Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Australian Government Bans New Syndicate Game

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the yes-this-again dept.

Censorship 115

An anonymous reader writes "It looks like the Australian Government's move to introduce a new R18+ classification for adult video games hasn't yet taken force, with video game maker EA confirming today that its reboot of the classic Syndicate series has been banned in Australia due to extreme violence. Left 4 Dead, Mortal Kombat and now Syndicate — what game will be banned next in Australia is anybody's guess."

cancel ×

115 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I guess... (1)

cujo_1111 (627504) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445828)

That makes it ok to download it then, huh?

Depends on how you look at it (3, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445876)

Downloading it and not paying for it is really punishing the publisher, and it isn't their fault. The Australian government is the one causing the problems. Now if you can't import the US/UK version without risking jail/a fine then ok, maybe it is your only way to play. But if importation is possible, it would seem that is the way to go. Show the AUS government how stupid their policies are and support game makers.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445896)

Downloading it without paying for it instead of not buying it without paying for it does not punish the publisher at all.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1, Flamebait)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445942)

Downloading it without paying for it instead of not buying it without paying for it does not punish the publisher at all.

But that actually punishes every other publisher, including indie games, since you're getting your entertainment fix from your pirated game and don't buy some other game instead.

For this same reason pirating apps punishes open source.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (4, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445972)

But that actually punishes every other publisher, including indie games, since you're getting your entertainment fix from your pirated game and don't buy some other game instead.

Damn. I'll think about that next time I download a game that is actually free. I could've given money to other game developers! What a little thief I am!

Re:Depends on how you look at it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38449410)

humblebundle.com

Re:Depends on how you look at it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446364)

Indie games aren't publishers, they are developers that *also* publish. I'd be happy to make a donation to the developers of a banned game I pirated.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446534)

For this same reason pirating apps punishes open source.

This is only true if there's an open source app that does does exactly what the pirated app does. Unfortunately there aren't nearly as many open source games than closed source.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

higuita (129722) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446604)

But dont forget that there is many good open source games out there.

In many cases, graphics arent as good as close source games, but in many open source games are you have more fun time than in the close source ones (many are pretty, but boring or too short/buggy to be fun)

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1, Flamebait)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446636)

What? Most known open source games are just ports of the best closed source games like Civilization, SimCity, Quake or Theme Hospital. On top of having sucky graphics, open source games are way too repetitive and all the open source shooters try to mimic Quake. Which is boring in 2011. Where is just as much fun open source multiplayer game than Team Fortress 2 is? Or Battlefield 3/Modern Warfare 3 online? Grand Theft Auto? Assassins Creed? Deus Ex? Portal? Left4Dead? Skyrim? The list goes on and on... Hell, they could even make a simple tower defense game. But Defense Grid beats them in that too.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 2 years ago | (#38450102)

Call it flamebait, but the parent has a point - Cube 2, Nexuiz, Tremulous, etc all play almost exactly like Quake 3, and in some cases the graphics aren't much better. Some more modern games like NetDevil Warmonger are more tech demos (that one is based on proprietary Unreal 3 tech, as well). Many of the best free games do mimic popular commercial games.

That said, there are a few that have some merit, like the Battle For Westnoth. It takes a lot of work to make commercial quality games, even though some commercial quality open source engines exist (albeit most with requirements that the games created on them are free).

Re:Depends on how you look at it (3, Funny)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38451182)

This is why I prefer to pirate 8-bit games. That way I get the shoddy graphics and sound of open source, along with the heartwarming feeling of sticking it to the man.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38447682)

Downloading it without paying for it instead of not buying it without paying for it does not punish the publisher at all.

But what if you don't not buy it with a lack of not avoiding to withhold payment? Doesn't that not punish the publisher not at all?

