Australia bans Reservoir Dogs

By Ellie Gibson Published 27 June, 2006

Just too violent, apparently.

Australia's Office of Film and Literature Classification has refused to grant movie tie-in Reservoir Dogs a rating - which means it won't go on sale down under.

The OFLC has yet to issue an official statement, but it seems highly likely that the game has been refused a rating due to violent content. Atari, which was to distribute the game in Australia, will not be resubmitting an edited version for reclassificiation - with a representative telling tech website APCstart: "That's the end of the matter."

It's by no means the first time that Australia has taken such a tough stance; Leisure Suit Larry, NARC, Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto III were all banned. As was Marc Ecko's Getting Up, which the OFLC said could promote the crime of graffiti.

Some Australian gamers, understandably, aren't too happy with the way the OFLC rates games. There's no 18 rating - so if a game exceeds the guidelines set down for the "MA15+" rating, it won't make it to the shops.

Reservoir Dogs, based around the 1992 Quentin Tarantino film, is due to be published in Europe this autumn. Available for PC, PS2 and Xbox, it'll explore additional plotlines, such as the whereabouts of Mr Blue and Mr Brown and the further adventures of Mr Pink.

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (48) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • el_pollo_diablo #1 6 years ago

    Never mind Australian chums, there's always ebay. Anyway from the looks of it, you wont be missing out on much.

  • smoison #2 6 years ago

    CENSORSHIP IS BAD

    Edited by 1 at 27/06/06 @ 13:09

  • el_pollo_diablo #3 6 years ago

    "CENSORSHIP IS BAD
    Edited 1 times."

    Oh, the irony!

  • Teeth #4 6 years ago

    **** the ****ing **** lot of ****s ****

  • nickthegun #5 6 years ago

    Heh....whats up with the Aussies? They are always 'Banning' this and 'Censoring' that.

    They give a deceptive air of being liberal, but then they are continually 'BANNING THIS SICK FILTH!'.

    Any of our antipodean friends care to answer why your classification board has such a stick up its arse?

  • MyWifeNowDave #6 6 years ago

    Its pretty shocking that a developed country would have censorship at these levels

  • Stickman #7 6 years ago

    Fancy only having a '15+' rating as the highest! :? How odd.

  • projectmayhem #8 6 years ago

    is the movie itself banned in the land of oz?

  • skillian #9 6 years ago

    So if a game isn't suitable for a 15 yr old, it's suitable for no one.

    Very silly rule aussies, people over 15 play games too!

    To be honest I'm sure the 18/adult rating will be around soon - it's just a matter of time.

  • smelly #10 6 years ago

    At least they're banning it for violence and not because of some crap fully clothed joystick waggler.

  • skillian #11 6 years ago

    It's not that they are banning the games, it's just that they have no system in place of preventing under 18s from buying them.

    Admittedly, if they're not trying to sort out the ratings issue then it's bannination by proxy (I believe that's the term).

  • Laserbream #12 6 years ago

    Why worry? Movie tie-ins are always crap anyway.

  • smelly #13 6 years ago

    its no worse than germany. Germans have banned blood and gore from games for like forever now.

  • asphaltcowboy #14 6 years ago

    I'm fairly sure they're only censoring because it looks UTTERLY SHIT!

  • OllyJ #15 6 years ago

    from the clips I've seen, I was pretty put off by the game because it was so nasty. not in a manhunt you kill the baddie way but you just slay people, shoot hostages, it's just too grim.

    and I love GTA...I guess the difference is in GTA you don't have to kill innocents in RD it seems to be the main thing to do

  • mikey #16 6 years ago

    It's still pathetic on our govt's part.

  • miiiguel #17 6 years ago

    As long as it can be sold anywhere, one can buy it. Just do an online purchase..., but as I'm not familiar with Australia's aleged ultra-conservators governors, I don't know if they can raid one's home to get the game.

  • Machetazo #18 6 years ago

    I just saw a clip of this. It reminded me of a mission objectives be damned "Mission Impossible" on N64. The animation's wooden, the voices were bad, and RD came across like a formulaic run-of-the-mill third-person action shooter game, with added violence.
    Maybe it's more like a less remarkable, slower-paced Max Payne, on reflection. It doesn't have much to make it stand out.

    The Aussies really should sort out their rating system though, now *that* situation is pretty grim.
    Also @ OllyJ: The "worst" thing I saw, or rather didn't see as the camera panned up abruptly before the event, was a knife being used to relieve a guard of his ear. It would only be "grim" were there a character involved to concern oneself with.

