With the Bad Company 2 Beta finally ready to play, I’ve found myself lacking my usual game-induced rage of late.  Then I found this article on Kotaku today and everything changed.  Again, since I know most of you probably don’t care enough to click over and read it, I’ll tell you that it’s a letter to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald (that’s Australia, mate) about how dishonest video gamers are when complaining about games that fail classification due to violent content.  I’ll reproduce the letter here so you can join in my rage:

True maturity an alien concept to video gamers

I wish video gamers were more honest about what they want (Letters, February 2). Most mention these days that the average age of gamers is quite high, but they do not mention that most of those gamers do not play ”mature” games. It is like arguing that tennis needs more nudity and gore because the average age of those who watch is above 18.

While it is true Australia stands alone in not having an R rating for video games, gamers do not tell you that an R rating is needed only to slake their bloodlust.

No game maker has yet created what an ordinary person might consider a mature game. Video games in other countries that receive 18+ ratings, many of which are refused classification here, are ”mature” only because they contain excessive gore, cruelty or torture. There are no great works of video game art being held back.

All we miss out on is graphic gore. It would shock most non-gamers to realise that in a current MA15+ game, players can shoot, decapitate and dismember. All games refused classification (and there are just a handful each year) are described by the classification board as containing things such as ”excessive blood spurts, excessive cruelty, the ability to kill innocents without consequence”.

When gamers discuss this issue on their internet forums, they complain that the bodies do not pile up in the Australian version of one game. But when they write polite letters to politicians or the Herald they hide this reality and instead talk about ”mature games” and how they are being denied their right to enjoy content.

If we translate this into their ”right” to indulge in gory simulations of murder and dismemberment, it beggars belief they would be able to state their case without causing their peer groups to react in horror.

Video gamers also make direct and crude comparisons with the movie ratings scale. However, the last time I saw an R-rated movie I do not remember being allowed to participate in the various heinous acts.

It takes a great work of art to advance a ratings scale. When the Lady Chatterley’s Lover of video games arrives, all citizens will be rightly concerned if it is withheld. But that seems a long way off.

Caleb Owens Woollahra

Wow.  Wowee wow wow.  I don’t even know where to begin with this guy.  My response might be something of a stream-of-consciousness kind of thing, so I apologize if it’s a little disorganized…

The basic argument Mr. Owens is making here is that all gamers are bloodthirsty sociopaths who have no idea what it means to be mature.  He is very sure to take every opportunity to distance himself from all us crazy, unstable, gore-hungry maniacs by always referring to us as “they,” and I particularly enjoy the part about how gamers will “discuss this issue on their internet forums.”  It sure isn’t his internet forum!  No sir, this man belongs to an upper echelon of perfectly evolved beings. A model of maturity. Devoid of even the slightest amount of immorality.

Puh-lease.

One of the most ridiculous parts of this holier-than-thou rant appears in the fifth sentence: “No game maker has yet created what an ordinary person might consider a mature game.”  Mr. Owens completely discredits himself in fewer than twenty words, making it clear just how ill-informed he is.  Is a mature game one that deals with adult concepts and ideas?  Is SimCity then not mature?  What about a game about something more abstract, like Grim Fandango?  It deals exclusively with life after death and how the life you lead affects your journey in the underworld.  Is that not a mature enough concept?  He states that the classification board turns down games because of, among other things, “the ability to kill innocents without consequence.”  Clearly he has never heard of BioWare, a developer that has a clear history of using choice, morality and consequence as a core gameplay component.  What qualifies as “mature” to you, Mr. Owens?

Something he seems completely ignorant of is the fact that, in this context, the term “mature” does not refer explicitly to the content of a game, but also to the intended audience and, more importantly, to that audience’s ability to maturely interpret said content.  When It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia begins (or even, in fact, returns from a commercial break) the network is sure to display a message stating that the program is rated TV-MA and is “intended for mature audiences only.”  They do not claim that the content contained therein is mature because, clearly, it’s not.  You’d have to be a blathering idiot to think that what these characters do is in any way a representation of what actual people would do.  But a mature audience will be able to watch the show and know that the actions of the characters, while hilarious, are unacceptable in the real world.  The same goes for a game like Grand Theft Auto.

The comparisons to the movie ratings scale are absolutely valid.  So Mr. Owens does not “remember being allowed to participate” in the violence he’s seen in movies.  If he’d stop for a moment to think about it like *ahem* a mature person, he’d realize that *gasp!* video games aren’t real.  All those hookers killed in GTA?  I didn’t participate because it’s a MADE UP WORLD.  It’s escapism, just like movies, television and books.

Let’s not mince words: what the Australian classification board has been doing is censorship, plain and simple.  Mr. Owens argues that gamers are being disingenuous when stating their reasons for being upset over their games being censored, again claiming that they desire nothing more than to “decapitate and dismember” without consequence.  At the most basic level, yes, this is what upsets them.  But more than that, it’s that they are not receiving a full representation of a product while still paying full price, and the Australian government is setting a dangerous precedent.  There is content absent that the creator intended, that was deemed necessary to properly convey the experience.  What if Lady Chatterley’s Lover had been presented to Mr. Owens censored?  I’d damn well hope he’d be upset enough to go discuss the issue on his internet forums.  And you can be damn sure that there would be some idiot who wrote a letter to some editor saying that his only reason for wanting it uncensored was because he was a voyeuristic sexual deviant, and was only pissed because he couldn’t jack it to this book in its current form.  Because, by the logic presented in this letter, just as all gamers are closet homicidal maniacs with no sense of right and wrong, any avid reader is a pervert, right Mr. Owens?