Re:Depends on how you look at it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38447754)

not buying it without paying

That's like a slap in the face slap. Way harsh dude.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (5, Informative)

sg_oneill (159032) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445898)

I dont really understand how its punishing the publisher in this case. Like any piracy, there isn't any theft (piracy isn't theft unless you somehow take someone elses copy of them) , but unlike regular piracy, there isn't even an oportunity lost. There can be no lost transaction when the publisher *cant* make a transaction in the first place.

Its literally victimless in all known senses.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1, Interesting)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445974)

It's not completely victimless. It's lost opportunity to other game developers since you're playing some other game you pirated instead of getting theirs.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (4, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446004)

Well, if you're going by that logic, then just about everything is a lost opportunity. Why are you playing sports instead of buying company X's video game!? Why did you buy my competitor's video game? You should have bought mine! Why did you just download that free game instead of buying mine? Why didn't you give me all of your money?

I wouldn't say there's a victim here.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (0)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446036)

Note that it's not a free game, you're just pirating it. If there's a free game that is just as good and more wanted by you then it's all good, but by pirating game it's unfair comparison.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (4, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446062)

Note that it's not a free game, you're just pirating it.

I know that. But using the logic above, I seem to be able to make a victim out of anyone. No action is without victims, it seems.

I don't see any victims in this scenario.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38447540)

More importantly, why are you playing video games when you could be curing cancer!?

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38451238)

Why are you curing cancer when you could be evolving?

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

sirlark (1676276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446240)

That makes no sense. Either I want to play game A and game B (and game C... but have a limited budget and can only afford 1, 2 or whatever of them), or I really am only interested in game A. If game A is unavailable, the industry is losing out by me pirating game A, because I will still likely spend my money to obtain games B, C etc to the extent I can afford in the first case (I wanted to play them all); Or I'll not spend my money on the other games because they never interested me in the first place. People don't budget according the game class/entertainment class. They're not going to reserve their budget for 'an FPS game', they'll reserve it for 'THAT FPS GAME' and if I can't get that, then bollocks to that, I'll go watch some movies or buy some dope or whatever.

e.g. I like CRPG's -- I would spend money on skyrim, but it's not available in my country... I'm not going to spend my money on need for speed: the latest regurgitation (tm), nor the latest FPS. I'll also not spend my money on Dragon Age, or other CRPG's unless it was already on my list of interesting things, in which case I'd buy even I pirated game A.

The only time your logic works is gift buying. Buying cousin Johnny a game means the $100 is going to spent on a game regardless of preferences, but again, piracy of the first doesn't stop the money from being spent.

Of course all of this assumes that all the games aren't going to be pirated anyway...

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

AlanS2002 (580378) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446348)

It's not completely victimless. It's lost opportunity to other game developers since you're playing some other game you pirated instead of getting theirs.

It's no opportunity lost, as it's not an either/or situation. You could still get the other game developers game (if you were inclined to do so in the first place) as well as pirating the one that you are unable to acquire legitimately.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (0)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446462)

It's not completely victimless. It's lost opportunity to other game developers since you're playing some other game you pirated instead of getting theirs.

It's no opportunity lost, as it's not an either/or situation. You could still get the other game developers game (if you were inclined to do so in the first place) as well as pirating the one that you are unable to acquire legitimately.

This would be true if everyone had infinite amount of time and endless interest in playing games. But we don't, and the pirated game is decreasing the time and interest you have to play other games. It's not really complicated.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

AlanS2002 (580378) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446540)

It's not completely victimless. It's lost opportunity to other game developers since you're playing some other game you pirated instead of getting theirs.

It's no opportunity lost, as it's not an either/or situation. You could still get the other game developers game (if you were inclined to do so in the first place) as well as pirating the one that you are unable to acquire legitimately.

This would be true if everyone had infinite amount of time and endless interest in playing games. But we don't, and the pirated game is decreasing the time and interest you have to play other games. It's not really complicated.