  • kangarootoo #19 6 years ago

    @el_pollo_diablo

    ""CENSORSHIP IS BAD
    Edited 1 times."

    Oh, the irony!"

    LOL +1

  • SIDEARM #20 6 years ago

    Censorship is a sad example of the erosion of individual liberty that is on display throughout the western world. The problem is people dont realise how little freedom they really have, or they quietly accept it believing that their governments are protecting them. The State is the enemy of freedom.

  • kangarootoo #21 6 years ago

    Anyone who has read this far in this thread and has STILL not grasped that this game is banned because there is no 18 game rating allocation in Australia, needs to wash out the space between their ears are start again.

    Lest this thread turn into yet another xenophobe one liner party.

    p.s. I'm not Australian BTW despite my username, just in case thinks that why I'm getting touchy.

  • kangarootoo #22 6 years ago

    "The State is the enemy of freedom"

    o-o

    What is "the state" exactly?

  • SIDEARM #23 6 years ago

    The State is the institution or complex of institutions that possess the authority to create and enforce the rules that govern a society. It has the monopoly on violence (as it makes and enforces law it can enslave you, incarcerate you, kill you or steal from you(taxation) at will). Basically it is all the people who think they know whats best for you (or mainly themselves) and have the power to tell you to do it.

  • Teeth #24 6 years ago

    The priest in the booth had a photographic memory
    For all he had heard
    He took all of my sins and he wrote a pocket novel called
    The state I am in

    Edited by 1 at 27/06/06 @ 16:33

  • SIDEARM #25 6 years ago

    ManicMiner youre argument is nonsensical - kiddy porn involves the invasion of the freedom of an individual, their denigration and abuse - it is against both natural law (look it up) and all state laws (some states may differ on the age of consent but anyhow). It is a violent and aggressive act in itself and therefore the viewer by seeking out this material and watching it is demanding such violence and so is participating in a crime.

    The censorship of simulated violence is completely different because no actual violence has taken place the viewer is not participating in a crime and is not encouraging the infringement of freedom of any other individual. The state by censoring such material is infringeing the individuals freedom of choice - no crime is being commited so the state should keep its nose out of it.

    EDIT: No I am not an anarchist, I am a Libertarian. I believe that every individual should be able to conduct their own life with complete freedom as long as that fredom does not infringe upon the freedom of others. I believe that we need small government not big government.
    Edited by 1 at 27/06/06 @ 16:38

  • kangarootoo #26 6 years ago

    @ManicMinerUK

    You are quite right. It was a bit of a pointed question to see if I was given an definition that included subjective comment as well as a definition, which of course I was.

    I suppose my point is that I tire of people labelling the state as some evil force, labelling the police as an army of oppression (as opposed to also being the people that SIDEARM calls if his house gets burgled), who define taxes as robbery (wholely missing the point that taxes aren't spent on sweets and beers for rich dictators).

    If a system is abused then it is the abuse that is the fault. It doesn't mean that the existence of the state is inherently bad.

    SIDEARM, you drive on the roads, you use the telephone lines, you buy the electricity, you watch the news, you rely on the fire brigade to put you out if you catch fire from being so angry. So without the state you would be stood in a muddy puddle free as a bird.

    As I said, you confusing "the state" with the sometime dishonest individuals who run it. They are not the same thing. Without "the state" someone could muder your parents and there would be nothing you could do about it. Its not a black and white issue.

    Sorry, way off topic.

  • kangarootoo #27 6 years ago

    SIDEARM, to take your own rather angry example.

    Err, who would protect kids from perverts if "the state" didn't exist?

    You? You would be a very busy man.

    EDIT: As for saying "no crime has been commited" when talking about censorship. Crimes are defined by human minds. The fact something is or isn't illegal depends on the legislation of the location at the time. And in fact, selling a banned game IS illegal, so I guess you would be OK with it being disallowed on that basis?

    I'm sure we could agree on some things that are illegal which shouldn't be, but I'm sure we could also find things that are legal which we feel should be outlawed. That isn't really the point.
    Edited by 1 at 27/06/06 @ 16:42

  • SIDEARM #28 6 years ago

    kangarootoo I am not advocating anarchy. The state is not necessary for the provision of any of the services that you describe - such services can be and indeed have been in the past (or in other countries) provided on a private or local community basis. There is much material in existence from many learned men on this subject and I would perhaps direct you to the book For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard available free at this link for a good intro to a stateless world.

    http://ww w.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty...

