I wasn't looking forward to L4D2 to be quite frank, however this is simply another example that the Australian Classification System is living in a time when the video game industry was getting rolling. Considering the largest entertainment release of all time was a video game, and a very violent one at that (GTAIV), I think it's safe to say the industry was moved on since then. In Australia, we've payed millions of dollars in taxes for them to completely re-do the ratings system - which resulted in different coloured ratings Stickers were are still ultimately ignored by retailers - and yet a new classification for people over the age of 18 for Video Games doesn't exist when it falls under the same classification board as film, tv and literature? In my opinion, games like GTAIV shouldn't be in the hands of people under the age of 18 - our current rating system places it in the hands of 15 years old because a higher classification simply doesn't exist when it clearly should.

tbh i dont really care since i dont like fps games.

but really.. its just stupid. kids are exposed to far worse things than a videogame, e.g. the news.

It's always been my opinion that if your child is playing GTA when he's 10 years old, your parenting skills are more worrisome than the game itself.

We'll have an R18+ rating one day. It's kind of a big job actually putting one into practice though. And one that costs millions of dollars.

It's in the "too hard" basket for the people with any power to change it at the moment. We have similar problems with the draconian classification outlines for film aswell.

Valve is bound by the laws of the country that it sells it's products in.

And in the case of L4D if you did get your hands on a copy to play you wouldn't find any Aus servers to play it on.

True.

I'm not from Australia, but I agree that TV news pwn all pron and horror films

Banning videogames is stupid. It only supports piracy.

Kinda like the black Reverant in the US who said L4D 2 was rasist because you would be killing black zombies

Of course, totally forgetting that you could kill black zombies in L4D 1, and that, not ONE but TWO playable characters are black this time around.

but you know, Blood=baad.

Kinda liike Carpocalypse in the UK; they had to change the civilians into zombies and change the blood into some purple goo to make the game Legal in the UK.

Well, that's what happens when your consil is filled wiht 60+ year old people who only heeard of video games in the 70s with Pong and Pac-Man, who don't play it at all and are not intersted into them

I assume Australian law has an R18+ rating for movies, which is where I find fault; if nothing else, one should at least be consistant.

Right, the young and impressionable really shouldn't play such games. But the actions taken here indicate that someone on the ratings boar believes wholeheartedly that a grown, functioning adult cannot tell the difference between a life action and one done in a videogame, which to me is assuming far too little of society.

There is certainly a fine line to walk here. The violence in Video Games is incredible, let's not kid ourselves. In Gears of War, for example, you can chainsaw an opponent in half and watch as the fully interactive pieces of them slide around on the blood soaked floor. As the graphics improve, the realism able to be presented is mind-numbing. However, violence for violence sake a good game makes not.
Look at Manhunt, which was also banned in Australia. I've seen just about every disburbing movie you can name, and I've played the hardest of the hardcore video games, and there were moments in that game when even I had to flinch. However, the game was terrible. Once the shock of what was being displayed had worn off, the short comings of the gameplay were glaringly obvious and I grew bored of the game so quickly I didn't even see it through to the credits.

Some people can argue that violent video games can influence people in ways that films cannot because their interactive, the player is controlling the actions of the people on screen. I agree with this point, the interactive nature of video games is what sets it apart from the other interactive mediums. However the potential to tell stories is increased because of that interactivity, and humans strive for realism, in some degrees, in most of our entertainment mediums.
War films, for example, present the horrors of war with un-flinching realism and depict the graphic violence that humanity has inflicted upon itself. And yet, the stories told are often inspirational as we share those horrors, but we also share their triumphs as they over-come those horrors.

Video games that are violent for violence sake, and tell no story and are merely graphical murder simulators are bad games, and no self-respecting gamer places them in the same tier as the Baldur's Gate-s, the Deus Ex-s, the Final Fantasy-s. The original Left 4 Dead was a rush, and a blast (no pun intended) to play with friends. Significantly increasing the violence doesn't really serve the gameplay in any way I can think of, and serves only to satisfy the blood-hund gamers with visions of exploding grey matter and amputations for the sake having such things. The infected don't use weapons, so blasting their arms off doesn't really do much - and shooting their legs to slow them down doesn't really work that well, so blowing them off doesn't serve the gameplay either.
Now, having said that, as a mature adult over the legal age of consentand of sound mind and body, I feel if I want to play a game like that I should have the right to do so. I don't feel children under the legal age should, however. Video games are maturing, at least graphically, at an alarming rate - and we need time to educate children that what you do in a game, stays in a game and that there is a difference between a game and the real world. We also need to educate the people in charge, who shouldn't need educating, that video games are no longer Pac-Man and Mario, and the average gamer wants to do more in their games than save the princess, and is most likely over the age of 20. Not all video games are for kids. Handing your eight year son a copy of Manhunt, Grand Theft Auto 4 or Gears of Ware because they whine at you to buy it for them is bad parenting, and very irresponsible.

Agreed, videogames are much more violent than the majority of movies, books, etc. out there. However, once in a blue moon violence in a game serves an actual point (as an example, No More Heroes). However, there are a number of film and book genres that can easily compete (and surpass) the violence in videogames, most notably the infamous slasher movie. So the question in my opinion is, "Would you let your kid watch Kill Bill?" If not, he probably shouldn't be playing GTA. But for the rest of us gamers, of whom many are adults in our right minds and capable of discretion, the title should be availible for purchase.

On the flip side, I hesitate to encourage the industry to continue the trend toward more and more graphic violence which serves less and less of a point. As we have been shown through the more recent years, games can do more than simply shock and awe. Gameplay and storyline should hold a special place in all our hearts, lest the medium become filled with Saw I - MCXIV games.

on another thought, since a lot of Aussies probably would want to play the game.. do you think some of them would be selling it illegally? just a thought.