The point implied by my statement, it that if someone was really that interested in the other game in the first place, they'd get it. The alternative to illegally downloading and playing a game that is unable to be obtained in any other way isn't limited to purchasing and playing a game by other game developers. Perhaps I'm not interested, at that point in time, in purchasing and playing another game, perhaps I'd rather stare at my navel or go on a hike, etc.
So as another poster pointed out, in your line of argument, any activity other than purchasing the other game developers game is a opportunity lost, which is frankly an absurd argument.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446658)

I never said it would be so black and white or tried to argue that every pirater doing it counts as lost sale to competitor. The exact percentage is unknown, but that effect certainly exists.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38451366)

It's not really complicated.

I never said it would be so black and white

Make your mind up!

I also liked "The exact percentage is unknown", implying there is a known inexact percentage. Your insistence that "that effect certainly exists" is merely an assumption on your part. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. It's just that you're appealing to ignorance with your argument, in that you are ignoring the entire central piece of this, which is that the Australian government has banned that title from the Australian market, and as such, this is what is hurting the developers, the publishers, and the industry as a whole -- not the people who would willingly shell out for the title should it be made available to them; and not the constant, which is those who would copy the game regardless of its availability in any market.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38447734)

It kinda of is since the money saved is spent on entertainment anyway.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38451232)

No. The victim is the publisher of the game the player wanted to play and could not because of overbearing government interference.

The player does not want to play the products of your poor "other game developers".

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446442)

Like any piracy, there isn't any theft (piracy isn't theft unless you somehow take someone elses copy of them) , but unlike regular piracy, there isn't even an oportunity lost. There can be no lost transaction when the publisher *cant* make a transaction in the first place.

Its literally victimless in all known senses.

I take it you feel the same about companies that take GPL code and distribute it without providing the source?

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38451396)

Reductio ad absurdum. You're welcome.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

i_b_don (1049110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38451992)

The difference is making money. Yes, taking GPL code and distributing it is the same as DLing movies and then selling those movies to other people.

d

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

LeperPuppet (1591409) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446130)

Customs will confiscate any imported copies IF they can identify them. Not sure what the punishment might be, but unless you're attempting to conceal a copy within a shipment of drugs or explosives, Customs won't find it unless you're extremely unlucky.

It's sort of a win, given that an imported UK copy can be purchased for approximately $45, while locally purchased copies will start at $80

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446426)

Downloading it and not paying for it is really punishing the publisher, and it isn't their fault.

Well you could say it is their fault for expecting their game to slide past one of the most draconian game censors in the world. Not that I'm trying to defend Australia's level of censorship which I think is ridiculous, but I'm just saying. Can't cry "unfair" when the situation is pretty well understood even if it is a bad situation.

And if the game is banned from the country how much material harm are you actually causing EA by pirating it? The ban meant they weren't going to profit from the game in Australia any way. I suppose some people might import but I really doubt many would unless Syndicate turns out to be an amazing title that people MUST have. If it's a typical 65-80% EA game crapped out from the production line then I doubt many people would be too worried about rushing out to import.

Re:Depends on how you look at it (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38450260)

Since importing the game would be just as much an illegal activity as copying the game, importing is not a legitimate solution. I'm sure that EA's official stance is that they don't want you committing a crime to play their game anyway.

Re:I guess... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445980)

It would be pretty funny if someone got sued for downloading it. Shouldn't censorship count under the whole 'lost revenue' thing?

Re:I guess... (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38451430)

Well, they'd be caught both for stealing and illegal importation to defy a censorship order.

The former should be defensible by demonstrating another product was purchased, i.e. that no sale was lost; the latter, by demonstrating that it is for personal use only, and that no further distribution would take place, perhaps by showing proof that the torrent ratio was tampered with.

Re:I guess... (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38451898)

The former should be defensible by

Mitigation != Defence.

"Defence" has a specific legal meaning. The two reasons you listed aren't a "defence" against a guilty verdict. But it may be used to mitigate the sentence, if you plead guilty and get a soft magistrate and unmotivated police-prosecutor.