    EDIT: Crime is a difficult one to be sure and it is certainly necessary to define what constitutes a crime. Personally I believe in the natural law standpoint [link url=http://en.wi kipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
    ]http://en.wi kipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
    [/link]
    Anyhow - the whole thing with state laws is that they are formed by what is most politiclly expedient at the time. Slavery for example, unthinkable now but unquestionably popular for a long period of history - state laws are in no way necessarily just.
    Edited by 1 at 27/06/06 @ 16:48

  • optimusprym8 #29 6 years ago

    to the best of my knowledge it has changed slightly in Germany. You can have blood but it instantly means that the game will be rated 18+. However, German games shops are not allowed to have 18+ titles on the shelves so they will be behind lock and key, closed doors so that the public is protected (*sic) from the filth! Ergo, no-one will be buying the game on impulse since they won't see it's box. Doesn't stop reviews etc but just makes it incredibly hard to sell games that are 18+.

    GTA series is a one-off seperate case in that it is so universally popular, having an 18+ rating hasn't harmed it at all. In saying that, German players are more likely to buy a title because it has an 18+ rating...

    So it's swings and roundabouts

  • kangarootoo #30 6 years ago

    @SIDEARM

    Ooh, you kind of surprised me there. I was expecting some angry venting and death threats (in part because of assumptions I made in context based on your username), but in response I actually got a book link and some other reference, so kudos to you for that at least.

    /goes to read links, but with a degree of due caution because I am always wary when people quote authors (authorship is not a qualifier of anything). But I am reading them, so bare with me.

  • kangarootoo #31 6 years ago

    @ManicMinerUK

    "If you want small government then say you want small government, not that "the state is the enemy of freedom""

    That was really the basis of my somewhat sarcastic question. At some point a community elected forum becomes a state. Its simply a matter of scale. If your town has more than about 3 people in it, not everyone can agree on many subjects of society so you perhaps have to go with a system of majority vote. This in turn leads to a situation where people don't always get what they want. I'm oversimplifying for example.

    I get twitchy when people use headline terms such as "X is the enemy of Y", because life is never summarised so easily.

  • w00t #32 6 years ago

    Bit late but...

    @blackdog

    I believe that German games can now have red blood in them. This was relaxed over a year back IIRC.

  • SIDEARM #33 6 years ago

    OK maybe I came across too strong with that statement. However if you do want to get down to the fundamentals of it then yes the state is the enemy of freedom. let me explain. Kangarootoo is of course absolutely correct about majority rule - but majority rule is fundamentally erosive of freedom. Where any state exists that enforces law based on majority (or of course minority) rule the fundamental freedoms of life, liberty and property of some or all members of that state will necessarily be impeded. The individual is told what to do in some situations - he has no choice. In such situations his freedom to choose has been removed by the state. The state enforces its rules by coercion, if the individual does not comply then the state aggresses against him, his liberty and property.

    ManicMiner - it is clear that you are well read, however please do not make the assumption that just because you are I am not. The wonderful thing about Libertarianism is it is perhaps the only political standpoint which truly encourages freedom in all things, including of course freedom of thought. There are many disputes amongst those that might brand themselves Libertarian - from those that simply think of themselves as the inheritors of the position of the classical liberals to those that advocate a libertarian goal through the channels of existing government systems such as M. Friedman to those that believe in the complete removal of central government authority. I think youre narrow minded stance does less credit to the cause by writing me off than mine does for merely expressing a deeply held belief. In any case I did not mean to be objectionable in my postings and I hope I was not - I apologise to all offended but will not retract my statement. That freedom at least is still allowed me in this state of ours.

  • kangarootoo #34 6 years ago

    I take your point, but in a world where people disagree on issues, creating needs that sometimes directly oppose each other, what alternative do you offer that would not oppress some members of the population (insofar as to not support the basic needs of the weak is in essence to oppress them)?

    Specifically (and choosing a simplistic example, for the sake of argument), how would you protect the weak without some form of police service? And who would decide what laws would be enforced and which would not?

    It seems that in many situations where people voice anger at the ruling state, the loudest voices are from those whose own needs are not supported by the current system of law. But to provide that support would in turn remove it from those whose needs are already served (and as such initially remain silent).

  • DaveTheHutt #35 6 years ago

    Anyhoo... any news from the Big Brother house?

