From ultrawide support through to improved real-time ray-tracing and more world detail, we paired Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered with a high-end GeForce RTX 30 series GPU.
Marvel's Spider-Man and Its Amazing PC Version
Insomniac’s brilliant Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered swings onto PC.
Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered PC Review - An Amazing Debut
Where features like NVIDIA G-Sync, VRR, Dolby Vision, and full 4K 120 Hz HDMI 2.1 integration sit alongside LG’s excellent Game Optimiser mode.
We Review the New Brighter LG C2 4K OLED TV for 2022
Weekend Discussion: Justifying our Classification Double Standards
Post by Steve Farrelly @ 05:17pm 13/11/09 | Comments
Welcome to the new AusGamers Weekend Discussion feature, which each week will delve heavily into relevant gaming and technology topics for you to throw your two cents into, beginning this week with Australian Classification Board Justifications...

After getting down and dirty with Infinity Ward's Modern Warfare 2 for the better part of this week, it occurred to me the game itself is plenty violent. In fact, it's one of the most violent games with a skew in real-life situations I've ever played. Now, I'm not saying it has something to answer for, for said violence as I am a proponent of free choice and common sense (in that we should be free to choose what level of violence/horror/sex et al we desire, and common sense in that people need to differentiate between playing a videogame and enacting violently in the real-world), but the infamous "No Russian" mission from the game actually impacted me quite a bit, and I felt like this was a potential turning-point in the gaming medium.

This "turning-point" comes in the form of games potentially finally seen as an artform to be revered and intelligently discussed (and not slandered and blamed). The reason for this is the context, from a narrative level, of that scene is quite significant, and it has garnered much in the way of media coverage both for and against; all largely in the thanks to the high profile of Modern Warfare 2 itself.

But it also had me questioning both its ready availability in Australia (given our RC track record), and the fact it was slapped with an MA 15+ without so much as whimper from the Classification Board. If you could argue the context of that scene where you're free to murder countless innocent people, then surely you can argue the context of a group of survivors fending for themselves against hordes of undead.

I am, of course, talking about the RC Left 4 Dead 2 received here in Australia and its subsequent resubmission in modified form (thus effectively starving Australians of the game's true form and forcing the developer to rape their opus). It's a case that has had the gaming world shaking their collective fists about in rage, and rightly so. The first Left 4 Dead was let through the censors unabated, we've seen numerous zombie games make it to Australia without a single need for resubmission, and there are also plenty of other games offering just as much (if not more) gore and violence as Left 4 Dead 2.

Seizing an opportunity, I contacted the Classification Board to ask for their justification of Modern Warfare 2's MA 15+, airport sequence in tow, against an RC for killing zombies. In effect, one game gives you the unlikely fantasy of killing the undead, while the other offers up a very real fantasy of killing people in an airport.

For the sake of getting my point across, I constructed this outline, presented to you here word for word as I submitted to the Classification Board:
To the Classification Board,

I'm concerned with the RC that applied to Left 4 Dead 2, which was appealed, but rejected thus forcing the game developer to release a lesser, modified version of the game to appease the board's objections to the game's content. My concern is that the excessive violence, related to "infected" (or zombies), caused the board to RC the game, despite the context of excessive violence being purely fantastical (in that you're killing zombies, not humans), yet Modern Warfare 2, a game with a clearly more realised vision in relaying real life, was granted an MA15+ despite being released with a mission asking players to kill hundreds of innocent people in an airport, acting out the fantasy of terrorism. In my view, as a games journalist, 32 year-old adult and avid game player, this sequence is far more riveting than the culling of zombies. If the argument from your end is relative to the violence in narrative context in that the sequence is required to drive the story forward, the same argument can be equally applied to Left 4 Dead 2, which follows the narrative of survivors fighting off hordes of infected zombies. There are countless zombie movies with excessive violence rated only MA 15+, as well as other games such as the original Left 4 Dead (arguably containing the same content in relation to violence, and was released unabated with an MA 15+ rating).