(IANAL, IANYL, ASPLA)

Re:I guess... (4, Interesting)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446018)

That makes it ok to download it then, huh?

Cant say, but it will certainly take the wind out of the old and eroneous "lost sales" argument.

But anyway, here's what's going to happen

- Game X is "banned"
- /.er's who don't understand the situation scream about OMG Freedoms.
- Media shit storm in a teacup is created.
- OLFC changes its mind after one minor change.
- /.er's who haven't bothered to keep up scream about OMG Freedoms.
- original /. whingers are now cosplaying as William Wallace shouting OMG FREEEEEEDOMS.
- Game gets released on Oz.
- /.er's still whinging about Freedoms.
- Smart Australians order games from overseas regardless (thank you parallel importing).

I swear we'll still be hearing about this six months from now. I mean the article mentioned Left4Dead when it was released in Oz on November 18 2008, the same day as North America.

Re:I guess... (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38449144)

(thank you parallel importing).

You can only parallel import legally available material. If it's RC, then it's "Importation of refused classification material". Same as child pornography.

Re:I guess... (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38451474)

You didn't follow his hypothetical timeline, did you? He's arguing that it may become available if the publishers make one minor change (similar to changing blood from red to green).

Stupid law is still a law. (2)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38451636)

He's arguing that it may become available if the publishers make one minor change (similar to changing blood from red to green).

Then that version is legal. It doesn't make the original (international) version legal. If you parallel import an unmodified version, you have imported refused classification material.

(I'm not telling people not to import RC games. Or even pirate them. Go nuts. But people who pirate games know that it's against local copyright laws, and are willing to risk the low chance of detection. Telling people that our Parallel Importation laws somehow magically bypass our classification laws is misleading and wrong.)

Downloading "banned" game. (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38449106)

"Banning" means it was "refused classification" by OFLC. So buying a version online is "Importation and possession of refused-classification material." P2P pirating it would also add "Distribution of refused-classification material." And that puts it in the same category as importation, possession and distribution of child pornography. And this remains the case even if the OFLC later reclassifies it after the distributor re-submits a modified version.

(Although a court is likely to take the benign nature of the material into account during sentencing, but not during conviction.)

Thanks for the Advertisement! (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445840)

Now I HAVE to get this game. I was going to get it anyway, because I played the old one made by Bullfrog. I hope it's just as good.

Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! (2)

tegeus (658616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445914)

I was thinking the same thing. I didn't know about this game and just checked it out because of this very item (I loved syndicate wars, pity it's just another fps). If I was a paranoid sort of guy I would almost think this is some sort of viral marketing technique. Grease a few palms to over rate our game, money well spent. But to be fair I don't know enough about the process to know how much it is open to this... Would be interested if someone here knew more

Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445958)

it's a sequel to the old Syndicate game? Oh lawd, i loved that game!!!

Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446980)

It's not a sequel, it's a reboot.

Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446038)

The Streisand Effect in full force. The only reason I ever played Manhunt 2 is because it was banned in the UK by the BBFC.

Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447270)

The reason I played Manhunt is that there was a big fuss made over the rating here in the UK.

The reason I didn't play Manhunt 2, is that Manhunt was shit.

Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446122)

Now I HAVE to get this game. I was going to get it anyway, because I played the old one made by Bullfrog. I hope it's just as good.

I'm afraid if any company can ruin the old idea then it would be Electronic Arts. And seeing that they changed it from a tactical shooter to an FPS then it seems that they are on course for a disappointment. All they have done is use the same name to convince fans of the old game to buy this one. For all I know it might be a great game, but that will be despite the name "Syndicate". But I guess the tactic works; except for Aussies - they weren't fooled!

Regarding the banning, it would be nice if the classification board could give it a tentative R18+ rating, even though that would still result in it being banned. Then when the new rating system does become law, we would suddenly have a supply of games to play and the companies would not have to take the time and expense of resubmitting the titles.

