How did L4D2 get banned but MW2 didn't?

I was just watching THAT airport scene from MW2 on Youtube again. Its brillaintly staged for a game no doubt. But can someone please, please, explain to me how that was let through the censorship board but Left 4 Dead was banned because there wasn't a great enough distinction between the common infected and the humans?

I just can't believe the double standards of the censorship board in this country. Its just a joke at the moment.

I'm not questioning the ethics of the aiport - its integral to the plot - but I'm just interested in how it got through.

Probably since the airport scene really can happen.

Physical violence was always more censored than psychological violence. Braindead is rated R/+18 almost everywhere, while more disturbing Hitchcock movies are usually +12. MW2's airport scene is pretty tame gore-wise, the impact is mostly psychological. L4D2 is extremely gory, and most importantly it aims to make this violence one of the main entertainment sources. The airport scene of MW2 is definately not intended to be *fun*.

Incredibly simple the board new that MW2 would make alot of money here, that's why.

Probably since the airport scene really can happen.

Robbazking

All the more reason why L4D should of got through if it did seeing as they take realism very seriously.

Physical violence was always more censored than psychological violence. Braindead is rated R/+18 almost everywhere, while more disturbing Hitchcock movies are usually +12. MW2's airport scene is pretty tame gore-wise, the impact is mostly psychological. L4D2 is extremely gory, and most importantly it aims to make this violence one of the main entertainment sources. The airport scene of MW2 is definately not intended to be *fun*.

Baranga

Well I don't really know, but in L4D2 you can hack them apart with machetes and chainsaws. Pretty brutal. Not realistic like the MW2 airport scene however. But yeah, that is stupid no matter what the reason is.zomglolcats

[QUOTE="zomglolcats"]Well I don't really know, but in L4D2 you can hack them apart with machetes and chainsaws. Pretty brutal. Not realistic like the MW2 airport scene however. But yeah, that is stupid no matter what the reason is.gamer082009

i guess the down under thinks it's ok to butcher Russian civilians but not ok to bust a zombie's arse. just guessing.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Its actually a pretty poor scene. Poorly implemented and tacked right into the narrative. Iward wasted a good opportunity to do something bold. Anyway our censorship board is an absolute mess to be honest. We just need the Attorney Generals to pressure Atkinson - like voters not gamers.biggest_loser

I think skrat reads Rock, Paper, Shotgun.

I don't agree with the article, but whatever.

I think skrat reads Rock, Paper, Shotgun.

I don't agree with the article, but whatever.

Baranga

Though from what i picked up it just resonates what I already thought.

Most of which I covered pretty comprehensivley in this earlier thread.

I don't agree that its tacked on - its integral to the narrative. I mean, how else would you explain that? Through just a cutscene? biggest_loser

Take meeting Andrew Ryan in Bioshock for example. Or the end of Braid.

All it really is, is a glorified interactive cut scene. Its not a particularly good shooter level by design, and the players involvement is a whole lot of nothingness.

And yeah I was expecting it to be something with more punch- as I enjoyed some of the subtext in COD4 - that was next to the by the book plot.

I don't think it's "glorified". Indeed, it is an interactive cutscene, and as the RPS article notes Infinity Ward are the only ones that rival Valve in this field. But this wouldn't work if you just mention it during the mission briefing, it's a bit too complicated to summarise. It wouldn't work as a non-interactive cutscene in a game that doesn't feature any other, and it would also be too long. It wouldn't make any sense to kill one of the playable characters in a cutscene either. Making it playable is the only way to introduce it into the overall context.

What's glorified is the hype surrounding it. The media also distorts it by linking it to 9/11 - seeing a plane is the only common element. I believe it's closer to the Munich massacre (you filling the same role as the athletes that helped the terrorists to jump over the fence) and to Franz Ferdinand's murder.

As for the "bad timing" complaint from the RPS article, all I can say is this: one moment you're kissing your girlfriend, the next one a brick falls on your head. Life is filled with such high contrasts, and art is trying to emulate them. Asking it to maintain a steady pace or to follow certain "commonly accepted" patterns is restricting art. Of course, if it's an esthetic disaster, you should demand regulation. But IW hasn't done anything in bad taste or without any artistical merit.

Shocking the player isn't bad taste. The game treats the mission seriously and even with certain respect. It doesn't allow you to have fun. If it was meant and if it was built as a fun action scene, that would've been bad taste.

I don't think it's "glorified". Indeed, it is an interactive cutscene, and as the RPS article notes Infinity Ward are the only ones that rival Valve in this field. But this wouldn't work if you just mention it during the mission briefing, it's a bit too complicated to summarise. It wouldn't work as a non-interactive cutscene in a game that doesn't feature any other, and it would also be too long. It wouldn't make any sense to kill one of the playable characters in a cutscene either. Making it playable is the only way to introduce it into the overall context.

What's glorified is the hype surrounding it. The media also distorts it by linking it to 9/11 - seeing a plane is the only common element. I believe it's closer to the Munich massacre (you filling the same role as the athletes that helped the terrorists to jump over the fence) and to Franz Ferdinand's murder.

As for the "bad timing" complaint from the RPS article, all I can say is this: one moment you're kissing your girlfriend, the next one a brick falls on your head. Life is filled with such high contrasts, and art is trying to emulate them. Asking it to maintain a steady pace or to follow certain "commonly accepted" patterns is restricting art. Of course, if it's an esthetic disaster, you should demand regulation. But IW hasn't done anything in bad taste or without any artistical merit.

Shocking the player isn't bad taste. The game treats the mission seriously and even with certain respect. It doesn't allow you to have fun. If it was meant and if it was built as a fun action scene, that would've been bad taste.

