So Jase I can see where you stand on the sexual violence thing (I think on the balance of things I'm with you) but what's your views on the weird strictness of not being able to use real life drugs with positive benefits in videogames that are already being restricted to 18+ individuals
It's all contextual and about balance, really. The idea that Fallout 3's implementation of drug use, which included both negative and positive results for the player - including the use of morphine to prevent feeling pain in damaged limbs - being found unacceptable because the of the realistic delivery method was asinine. Even though the player received some benefits from using the drugs, the fact that the player could become addicted, suffer withdrawal and receive negative impacts was (to my knowledge) a far better implementation of a drug system than any other game. This really should have been allowed because of the balance that players had to find and use of judgment when utilizing them.
On the other hand, if you had a game that allowed players to smoke PCP and be invulnerable for a period of time with no further negative impacts, then I would find that to be an irresponsible implementation and worthy of scrutiny by the ACB. Despite the fact that games are about fantasy, there is a certain disconnect between the feats that the player can perform and the ability of a person to encounter them in real life. When it comes to drugs, they are readily available to most people, especially if you are inclined to seek them out; the depiction of a consequence free - and predominately positive enriched - drug use helps dilute the already difficult job of conveying the message of the potential dangers of recreational drug use.
Once again, I don't support the idea that video games will necessarily compell someone to commit acts that they did not already have a predilection for. What they can do, as I mentioned in my response to the sexual themes in Saints is to further break the taboo of drug abuse and make it an act that has been associated with a positive reinforcement, as found in a video game. In video games, the player is responsible for the decision to use, the enacting of the delivery and sees the positive effects immediately. This feedback loop, I believe, should not be taken lightly as helping form a less negative regard for the drug being featured in the game.
Most drugs have consequences, whether legal or otherwise. I will admit that I've experienced a fair few of them myself, especially from the latter category; I mention this to not be seen as some anti-drug nut or closet raised shut in. Unless there is some sort of grand design and purpose for doing to the contrary, I don't see why there shouldn't be consequence to the player using drugs. Getting hit by bullets has consequence, as does being caught in an explosion, and similarly with the player's avatar falling great distances. The use of real world drugs without any consequence just smacks of a developers attempt at being edgy and hip and nothing more.
Using Fallout 3 as an example, once again, they set up a balanced and judicious use for the drugs in the game. It seems to me that the ACB had no intention of allowing that game to enter the country as they changed the reason for refusing classification twice. The first being the use of drugs to reward the player to which they changed the name from morphine to comply. Then the reason given was the accurate delivery method and paraphernalia used, to which the animations were removed. What purpose this served is really unknown, as changing the name and not showing a syringe is not really creating a barrier to someone looking to experience drugs for themselves nor helping them form an unrealisticly positive impression of drug use. After all, it's not like children are buying games as an instructional how-to or buyer's guide. The depiction of someone one jamming a syringe into their arm didn't stop Bioshock Infinite from entering the country, either.
The ACB, in my opinion, should be wary of allowing games containing consequence-free depiction of drug into the country. I'd like developers to be more responsible with how they depict drug use and not pander to an audience by trying to take on the role of the cool, hip uncle that let's them do cool stuff.
Sorry for the late response, as today has been quite busy, and sorry for the rushed reply and any crappy gramatical/word errors that I will maintain are the sole responsibility of typing this out on a tablet. To my very last breath.
PS- I just remembered something else. The fact that GTA4 included drink driving, which at one point was included as part a mission, I felt was equally irresponsible, if not more so. There was no consequence for doing so and was made to be a fun exercise. The ubiquitous nature of alcohol plus the trouble a lot of countries already have with drink driving makes this more concerning than the fact that some teens might get curious about morphine after playing Fallout 3. The fact that you were more likely to be chased by the Police was not a fitting negative effect in a game that the player spent most of the time being pursued by cops... and in fact welcomed it.
If they made a video game out of this, I would never sleep again.
If they did, and I was allowed to suggest the genre, I would ask that it be a Turn
-Based Game.
@DeathJr: I'm sorry to hear about the break in but very glad to hear that you're okay and that they didn't get anything.