But I suppose that they can't be expected to use guidelines that have not been passed by parliament. For all the classifications board knows, some back-bencher might add a clause that bans any game that mentions sheep. (Because that's the first law of Aussie Sheep Club: you don't talk about Aussie Sheep Club - or if you do you call it the New Zealand Sheep Club).

You have persuaded me (1)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446132)

HEEHEEheeeheehee

Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! (2)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446156)

I hope it's just as good.

I guess you haven't seen the trailers yet. It's a tired, run of the mill FPS, most likely featuring an emphasis on multiplayer and a 4 - 5 hour campaign tacked on at the last minute.

Australia is right to ban this travesty.

Re:Thanks for the Advertisement! (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447864)

It's not Syndicate. It's a generic FPS.

Thank you, OFLC (5, Funny)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445848)

Peter Sunde would like to personally thank the OFLC for their contribution to The Pirate Bay's ad revenue.

Re:Thank you, OFLC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445996)

Peter Sunde would like to personally thank the OFLC for their contribution to The Pirate Bay's ad revenue.

The OFLC doesn't read Slashdot, nor does it care what Slashdot's readers think. Your attitude will go un-noticed and ignored by the OFLC.

If you bring up the Pirate Bay, I'm sure it will not be left unpunished, because that is a common enemy of both the Government and the Corporation. The power of government combined with that of the corporation is something that you don't mess with lightly. You can ask anybody who has ever had to deal with a CIA funded death squad.

Re:Thank you, OFLC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446312)

Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll

Re:Thank you, OFLC (1)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447218)

That's actually a very good idea...

Gratuious violence my arse. (2)

BeShaMo (996745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445852)

I'm sure Australia actually banned it for ruining the sugar coated nostalgia of the first games with another generic shooter.

Smooth move, Australia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445874)

I hadn't heard of that game. Now I'm looking for information about it.

banned next in Australia is anybody's guess... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445908)

Battletoads.

Piracy (1)

expo53d (2511934) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445936)

In unrelated news, piracy of the video game "Syndicate" rose by %1200 in Australia.

Re:Piracy (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445948)

Surely it was by infinity%* ?

If there are zero sales, and even one guy pirates it....

* Stupid slashcode, won't allow you to use the ∞ entity.

Re:Piracy (0)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446472)

There will be more than 0 sales because people will be ordering it from other countries. And EA will probably modify their version so that it passes censors.

Re:Piracy (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446506)

*knock on door*

Agent Smith: Dr_Barnowl (yes he can pronounce an underscore) of slashdot? We're here to ask you a few questions about your recent attempt to divide by 0
Dr_Barnowl: BLLuueeggthss *shows bowl containing brain*
Agent Smith: Not again. Jones, get the funnel.

Re:Piracy (1)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38448750)

Dividing by zero is 'undefined' it is not 'infinity'.

Re:Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445984)

Since after this news, legitimate sales of the video game "Syndicate" will be 0 in Australia, 1200% of 0 is also 0.

What we will actually see, even with one copy pirated, is an *infinite* percentage increase in piracy.

Re:Piracy (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447310)

Even if you use an infinite percentage, it will still be zero.. so, uh.. yeah.

Why act surprised? (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445950)

Why be surprised that the R18+ rating has taken force when the article from the linked Slashdot story said:

O'Connor said the R18+ legislation did not make it into this year's final parliament session, but he plans to introduce it in the February 2012 session.

And like others have said here, perhaps it was the lack of imagination for remaking an isometric team-based game as an FPS that offended the classification board so much.

I can only hope that they release the original game on GOG.com to coincide with the new release. Mind you, that might confuse and disappoint some Aussies who find the only game of that name which is available to them is not what they thought it would be.

Actually it's the music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445964)

Skrillex is just too much for the Aussies.

Re:Actually it's the music (3, Insightful)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446382)

Skrillex is dubstep's Nickelback.

