that picture, which did seem a bit off, and people looking up skirts.

What artistic, game-play, or storyline purpose does looking up skirts serve exactly?

There's is a difference between things that are obviously pornographic and those which aren't.

Finally, what do you mean they look older than 18? How can you tell?

-edit - Why am I bothering, you have a Gundam avatar.

It's a free camera mode. Plenty of games have them. That DOA, which has always sold at least partly on its fanservice (see also: "She kicks high" commercial) would include a 'check out our hot babes in 3D!' mode in its latest release is hardly surprising. No, it has no artistic, gameplay, or storyline purpose, but does that mean it shouldn't exist?

Should they have prevented the camera from going lower than it needed? Should they just not have modeled the underskirt view? I'm genuinely not seeing your point here - how is giving the player the option, in one mode of the game, to position the camera JUST RIGHT so they can see a view of *underwear* - nothing more, just underwear - even remotely pornographic? There's worse than that in PG-13 movies.

And I'm saying, that Kasumi [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasumi_(Dead_or_Alive)] et al certainly don't look underage - as well as you can tell with anime-esque characters, anyway. The "17" is just a number in a database that has no meaning. You could say she was 18, you could say she was in her 20s and it could still be right. Yes, it's kind of disturbing that they INSIST on making her technically underage, but it's hardly tantamount to child pornography.

Also, what does my avatar have to do with a single thing?

 

[Dys]

Meanwhile they have no problem having 13 year olds reading and performing Shakespeare.

Is there a problem with performing classic drama? I fail to see the reason behind this argument, and I was wondering how you got it.

On topic: Yeah, this seems like censorship taken overboard to me.

Is that a real response? Have you read Shakespeare? I'm not a massive fan and don't claim to have read all of his stuff, but even I know that it sure as all hell isn't G rated. Sure, literary classics and all that, but hardly appropriate for children.

OT: Honestly, who gives a shit what the censorship board do. Ban left 4 dead because you can shoot cops but find no problem with GTA? Dead or alive handheld is out because you can see a girls undies, but every other DOA game is fair? Ban fallout for referencing real drugs (morphine) but half life 2 (with the suits automatic morphine administration) is cool? I'm sorry, I just can't care.

Meanwhile they have no problem having 13 year olds reading and performing Shakespeare.

Haha, what?

Shakespeare was one dirty bastard. As an example, Romeo & Juliet is about two horny 14 year olds who want to get married, then do get married, then shit happens. Marriage in Elizabethan drama = sex. It's a comedy about that until Mercutio dies, then it becomes a tragedy. Also interestingly, Juliet's nurse advises her to just marry the guy her mother wants her to and sleep with Romeo on the side. There's plenty more examples of this, (Midsummer Night's Dream contains bestiality ffs) yet we apparently have no problem having this taught in school because it's Shakespeare.

I was attempting to say that if you want to ban fictional representations of persons under the age of consent engaging in sexual activity, you'd have to ban a lot of stuff you didn't intend to. A lot of Shakespeare for instance.

I guess I could have made the point a bit better, but in my defence, it made sense in my head

Romeo was 18 and Juliet was 13 (notably too young to be married off in the story). More than the sexual innuendos and generally crass conversations (there is one where a 13 year old Juliet is complaining to her housemaid that she has not yet slept with her 18 year old man), the violent nature of romeo and Juliet (romeo and Juliet are basically on opposite families in a gang war) is concerning. There is quite a bit of (sadistic) violence at least spoken about, if I recall correctly. You're point of it being ridiculous to teach romeo and juliet to our children but ban much less extreme content in video games is perfectly valid.