I ask that you clarify justification for the RC of Left 4 Dead 2 in its original form, and the release of Modern Warfare 2 (which also has plenty of other moments of excessive violence even beyond the airport sequence).

There are other games I could call upon relative to my argument, but given MW2 has only just been released, it seems far more relevant.

I would greatly appreciate an expanded response with the Classification Board's decisions in both cases here.
Much to my appeasement, the Board responded rather quickly (and timely given this feature), though in not nearly as robust or expansive a manner as I would have preferred. Though they clarify their reasoning and also point out that each review is done so on a case-by-case basis, their argument, in my opinion, is flawed. But before I dissect the Board's response, I have it for you here in full:
Can the Classification Board clarify their justification for the RC classification of Left 4 Dead 2 in its original form, and the release of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2?

The Classification Board (the Board) classifies each computer game on a case by case basis.

Left 4 Dead 2
On 15 September 2009, the Board classified the computer game Left 4 Dead 2 RC (Refused Classification).

It was the view of the Board that the game contained violence that was high in impact and therefore unsuitable for persons aged under 18 years to play.

The game contained realistic, frenetic and unrelenting violence. The player could choose from a variety of weapons including pistols, shotguns, machine guns and sniper rifles. However, it was the use of the 'melee' weapons such as the crowbar, axe, chainsaw and Samurai sword which inflicted the most damage. These close in attacks caused copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which sometimes revealed skeletal bits and gore. Projectile shots to infected humans could cause abdominal wounds which could reveal innards or even caused intestines to spill from the wounds.

The interactive nature of the game increased the overall impact of the frequent and intense depictions of violence. This coupled with the graphic depictions of blood and gore combined to create a playing impact which was high. As such, in accordance with the Classification Guidelines and National Classification Code, it warranted an RC classification. The Guidelines and the Code are available at

On 22 October 2009, the Classification Review Board (the Review Board) met to review the RC classification of Left 4 Dead 2. The Review Board upheld the Board's decision to classify the game RC. The Review Board will publish its reasons for this decision, when finalised, at

On 7 October 2009, the Board classified a modified version of Left 4 Dead 2 MA 15+ with the consumer advice 'Strong bloody violence'.

The Board noted that this modified version of the game contained violence with strong impact that could be accommodated within the MA 15+ classification.

The Board will classify a computer game in the form in which the distributor submits it. The Board does not direct a distributor to modify a computer game.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

On 14 September 2009 the Board classified the game Bloodhunt MA 15+ (Mature Accompanied) with the consumer advice 'Strong violence'. On 15 October 2009, the title of the game was changed to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, this change was made through an application to the Board. On occasion, the Board receives applications for title changes of material.

It was the view of the Board that this game contained violence that was strong in impact and justified by context.

The Board noted that there is a sequence where a player could also go undercover with the terrorist Makarov, and could (but was not required to) assist in the massacre of Russian civilians at an airport. During this mission, several civilians were shot with blood burst bullet wounds; civilian corpses were strewn across the airport floor, often in stylised pools of blood; injured civilians crawled away with lengthy blood trails behind them; however, corpses disappeared at random and no post mortem damage could be inflicted. The impact of this depiction of violence did not exceed strong, and in all other levels, the killing of a civilian would result in immediate mission failure.

It was the view of the Board that the impact of the computer game was no higher than strong and could therefore be accommodated within the MA 15+ classification.
Specifically, the Board managed to answer my question in the same way they review games - case-by-case. This is where I believe the system itself is flawed, because in their arguments against classifying Left 4 Dead 2 they cite many things that you are currently able to do in other games, specifically Dead Rising, which encourages the use of creative melee weapons to dismember and kill the undead. The Samurai sword, as the best example, offering equal amounts of locational damage also showing off zombie insides; a game quite easily marked with an MA 15+ upon submission. And that is but one example.