They helped kidnap, torture and murder civilians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446106)

But they don't want you to play any video games where you fight against oppressive governments.

The same thing happened in New Zealand. (1)

dadioflex (854298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446136)

Until it was pointed out that the in-game enemies are all Australian and it was passed.

Questions were raised in the Australian parliament about the situation. Questions like, "New Whatnow?"

That didn't really happen.

That just confirms my thoughts (4, Insightful)

grahamtriggs (572707) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446360)

The original Syndicate was a 'beautiful' game, that did not contain or need extreme violence. A modern version of Syndicate would not need extreme violence either.

This is not Syndicate. It's not even a modern version, or a 're-imagining'. This is a completely different game, with some vague influence from Syndicate, and the name grotesquely attached to it.

Re:That just confirms my thoughts (2)

Will_TA (549461) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446406)

Rather like the new Star Trek film, or the Sherlock Holmes films. I wish people wouldn't be afraid to give their ideas their own support rather relying on the coat-tails of the past.

Re:That just confirms my thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38451408)

After actually reading some Holmes, and thinking back to the movie, I don't actually feel that the movie was all that great a departure from the shorts.

Re:That just confirms my thoughts (2)

Tim C (15259) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446508)

I'll admit it's been a long time since I played the original Syndicate, and my memory isn't the best, but I seem to remember sending a team of 4 highly-augmented cyborg agents out with mini-guns to mow down bad guys and civilians alike; seems kinda violent to me. Sure, you didn't have ultra-realistic graphics, but books generally contain no graphics and can still be plenty violent.

That's not to say that I don't expect this new game to be a travesty of course.

Re:That just confirms my thoughts (2)

wcoenen (1274706) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446684)

did not contain or need extreme violence

Are we talking about the same game? The one with the uzis and flamethrowers [youtube.com] ?

Re:That just confirms my thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446796)

Are you joking? There was plenty of controversy about the violence in the original Syndicate when it came out, as documented on the wikipedia page for e.g.

Didn't contain extreme violence? Syndicate was gratuitously brutal, that was half the appeal of it (to those that were 14 at the time. Ahem.)

Re:That just confirms my thoughts (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447214)

I take it you never set a civilian on fire and let them run through a crowd. On the US box for Syndicate Wars was the sub title:
Corporate Persuasion Through Urban Violence

I played both the original Syndicate and also Syndicate Wars in my youth. Personally I would have loved to see a proper sequel in the 3rd person view where you control 1 or more agents. Syndicate Wars ran great on my 486 dx2 66 with 8MB ram, with modern hardware you could have more agents, larger levels better AI and improved graphics.

Bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446516)

The censors objection was to the ability to dismember the corpse after it was dead. Hello??? AVP anyone??? Playing the alien you can dismember and EAT the corpse in order to gain health. Talk about a level playing field...

They should re submit it later (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446522)

The revised guidelines are currently only a draft and are yet to be formalized in parliament: http://www.classification.gov.au/www/cob/classification.nsf/Page/InformationCentre_ProposeddraftGuidelinesforR18+ComputerGames

Actual notice for Syndicate: http://www.classification.gov.au/www/cob/find.nsf/5b6ebdff7f5b9a24ca2575ca00062226/578554decfa593b1ca25796b0057f806?OpenDocument

Re:They should re submit it later (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38447030)

Won't make a difference all our R18+ law will do is push some games that would have previously been MA15+ into R18+ and keep anything that would have been RC RC anyway.

from the revised guidelines

Computer games will be refused classification if they include or contain any of the following:

CRIME OR VIOLENCE
Detailed instruction or promotion in matters of crime or violence.

The promotion or provision of instruction in paedophile activity.

Descriptions or depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive descriptions or depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 years.

Depictions of:

(i) violence with a very high degree of impact which are excessively frequent, prolonged, detailed or repetitive;
(ii) cruelty or realistic violence which are very detailed and which have a very high impact;
(iii) sexual violence.

