Hello everyone, Tom from Censored Gaming here.
The New Zealand classification office, known as the Office of Film & Literature Classification,
or OFLC, recently had gamers sit down and give their opinions on several controversial
titles.
The purpose of this was to help inform the censors with second opinions from other gamers,
specifically young people between the ages of 15-21 who are most affected by the classifications.
It’s worth pointing out that these sessions were not regarded as formal research but rather
as an engaging platform for young gamers to voice their opinions on the subject
Three controversial titles were chosen; Hatred, Dead by Daylight and Postal III.
Hatred is a game from 2015 in which you play as a disturbed man taking out his frustrations
on innocent people in a shooting spree.
The game is an isometric third-person shooter but a modified version of the game was played
here with a first person perspective.
They explain that this was done to facilitate a discussion on its impact.
All of the gamers found its content to be worthy of restriction.
They showed empathy for the innocent people slaughtered and found it be needlessly violent
and boring.
Some players found it to be a good way to release tension but most had negative reactions.
One person even went as far saying that it reduces empathy and that, and to quote, “You
lose sense of the real world and get used to killing people”.
They also took issue with the language in the game and its black and white visuals,
stating that it makes it feel more dark and evil.
The OFLC explains their reasons for not banning the game.
They felt that it doesn’t promote an ideology or worldview that might encourage the violent
behaviour found in the game.
They determined this due to its over-the-top and darkly comic nature, and its isometric
perspective creating distance between the player and the violence.
Next is Dead by Daylight, an online multiplayer game where one player plays as a killer hunting
down the other four players.
Two of the gamers found its levels of violence to be “very brutal”.
However, it was generally considered game-like by everyone, and that the objective wasn’t
to commit violence but to win the game.
They felt that this distinction lessened the impact of the game’s violence.
One female player pointed out that the game’s resemblance to the horror genre would also
make it less likely for player to find it shocking.
The participants didn’t feel the game would be detrimental to teenagers but thought it
was reasonable to restrict it for less-mature audiences.
The OFLC agreed with this sentiment, stating that “Older teenagers and adults are likely
to be able to place the game within its fictional and ludic context and are further likely to
identify generic elements of the fantastic villains that they play as.”
Finally we have Postal III.
Postal III had a playful and humorous tone that heavily contrasted its violent dismemberments
and decapitations.
Additionally, the game allows you urinate on dead bodies, as well as containing racist
themes.
The participants found that this tongue in cheek tone lessened the impact of the violence,
and that its third person perspective disassociated the player from the events onscreen.
The game’s racist attitudes were found to be more amusing then offensive by players.
The males in the group concluded that the game should be classified R16, whereas the
females in the group were split between RE16 and R18.
Postal III is not banned in New Zealand, unlike Postal 2 which is illegal to sell and own.
Postal 2 was banned in 2004 because the OFLC determined that it supports dehumanising conduct,
such as urinating on people, and that it allows the player to inflict extreme violence and
cruelty.
So what makes Postal III different from its predecessor?
According to the OFLC they felt that the third entry had a greater focus on its satirical
story.
The setting has a more stylised aesthetic, and that its tongue-in-cheek nature ensures
that the player understands that their actions are reprehensible.
Because of this they felt that the game was not promoting or supporting the negative behaviours
it presents.
They state themselves that the “Offensive stereotyping and bigoted attitudes are presented
throughout.
Yet the interstitial cutscenes and self-aware dialogue ensures the violent and bigoted content
is presented as intentionally offensive entertainment.”
Finally they thank the young people involve in the study for giving insight into the attitudes
and values of the average New Zealander gamer.
They also cite a journal suggesting that video games do indeed have an effect on players
and believe that most New Zealanders tend to agree that this content can be harmful.
Some may disagree with the classification office's view however.
As Censored Gaming has reported on many times in the past, most research actually fails
to link video games as being harmful to players.
Hopefully though this has been an informative look into New Zealand’s attitudes towards
violent video games from the perspective of its young gamers.
I’ve been Tom from Censored Gaming.
Thanks for watching.