The problem here then is there's no such thing as precedent. In the Board's eyes, despite releasing both Left 4 Dead and Dead Rising as MA 15+ games (among many, many others), they hold no ground to how they should treat Left 4 Dead 2, which is why it's entirely fine to walk into an airport in Modern Warfare 2, kill innocent people and watch piles of bodies build up on the floor around you, but it's not okay to smack a zombie in the face with a frying pan.

Perhaps we should be reviewing the review methods of the Classification Board instead of wasting our time with the futile task of changing South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson's mind on an R 18+ rating for videogames.


Latest Comments
Posted 06:27pm 13/11/09
After the recent L4D2 debarcle had left me more then annoyed and then the prospect of MW2 being subjecated to the same media sander, the final straw was broken. I contacted the EFA and paid my dues. Thought while not all of us can run out there and lobby the goverment, why not band together and actually try to enact a real change.

That's just my thoughts though, I don't mean to harp on about it or try to recruit people, but I thought it pertinant enough to bring up...

Posted 07:47pm 13/11/09
Since when is "stylised pools of blood and civilians crawling away with lengthy blood trails" not considered to exceed a strong depiciton of violence? Pretty strong in my book.

Apparently it is okay as long as you don't see what the insides of someone looks like and you're unable to hack up their body after you kill them.
Posted 09:58pm 13/11/09
I actually stopped playing the first Modern Warfare game after the level where you aim the gunship cannons at the guys around the farmhouses and stuff. For some reason that just seemed too brutal in my eyes, even though you don't actually see any blood, etc during that part of the game. Maybe I'm just a pansy but it seemed a bit too real. Or dishonorable or something, like punching a baby.

On the other hand I had no problems with, say, Aliens vs Predator 2. Even though the player was encouraged to take human trophies (or inflict 'post-mortem damage') as the predator, or 'consume' bodies as the alien to regain health. In doing the latter you see all kinds of organs. I suppose you could justify this by the fact that the player assumes the role of an alien creature and not a human, but that doesn't seem fair to me.

I wouldn't call L4D/L4D2 especially violent games. Sure there's tons of blood, but that's crucial to the whole setting and 'horror' mood of the game. If anything these games are promoting virtues of friendship and cooperation, as any good zombie movie would. Yes they may promote violence in psychopaths and ragequitters, but those groups are a worry with or without media such as film and video games.

Well, that's two cents anyway.
Posted 10:38pm 13/11/09
I studied a subject at uni a couple of years ago called "Information Science". A big chunk of the subject was about categorising and classifying bits of information (primarily so they could be stored in, and retrieved from, databases.

One thing that really stuck with me from the subject was something that my tutor mentioned on the subjection of classifying things into groups. He said, basically, "always have a group called 'Other', for things that don't fit into any of the defined categories".

This is something I've kept in my mind for a lot of other things I've worked on that involve putting things in groups, because eventually - inevitably - you stumble across something that doesn't belong in any of the groups you've created.

So, with an 'other' group, you just dump all those awkward non-fitting things into them. Maybe you can sort them later and create a new group after you identify patterns, but generally they'll just sit there and gradually accumulate - and probably rot.

The Classification Board's 'Other' category is RC - Refused Classification. Anything that doesn't fit an existing category will always, by definition, have to be tossed in that basket. By law, they simply have no other choice.

Until a new category exists for violent or otherwise "adult" game to belong to, they'll be dumped in the 'Other' basked, never to be seen or heard from again (except, as we all know, that is not the case - gamers that want an untarnished version will simply import it or find other ways to obtain it).

There's always going to be subjective judgment in the fuzzy zone between MA15+ and RC. But an R18+ rating will mean the Board has another bucket to throw things in. Realistically, I'd prefer no RC rating and consumers to make their own choice. Again, they will anyway, thanks to the power of the Internet, but that's another issue. But having an R18+ rating will simply give the Classification Board another place to put games, and it's a place they - and we - sorely need.
Posted 12:06am 14/11/09
I wouldn't call L4D/L4D2 especially violent games.