Implied sexual violence related to incentives and rewards.

SEX
Depictions of practices such as bestiality.

Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:

(i) activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent;
(ii) incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent.

DRUG USE
Detailed instruction in the use of proscribed drugs.

Material promoting or encouraging proscribed drug use.
Computer games will also be Refused Classification if they contain:
(i) illicit or proscribed drug use related to incentives or rewards;
(ii) interactive drug use which is detailed and realistic.

Would allmost say it should be banned everywhere.. (4, Insightful)

Ch_Omega (532549) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446828)

...as it spits in the face of the original, and awesome, Syndicate games, which were anything but a dumbed down rail-shooter.

Re:Would allmost say it should be banned everywher (1)

eyenot (102141) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446942)

They did wha-- omg my breakfast huuurrrfddfffff

Re:Would allmost say it should be banned everywher (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447000)

which were anything but a dumbed down rail-shooter.

Now that's what the next version of Railroad Tycoon should look like :)

Re:Would allmost say it should be banned everywher (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447220)

That might be fun.

Re:Would allmost say it should be banned everywher (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38449798)

Yeah. I was excited they were making more of these, but after watching the video it's clear that it's just a Deus Ex:HR rip-off/clone. What a waste.

Why?! (1)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446950)

Why are there still countries in the so-called civilized world that actually bans stuff through censorship?

Not only is it morally wrong on every level; it also promotes piracy and circumvention. Are they stupid or just mind-numbingly dumb?

Re:Why?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38447376)

Where would you draw the line at what is acceptable in a game xenobyte?

Re:Why?! (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447924)

There is no line.

Re:Why?! (2)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38448636)

Please remember that this is the country that banned nearly all guns because one psycho shot up a shopping mall. For a country that has so many chompy, stingy, poisonous monsters, they sure are fearful.

Re: morally wrong (1)

bolthole (122186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38450604)

"morally wrong"?
I dont think you have a proper understanding of the word "moral".
Are you perhaps under 20? Or at most, under 25?

You seem to have the implied belief of, "Anything that stops me from doing what I want to do, is 'morally wrong'"

Which is actually the exact opposite of morals. Morals exist primarily for the reason of countering the typical human selfish desire of, "I wanna do whatever I wanna do".

The worst part (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447428)

Instead of trying for a more unique format (3rd person action/strategy) they decided to go with the FPS format. That is what I liked about the older games is they were willing to try different things, granted the AI and graphics kind of sucked, but given how underpowered those machines were it becomes forgivable. I would have loved for there to be an actual update for Syndicate or Syndicate Wars using the 3rd person view where you control your agents but with more expansive maps, more interactions, better AI, and some improved graphics. But I guess that format would take more resources to create and might not sell as well as a more proven format like a FPS.

Banning violent games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38448004)

Banning violence in Australia? Who would have thought Australians were such pussies when it came to violence?

good thing for the 1st in the USA!!!!!!!! (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38448550)

as it does not let this kind of shit happen.

violent games can be therapeutic (1)

RandySC (9804) | more than 2 years ago | (#38449474)

Violent gaming can provide a therapeutic release of anger that can benefit the players in real-life. Whenever a government blocks an activity that releases a tension, such as the gaming or prostitution, then statistics show a rise in bad activities that also release the tension, such as real violence, or sex crimes.

I'm guessing but (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38450546)

what game will be banned next in Australia is anybody's guess

I'm going to guess "any game distributed by P2P" since they are working hard to ban P2P traffic all together.

Cheaper to buy it overseas anyway. (1)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38450552)

I couldn't care less if it is banned here because I have started buying new releases from the UK to save $30+.

Oh, no gauss guns? (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38450996)

Wrong Syndicate. Damn.

What next to be banned in Australia? (1)

Lohrno (670867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38451464)

Happiness...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>