In the case of Syndicate, the decision states, "the game contains intense sequences of violence which include detailed depictions of decapitation and dismemberment that are high in playing impact" and "also contains the ability to inflict repeated and realistic post mortem damage which exceeds strong in playing impact". The new guidelines rate the impact of content such as sex and violence on a scale: very mild, mild, moderate, strong, high, and very high. These correspond roughly to G, PG, M, MA15+, R18+, and RC ratings. While there is a bit of wiggle room, Syndicate looks like a clear case of R18+. Its violence is described as being high in impact, though "exceeds strong" could theoretically also exceed high, so it isn't absolutely certain. This is the main reason why there is so much uncertainty: these are literally guidelines, and the Classification Board's job is to interpret them. Interpretations, of course, will vary. Mortal Kombat is a less clear-cut case than Syndicate, but still seems like a good R18+ candidate. The Board's decision stated that Mortal Kombat "contains violence that exceeds strong in impact and is unsuitable for a minor to see or play". High impact violence, which can be accommodated within the R18+ rating, exceeds strong, and being an 18+ rating it is by definition restricted to adults, as opposed to the barely-restricted-at-all MA15+ rating. House of the Dead received a similar decision. Referring to the game's headshot-only Hardcore Mode, the Board stated that it "exceeds strong in impact". Considering that the original Wii version slipped through with an MA15+ rating, the largely identical PlayStation Move re-release seemed to fall victim to higher quality graphics being judged as more gruesome. As such, this seems like a strong contender for an R18+ rating. The Witcher 2 is next on the list, falling victim to the section of the guidelines stating that while MA15+ can depict "implied" sexual activity, it "must not be related to incentives or rewards". This restriction is notably absent from the new adults-only guidelines, so again it looks like a game that would have been granted an R18+ rating had it only been released eighteen months later. As it happened, CD Projekt quickly released a new Australian version with a tiny edit that removed the content that bothered the Board, so it became a moot point.

It seems clear to me that we are likely to see a big reduction in the number of games being refused classification in Australia, but the news isn't all good. We don't have to go back very far to find games that would have remained banned, even if they were released in the new year. There are two sticking points, old language that has remained unchanged in the guidelines. First, a game must be refused classification if it depicts "detailed instruction or promotion in matters of crime or violence". Second, games must be refused classification if they depict "illicit or proscribed drug use related to incentives or rewards" or "interactive drug use which is detailed and realistic". The former wording would probably mean that an early controversial banned game would likely remain so under the new scheme: the convolutedly-named Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure. Six years ago, this skating-and-graffiti sandbox became a political football, kicked around by grandstanding local government officials, and was eventually banned, having its original MA15+ rating overturned on appeal. The argument was that it promoted tagging and graffiti, bugbears of many local governments, and went so far as to give detailed instructions on how to commit these acts of vandalism. As commentators pointed out at the time, however, plenty of other games depicted criminal activity as being fun. Need for Speed: Most Wanted, which came out the same year, received a G rating despite encouraging players to break laws and become wanted by police. The real irony was that Most Wanted took place in the present day, while Getting Up was set in a dystopian future where graffiti was a tool used against an oppressive regime. While Getting Up may well have gone unnoticed in a different political climate, drugs are a different matter. One of the highest profile games ever refused classification was Fallout 3, with the Board's decision justified by its in-game drugs being "related to incentives and rewards as the incentive to take the drugs is to progress through the game more easily and the reward is an increase in the character's abilities".

Famously, the effective banning of the game in Australia led to Bethesda deciding to alter the in-game drugs in its worldwide release. As some said at the time, Australia's Classification Board had inadvertently dictated content changes to the entire world. The problem for a pre-edited Fallout 3 and other games that have fallen foul of this section of the guidelines, including Risen and Blitz: The League, is that this wording hasn't changed. Whether the drug use in a game is judged to be strong, high, or otherwise, if it is determined to be realistic, or to be linked to in-game rewards, the game must be refused classification. On balance, then, we will almost certainly see far fewer games being banned for violence under the new scheme when it is put in place next year, but less frequent bannings for drugs will almost certainly remain unchanged, and criminal instruction is a possible pitfall as well. The new guidelines can be read in their entirety on the Classification Board's website. - James "DexX" Dominguez

DexX is on Twitter: @jamesjdominguez