After having played the uncensored demo of L4D2, I do not fault the Classification Board for giving it RC, because it certainly doesn't belong in M15+. It really is quite violent, and while sure its not an entirely realistic setting and you're killing zombies its still REALLY graphically violent. And it seems to be a really brutal, unforgiving sort of violent. Like I played a s***load of Fallout 3, but L4D2 to me feels much more brutal and violent.

Its not really the Classification Board's fault, I think they made the right choice not letting L4D2 be M15+, but like trog said, by law they didn't have any other choice but to make it RC, and thats the bit that needs work.

MW2 is a tricky thing for me, because yeah, it does have some disturbing content that can have a pretty big impact, but its more a psychological impact, the game itself isn't really *that* graphically violent, like you shoot people, and theres a little puff of blood, and they die. Its violence, sure, but I bet theres plenty of M rated movies out there with as much violence. Getting to actually play the level as the the terrorist killing the civilians, yeah, that probably ups the ante a bit, but I dunno if it ups it enough to warrant an R rating.
Posted 12:20am 14/11/09
not going to give an opinion, but well done on this piece of writing. good direction for the website.
Posted 08:05am 14/11/09
imo This is a much better direction then reviews, rehashing news and how-to/indestructibles. Love it. (I'd even switch to that homoerotic non qgl forum to read it)

Khel and trog make valid points.

I mean to be honest I am surprised even games like borderlands or Dragon Age: Origins are MA.

One of the starting quests in Dragon Age is saving your sister from a prostitution and blackmail ring, by murdering a guy then druging another to rig a gambling circle. I guess it gets by, by being completely and obviously in a fantasy setting.

Posted 09:42am 14/11/09
but its more a psychological impact

this in my books is worse which should be more reason to RC this game instead of l4d2.. L4D2 is just blood and guts, whoopdeef*****gdoo, it's those mentally disturbing games that need more attention.. eg Silent Hill Homecoming (has been RC'ed for good reason), not so much blood and guts but a very disturbing game in the sense of psychological impact. So disturbing that I won't play it. There is another game where you use pipes and wrenches and other things to block attacks and beat people to death with, forgot the name but this hasn't been RC'ed and it really surprises me. Again very dark and disturbing game and refuse to play it.

Fear2 (I f*****g love this game), the blood and guts is there (not really bad though) but that Alma b**** was continuously f*****g scaring me amongst other things that kept me jumping in my seat.. How is this suitable for kids with all the anxiety it produces?

So when I classify games from my perspective for example, I don't look at things like blood and guts, this doesn't worry me the slightest. To me it's more deeper than that, it's the story, it's the directing of the story, it's the characters and how all these things engage you.. When I say characters, I'm talking about people, aliens, demonic creatures, zombies etc etc zombies and alends don't phase me the slightest, we are so desensitised to them it's not funny.. Demonic creatures and certain human characters, can be disturbing and detrimental to a developing childs psychological development.. Games are becoming visually more realistic everyday which helps "psychological" games maximise their impact.

I don't know, I'm kinda brainstorming here whilst typing..

just my 2c

last edited by Martz at 09:42:53 14/Nov/09
Posted 10:18am 14/11/09
but its more a psychological impact

So, what do people think about this argument that games are more involving (higher psychological impact) than films, and accordingly need to be classified differently? Is it more disturbing to murder civilians in MW2 than to watch someone else do it in, say Schindler's List?

If so, should we then be more careful about what we classify as available to minors (MA15+ and below) than with films?
Posted 10:24am 14/11/09
Well currently games don't look real so it is a bit dumbed down, movies however are made to look real with good cgi and special effects that it can impact the viewer more.. So it could for argument sake balance out?
Posted 10:31am 14/11/09
to me it seems that games can be a lot more involving and quite possibly do need to classified differently. but, I wish all the idiot emotionally-driven people would just get the f*** out of the way and let some rational scientists make a conclusion that can be heard and used so we can move on and structure things accordingly

I also wish the same type of idiots would get the f*** out of the way and allow an R and even an X classification for games be put in place so we don't have some tiny group of prude douchebags deciding what games other adults can and can't buy on the australian market
Posted 10:34am 14/11/09

Is it more disturbing to murder civilians in MW2 than to watch someone else do it in, say Schindler's List?

