Post by Dan @ 11:47am 11/01/13 | 40 Comments
The Classification Board awarded the debut R18+ rating for Razor’s Edge’s “strong, bloody violence”. Classification Board director Lesley O’Brien said in a statement that video games which have a “high impact” are not suitable for ages below 18.The original Ninja Gaiden 3 on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 was rated MA15+ (and AusGamers 7.3/10) under the previous classification guidelines, and although it's uncertain what specific features may have pushed the Wii U version into the new category, it is expected to have some new more gorier features, such as the restoration of "enemies’ ability to fight with severed arms or legs".
“Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor’s Edge contains violence that is high in impact because of its frequency, high definition graphics, and emphasis on blood effects,” she explained.
Watch the latest gameplay trailer for Ninja Gaiden: Razor's Edge from last month, embedded below.
An Australian release date for Razor's Edge has yet to be defined, however the game has already been available in North America since the Wii U launch in November 18th 2012, and launches in Europe tomorrow.
Sales and marketing of Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor's Edge will now be restricted in Australia in a similar way to R18+ films are, with sales to minors carrying penalties according to state legislation. Queensland is the only Australia state still unprepared for the new rating, with state parliament due to move forward on the matter in February.
Buy now from Green Man Gaming Only GBP£11.97!
Latest Comments
40 Comments
Show
Follow Us
Advertisement
Log In
Posted 01:38pm 11/1/13
i was kind of hoping that the new GOW game would be the first.
Posted 02:08pm 11/1/13
Could be, or it could also be that R18 is just the new MA15+ :(
...
Posted 02:25pm 11/1/13
The R rating was brought out to pander to conservative parents, not to help adult gamers have more options.
Expect a lot more of this sort of thing, games that get RC'd will likely still get RC'd. But now, GTA 5 will be R instead of MA and nothing will have really changed.
Posted 02:31pm 11/1/13
Posted 02:41pm 11/1/13
Your article implies that the new title must somehow be worse than the previous MA15+ title in the series, is there any basis at all for this?
I've been saying this for ages dude :) What we'll see is lots of violent games shunting from MA15+ to R and no real change, I'm actually wondering if MORE games will be RC because developers won't edit them down to our prissy censorship levels.
Posted 02:48pm 11/1/13
Here's a good point of view which I wholeheartedly agree with, written by a guy that used to review submitted games at the OFLC, and was also Australian PR manager for Rockstar through several GTAs; http://www.mcvpacific.com/news/read/opinion-why-r18-will-make-a-difference/0104517
Posted 04:04pm 11/1/13
Posted 04:06pm 11/1/13
Posted 04:07pm 11/1/13
Posted 04:40pm 11/1/13
Posted 04:46pm 11/1/13
Posted 05:49pm 11/1/13
Posted 05:52pm 11/1/13
Posted 06:00pm 11/1/13
surely importing games from other states is easier than overseas
Posted 06:21pm 11/1/13
Posted 07:21pm 11/1/13
What if you buy it in NSW and cross the border?
Posted 07:55pm 11/1/13
Posted 08:00pm 11/1/13
The conservative parents were, but with the pressure both both sides, they went with the easy option:
Have the R rating be stupidly conservative so they can point to the parents who complained and say "See? It didn't let smut in" and appease the vocal gamers because we'd sound ungrateful because we got what we asked for.
As I said, it's pandering towards the conservative parents and hasn't changed a thing, except for the letter on the front of the box.
Posted 12:05am 12/1/13
It has to be 'in-law', if its not on a piece of paper. Then there has to be a consensus and an uproar about it.
Posted 02:39pm 12/1/13
What people fail to grasp is, that guidelines are a lot more flexible and easy to change than the law of the land. We have an R rating for video games now. That is fantastic, and people need to show a little more joy and gratitude to the folks that campaigned their asses of to make it happen.
Posted 03:22pm 12/1/13
Posted 03:25pm 12/1/13
not sure why you think that is funny
Posted 03:25pm 12/1/13
as if it was fact?
I'm sure everyone is extremely grateful to the people who campaigned to get it in the first place, but isn't 'whining' about it and making noise what got it to happen in the first place? Don't see why we can't be happy we have it, but keep on the case of the people in charge to fix the mistakes.
Posted 03:36pm 12/1/13
because nintendo is kiddie.
Posted 03:39pm 12/1/13
Posted 06:03pm 12/1/13
Posted 06:33pm 12/1/13
Posted 06:35pm 12/1/13
Posted 07:20pm 12/1/13
Posted 07:24pm 12/1/13
Posted 07:50pm 12/1/13
ADD GIMMICKS
Posted 04:30pm 13/1/13
Posted 04:34pm 13/1/13
Posted 07:08pm 13/1/13
Posted 07:21pm 13/1/13
Posted 07:43pm 13/1/13
If you read the paragraph that you quoted carefully, you will find there to be a strategically inserted "may" in it. Something that "may" contain X does not necessarily contain X. Computer games "may" also give you ghonarea, or "may" result in an infestation of puppies. Neither of these statements is incorrect, nor are either of them "presented as fact" as you claim.
Yes, the wording of the criteria seems watered down and borderline offensive to gamers at first blush. Carefully reexamining various aspects however, will show that the wording is quite open ended and left to the interpretation of the classification board. While this could certainly result in games previously given an MA now being classified R, it can just as easily resulting games that were RC now being classified as R.
The key to remember is, that this was achieved despite intense lobbying pressure from the ACL and other groups. Now that the law is in place, tweaking the criteria is orders of magnitude easier than getting the thing passed in the first place. Demanding that the wording have been perfect before the thing had been voted into law is breathtakingly foolish, and would have resulted in nothing being passed whatsoever.
Posted 08:20pm 13/1/13
Has COD on it, they may have a point :(
Posted 08:21pm 13/1/13
But they're using the statement as an official guideline, whereas your infestation of puppies thing is nowhere to be seen?
Posted 11:12pm 13/1/13
I'm not saying we shouldn't keep pushing and questioning to get a better result down the road. It just feels like the first game to be rated R in Australia might be a cause to celebrate - regardless of the caveats - instead of falling back onto our tried and tested Geek cynicism.
Posted 01:15am 14/1/13
Pure and utter bulls***, saying that it may have a higher impact because its a video game implies that in some circumstances the statement is true, and yet theres absolutely no proof of that, and in fact there is research to the contrary. If the statement really is as nonsensical as you make it out to be with your strawman examples, then why shouldn't we be upset that its been passed as part of the country's official classification guidelines? Like I said, we can be happy we have it, and happy that an R rated game is coming out, without having to drink every last drop of the cool-aid.
I'm sure it is, and it will get changed by people kicking up a fuss about it and pointing out how ridiculous it is. If its so meaningless, and its