  • SIDEARM #36 6 years ago

    Kangarootoo you have indeed identified the crux of the problem. I personally do not advocate necessarily the completely stateless society - though as I have pointed out above I recognise the inherent danger of government and as Thomas Jefferson advocated would always be suspicious of it. I believe government should exist only in its capacity to defend the rights of the individual. So there would always be a police force but the government would have no power to use that force to do anything but defend, never aggress.

    On the advantageous to some not to others aspects of statehood - In the libertarian world all are equal under the law and seeing as none are given advantage by the state either economically or socially then it is up to each individual to make of life that which they will.

  • I_Have_The_Power #37 6 years ago

    Wow - Who'd have thought that Reservoir Dogs: the Videogame could cause such a heated political debate... Maybe we could start the theological debate going as well. This game should be banned because god said that killing other people is wrong. And stuff.

  • rinoaMW #38 6 years ago

    That's a bit rude _Neon

    And excuse me for saying this, but you haven't said one word in this thread at all - and to say that without any arguement or constructive to say about the thread or the article is alittle bit - well - trolly. Im sure I_HAVE was only trying to be humourous (albeit not really :p).

    Tbh, I can't see what all the fuss is about - so Australia doesn't get to play RD, big deal. Personally I think that this kinda press will sell a game.

  • djchump #39 6 years ago

    This was probably the most high-brow discussion I have seen on EuroGamer to date.

    /applauds!

  • Lovemoose #40 6 years ago

    That's an awesome display of advanced commentry(sic) gents! It should be held up as an example for years to come, and required reading for anyone who posts a 'first'...

  • zbarsky #41 6 years ago

    I vote Australia should be banned;

    2 Reasons:

    It really belongs to the aborigines; this society of dubious moral standing (most people directly descended from criminals) stole it from them years ago and implemented suspect policies regarding education for various members of the country

    Can't remember the last decent video game that came out of the country since "The Way of the Exploding Fist" in the 1980's;

    ripper, mate!
    Edited by 1 at 27/06/06 @ 21:38

  • Stoatboy #42 6 years ago

    This is why I hate forums on the internet. Every thread always descends into a socio-political argument debating the merits and drawbacks of a Libertarian system of government. ;)

  • NegativeZero #43 6 years ago

    It doesn't stop us importing from the UK, New Zealand or just about anywhere else.


    Also, generally the games they ban like this are kind of dodgy anyway. Though I do agree it's a bit crap and we need a higher ratings bracket for games.

  • fantabulo #44 6 years ago

    @zbarsky
    Melbourne house have a couple of decent games, and ther was a post-apocalyptic racing game ages ago that I remember people liking, SO THERE.
    edit: freedom is nonsense, anyway. I mean it's impossible for even one person to be free when they are bound to this physical world, and spirituality --> god etc. see what I've done? I'm just too clever, no need to tell me, I already know.
    Edited by 1 at 28/06/06 @ 02:45

  • Baz_Dude #45 6 years ago

    Australia needs an R rating. We want a damn R rating. If the Government wasn't so interested in other crap maybe they could give us an R rating and keep gamers happy

  • Genji #46 6 years ago

    Huh? The movie is already out he...

    oh, it's about the game. Well, I might care if it turns out to be good. Which is unlikely.

  • 3william56 #47 6 years ago

    zbarsky: Go get yourself a copy of Transformers and shut up.

    There's been many attempts to get the Govt to implement a R18 cert down here, but strangely, although there's no real Daily Mail 'ban this filth' about actual games themselves, the tabloids and polys get all het up about an attempt to give an adult classification for games, which they still, despite all the stats, believe is the domain of kiddies. There's no problem with the implementation; it's the same as DVDs (as they're sold in the same place anyway).

    And this from a country who's equivalent of the Radio 1 breakfast show (Triple J) had an hour long discussion on how to collect Dingo Piss (in those terms) this morning.

    Go figure.

  • kangarootoo #48 6 years ago

    @SIDEARM

    "In the libertarian world all are equal under the law and seeing as none are given advantage by the state either economically or socially then it is up to each individual to make of life that which they will."

    I would suggest that is an idealist state (a commedable one BTW), but cannot be implemented in reality, because humans are flawed and selfish (our genes are programed that way for good reason, to stay alive).

    Aaaanway, we are boring a lot of people and we have gone bonkers amounts off topic on what is of course a games site, so lets call it a day. It was fun though :)

    P.s. I think _neon was just practicing writing his name.