OPINION: Syndicate wasn't rated fairly in Oz

The last big piece of bad news for Aussie gamers fell very late in the year with the news that the Syndicate re-boot had been refused classification.

The classification guidelines were re-worked around the time we moved from referring in oddly technical terms (such as 'High level animated violence') and into more English-friendly terminology (such as 'Strong horror violence').

This was a little over half a decade ago now, and the changes came primarily in the form of the repeated insertion of the words 'if justified by context'. The idea was that specific examples of technical acts of violence had their impact measured by the context in which they were delivered.

Someone being decapitated in the context of a mega-stylised action/anime game with sleek special effects, giant swords and being done for a cool pose before the camera moves on does carry less violent impact than a deranged killer taking his time sawing off a victim's head in a dingy basement.

Where these values come into disconnect is that it is now, and always has been, simpler to identify the 'type' of violence rather than sincerely evaluate its premise, intent and setting.

I agree that 2005's 50 Cent: Bulletproof ought to have been considered highly impactful on account of the slow-motion glorification of the kills, their personal nature (many of them being knife kills) and their relatively realistic setting. It has always been the case that games which choose contemporary (especially modern) settings have to work a lot harder to make sure the violence isn't too real, whereas fantasy titles can go much further.

In the case of Syndicate, the violence is dwelled upon with a similar slow-motion, stylised presentation to that of Bulletproof, however the setting looks more akin to Tron or Logan's Run than a gritty Kane & Lynch style back-alley gritty shootout.

The board report stated that the reason for the banning was driven by the high impact violence, in particular the post-mortem damage visitable upon corpses. They could be decapitated / dismembered etc and blood would gush out of wounds momentarily when this was done.

The extremely unnatural setting and full body and face armour worn by the highly unrealistic enemies should have been enough to dispell any sincere impact such an act would have, but also not to be taken lightly is the notion that the lack of rewards or incentives associated with such an act make it known to the player that it's purely extracurricular. That knowledge mitigates a significant portion of the impact the act will have on the player. Conversely, having no control over an act of violence you are being asked to commit can often increase its impact (see Heavy Rain's finger dismemberment scene).

An example of a game which, if judged purely by the extent to which post-mortem damage can be inflicted, would be considered RC in Australia is Metal Gear Solid Rising: Revengeance. Even a cursory glance at the title, however, clearly shows a sense of whimsy and surrealism which completely negates any sincere emotional impact attached to the act. If a line can't be drawn at MGS:RR, it bodes for a highly simplistic age-rating system indeed.

The subtleties of identifying context are wide-reaching. From the aesthetic and framing of the violent act to the incentives tied to it, from the purpose the player has for enacting the violence to its likely frequency, there are many values beyond just the 'can you / can't you' factor of the mechanics of causing bodily harm.

I believe that in the case of Syndicate (which I have had an opportunity to play myself) the Classification Board (for which I was an Authorised Assessor of Computer and Video Games for 9 years) has too quickly judged a benign act of violence without noticing the finer points of what makes it less intense than it appears from the act itself.

To register for the MCV Pacific News Digest, head to the registration page: http://www.mcvpacific.com/user/index/register/journey/register

Add a new comment

Comments

1 comment

As someone who also submitted a lot of assessments in my time. your point on the context is a good one. It's one of the more unique (and often misunderstood) aspects of the Australian system and often gives the impression that the system is inconsistent when two games with similar levels of violence or drug use receive different ratings - Fallout 3 and Velvet Assassin's use of Morphine for example.

Context is an important factor when it comes to post-mortem damage and dismemberment, however. Typically it's deemed to be justified for the player to kill literally hundreds or thousands of opponents in a game because there is an overarching context e.g. "I am trying to save the world and these guys are trying to stop me" or "they're zombies and are trying to eat me" and so on. However, "I'm trying to save the world and these guys are trying to stop me" might justify chopping a soldier in half when he was shooting you but it does not apply if you want to decapitate him afterwards. Hence most games with dismemberment of living enemies turn it off for dead ones.

In a real world comparison - a cop shooting an armed and violent criminal in self defence is generally seen as acceptable, but if he then shot him several more times when he was clearly already dead I think most people would find that unacceptable.

Unlike you I haven't played the game so I wouldn't want to make a judgement call on this particular case. It raises an interesting question though - where should the line be drawn on violence in video games and is a high level of post-mortem damage something that should be acceptable, even under an R18+ rating?

Chris Wright INDUSTRY
Dec 30th 2011 at 7:05AM

0 0