Interview With The Censors

By Liam O'Connor

Liam asks the censors the tough questions.

There has been a lot of controversy about the classification and censorship of games lately. Manhunt 2 has been at the epicentre of it all, with the British Board of Film Classification rejecting the game and the ESRB "awarding" it an Adults Only rating, effectively banning the game. The gaming world is divided on the subject, but down here in our little corner of the world, we are no stranger to the banning of video games.

Indeed, the original Manhunt was deemed objectionable by the Office of Film and Literature and was prevented from being sold or owned in New Zealand. Additionally, unlike the ESRB, the OFLC is an official government body that has the ability to place legal restrictions on what video games can be played by whom. But what really goes on at the OFLC? What process does a video game go through to be classified and potentially restricted? And what was it about Manhunt that made it objectionable? I managed to get some time with David Wilson of the OFLC to talk about the Office and its role in regards to video games.

When did New Zealand start giving restricted ratings to video games? Is there any game in particular that was the catalyst to this process?

Video games were first able to be restricted in 1994, following the passage of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. The Act treats video games as 'publications' which require pre-release classification. Unlike films, this applies only to games likely to be restricted or banned. There was no particular game that acted as a catalyst. The 1993 Act was intended to cover a wide range of media (that had previously had only patchy coverage under three different laws).

You mentioned that this only applies to games likely to be restricted or banned. How does the OFLC determine what games fit this criteria?

The usual guidance we give to the industry is that if the game was age restricted overseas (usually MA15+ in Australia) or banned overseas then it should be submitted for classification. We have a high rate of compliance from distributors and they even submit some games for classification that were not restricted overseas.

So at the moment, distributors take it upon themselves to choose which games to submit. However, there has been talk in the past of requiring all video games to go through the classification process. Can you explain why this would be necessary?

That's right. However, they face seizure of their product and prosecution by Internal Affairs if they distribute games that should have been classified.

The Office has suggested to the government that all games should be classified and labelled. Our argument is that games occupy a privileged position not available to other moving images (such as films and DVDs) and that they should be subject to the same conditions as these other media. Research we did in 2005 found that the public understood NZ classification labels very well but were confused by the foreign (Australian, ESRB and PEGI) labels that appear on unrestricted games. We think that the public would benefit from a uniform labelling system where they know that the PG label on a game means the same as a PG label on a DVD. A 2006 research project found high levels of support for labelling, particularly amongst parents.

I don't think any reasonable person would have a problem with the reasoning behind the proposal. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, submitting a game for classification is not a free process. In the past, certain distributors have decided not to release a restricted game in New Zealand because it would not have sold enough units to make paying for the classification process worthwhile. How would the OFLC respond to gamers that are worried that mandatory classification would see the end of non-restricted, but niche titles that are unlikely to sell many copies in New Zealand?

I thought you'd follow up with that!

If games were subject to the same rules as films, I think it would have little effect on the industry or the games they chose to release in this country. At the moment, distributors pay us a fee of $1400 to classify a game. A DVD distributor pays $1100. That wouldn't change if all games were labelled since those likely to be restricted or banned have to be classified already.

New Zealand uses a "cross-rating" system for unrestricted films. Any film classified G, PG or M in Australia is automatically given the equivalent NZ rating. The cost of applying for cross-rating is $27 per title. So, if the unrestricted games were to be required to carry labels the distributor would only pay that $27 fee. I think it unlikely that the cost of $27 would inhibit games being distributed in NZ. A few titles have been cross-rated at the request of the distributor.

It was a bit predictable, wasn't it?

It's good to see that a "cross-rating" system would allow for niche titles unlikely to be restricted. It would be a little hard to stomach a $1400 fee for a G-rated game that is only likely to sell 50 units.

Now, for another predictable question, let's bring up Manhunt. The OFLC deemed it objectionable. However, movies like Hostel and Saw 3 are widely available in New Zealand. Was the content in Manhunt significantly worse, or did the interactive nature of this material play a large role?

The real issue with Manhunt was the rewarding of acts of cruelty. The more brutal the kill, the better. The interactivity of the game was also an issue because the player was required to participate in and be rewarded for high levels of violence and cruelty. We hear complaints that Manhunt wasn't as gory as Saw 3 (for example). The goriness by itself isn't the key issue. It’s what you do as a player and why you do it that matters. The law we operate under requires us to consider the impact of the medium when classifying. Having said that, I'm not suggesting that interactivity is bad and that passive viewing is good. But in the case of Manhunt it was relevant.

Fortunately, games like Manhunt don't come along that often. However, has there ever been a game that has been submitted for classification that has surprised you?

The most surprising was probably Bully (Canis Canem Edit). After worldwide controversy over its supposed content, the game was quite restrained and not at all like what had been suggested. We classified it R13.

Finally, is there any way that our readers can find out more about the OFLC, or ways that they can raise concerns and queries?

They can visit our website www.censorship.govt.nz for more information. Anyone is welcome to contact us by phone (0505 CENSOR) or email information@censorship.govt.nz if they have any questions or concerns. There's a team of advisers working here who will answer them pretty quickly.

Thanks for your time, David.

 del.icio.us  StumbleUpon  Facebook  Reddit