Baranga

It has some very very heavy subject matter, and all it really... really is, is an interactive cut scene, having the players roleplay as the CIA agent, there is nothing terribly compelling about it.

As the RPS article does point out its plot flaws, that's also not what makes me dislike it so.

If you are going to put in something so bold into your game, and drive home an emotional impact, then the developers need to have a message underlying the game systems involved in the sequence. Something that really strikes home the players actions and or decision making.

Otherwise all it is something very shallow - as much depth as a cut scene of the material , a total waste. Just because the player is with the other virtual actors in the scene, doesn't mean its any more compelling (Iward would like you to think so it seems). Its completely absent of potential artistic merit.

If you are going to do something so damn provocative, then do it right, shows the unique potential the medium has.... other than something that could be done in a freaking film except this time 'its from the first person perspective woooah'. Difference is Valve understand game systems and narrative MUCH better than Iward does - hell 2K also does (with Bioshock for instance).

Iward make some spectacular scenes, but there is as much depth and complexity in narrative design as hollywood blockbuster, or an episode of 24. Its nothing unique to the medium other than perspective.

Its a waste, as RPS points out "Part of me likes to think that the whole section – in fact, the whole game proper – is actually a statement that the blind following of orders leads to the death of the world. The one irony of the twist in the plot is never commented on in the game"

Even COD4 had its own statements - the Americans 'shock and awe' blunder - the 'dumb power' of military might is no substitute for information, and the bastard brutality of the SAS, showing just as much mercy as the 'bad guys' (e.g. the execution parallels). Its nothing spectacular but it gave the events in the narrative a compelling edge, other than excuses for scipted sequences.

But the No Russian mission is just a waste. By game design, narrative design, and the statements and undertones that could have been there.

Of course its nice to see Iward do something so 'ballsy', however its a colossal disappointment, and goes to show Iward's understanding of the unique storytelling qualities of games as a medium is not nearly as mature as a developer like Valve.

[QUOTE="zomglolcats"]Well I don't really know, but in L4D2 you can hack them apart with machetes and chainsaws. Pretty brutal. Not realistic like the MW2 airport scene however. But yeah, that is stupid no matter what the reason is.gamer082009

Actually apart from games, censorship is actually worse in America than it is in Australia.

At any rate Australia is a great place to live and the lack of an R18+ game rating is a small issue compared to say... free health care. Anyways having to import .1% of games because they get banned is a minor inconvenience that usually works out cheaper (believe it or not).

I don't think it's "glorified". Indeed, it is an interactive cutscene, and as the RPS article notes Infinity Ward are the only ones that rival Valve in this field. But this wouldn't work if you just mention it during the mission briefing, it's a bit too complicated to summarise. It wouldn't work as a non-interactive cutscene in a game that doesn't feature any other, and it would also be too long. It wouldn't make any sense to kill one of the playable characters in a cutscene either. Making it playable is the only way to introduce it into the overall context.

What's glorified is the hype surrounding it. The media also distorts it by linking it to 9/11 - seeing a plane is the only common element. I believe it's closer to the Munich massacre (you filling the same role as the athletes that helped the terrorists to jump over the fence) and to Franz Ferdinand's murder.

As for the "bad timing" complaint from the RPS article, all I can say is this: one moment you're kissing your girlfriend, the next one a brick falls on your head. Life is filled with such high contrasts, and art is trying to emulate them. Asking it to maintain a steady pace or to follow certain "commonly accepted" patterns is restricting art. Of course, if it's an esthetic disaster, you should demand regulation. But IW hasn't done anything in bad taste or without any artistical merit.

Shocking the player isn't bad taste. The game treats the mission seriously and even with certain respect. It doesn't allow you to have fun. If it was meant and if it was built as a fun action scene, that would've been bad taste.

Iward make some spectacular scenes, but there is as much depth and complexity in narrative design as hollywood blockbuster, or an episode of 24. Its nothing unique to the medium other than perspective.

Its a waste, as RPS points out "Part of me likes to think that the whole section – in fact, the whole game proper – is actually a statement that the blind following of orders leads to the death of the world. The one irony of the twist in the plot is never commented on in the game"

Even COD4 had its own statements - the Americans 'shock and awe' blunder - the 'dumb power' of military might is no substitute for information, and the bastard brutality of the SAS, showing just as much mercy as the 'bad guys' (e.g. the execution parallels). Its nothing spectacular but it gave the events in the narrative a compelling edge, other than excuses for scipted sequences.

But the No Russian mission is just a waste. By game design, narrative design, and the statements and undertones that could have been there.

Of course its nice to see Iward do something so 'ballsy', however its a colossal disappointment, and goes to show Iward's understanding of the unique storytelling qualities of games as a medium is not nearly as mature as a developer like Valve.

skrat_01

For me what it brought to the medium was the emotional charge that is rarely felt in games, through the sheer chaos of the situation, particularly the sound design of people screaming. That was harrowing.

The edge is through the dramatic irony: the fact that the player is told that they have gone undercover for an extensive period of time, they've had to spend so much money on this scheme, the guy has tattooed himself and yet this is the first time the player beholds what this Makarov is really about: blowing those people away and siding with the villain is the choice the player makes or is actually forced into given security guards can shoot you. You would never imagine yourself doing that in a COD game. There hasn't been a game where you've played as "the baddie" - and what does it amount to? Nothing. You've murdered these people for absolutely nothing because of what happens to your character. So it is the biggest leap you take but with the most minimal significance for who you are as that character, because of what happens to you. To me that speaks volumes about the blindess of war and the futility of bloodshed.

I also think it achieves a lot of power by being set in an airport that alludes to events of this last decade obviously...

I don't know if 4 was really aiming for parallels between the executions. I mean, where is that reflected in the dialogue? You could be right, I haven't played the campaign in a while.