I think it may be the first person aspect of these games, rather than the actual content itself.

Also, shouldn't you be marking lwb486 papers? :)
Posted 10:43am 14/11/09
what games other adults can and can't buy on the australian market

I think this is largely the problem: there's two main discussions going on here - what material is suitable for children, and whether or not we should (or can) prevent Adults from accessing certain material. The lack of an R18+ rating, while it's designed to prevent access by minors, really muddies the issue.

I think it may be the first person aspect of these games, rather than the actual content itself.

Also, shouldn't you be marking lwb486 papers? :)

Quite possibly, but I've been marking since 6am. Mind if I take a break? ;)

Also, it appears you have me at a disadvantage. Will I be marking your paper?
Posted 10:49am 14/11/09
Break well deserved, even more so being a Saturday. Yes, you will.

I think this is largely the problem: there's two main discussions going on here - what material is suitable for children, and whether or not we should (or can) prevent Adults from accessing certain material. The lack of an R18+ rating, while it's designed to prevent access by minors, really muddies the issue.

I agree. I don't think anyone is advocating material which is graphically violent or otherwise inappropriate should be available to minors. But By not having a R18+ classification, the gov't is effectively removing the choice of adults. Paternalism blows.
Posted 10:59am 14/11/09
what really sucks is the sheer ARROGANCE of the South Australian AG. he knows the facts, knows that the average age of a gamer is slowly reaching 35. Knows that there is HUGE support in the community for an r18+ classification. But because it doesn't fit in with his perfect "must protect the children" view of the world he ignores it.

excuse me while i go play the uncensored l4d2 demo.

last edited by Merky007 at 10:59:54 14/Nov/09
Posted 11:22am 14/11/09
So, what do people think about this argument that games are more involving (higher psychological impact) than films, and accordingly need to be classified differently? Is it more disturbing to murder civilians in MW2 than to watch someone else do it in, say Schindler's List?

If anything, I think actually participating in the slaughter in that level in MW2 lessens the impact. That was my experience anyway, like when the level starts, and the elevator doors open and all your heavily armed companions step out and just unleash on the civilians and start slaughtering them all it was a pretty hard hitting moment. And then how they just slowly, casually walk through the terminal killing anyone they see with with complete and utter callous disregard, I thought that definitely got accross the message Infinity Ward said they were trying to get accross, driving home the pure evil of these terrorists.

But once I stopped watching, and actually shot at stuff myself, it just became a game again, it just became pointing my crosshairs at targets and shooting them to advance to the next checkpoint. Maybe I'm just a bit desensitized, I dunno, but I think watching something like that had a much bigger impact for me than playing it did. Does that mean I would go out in the streets with a gun and kill innocent civilians in a remorseless rampage? Of course not, because I can draw the line between reality, and what is a game. And I think thats what took away the impact for me, because once I started playing it myself and shooting people myself, my mind clicked over to game playing mode and it became just a game.

last edited by Khel at 11:22:23 14/Nov/09
Posted 11:27am 14/11/09
Just picked up mw2 this morning, that level was halarious
Posted 11:35am 14/11/09
There is a study out there that seemingly showed a link between improved memory recall of the environment while playing a violent game.

"Those who played a violent version of the game [...] demonstrated significantly better recall of advertised brands than those who played the regular version."

Taken from, Here.

Too me this suggests that there is a little more going on with violent media then what we take at face value.

So who knows just how playing a violent game impacts us.
I honestly believe it wont make anyone any more violent then they already are, I think the violence in games manifests in other ways, not necessarily bad.

All Humans easily have the capacity of imagining violent situations. You give a man an object, he can make a weapon out of it if nothing else.

Steve Farrelly
Posted 12:38pm 14/11/09
I still disagree there's a correlation between violent games and violent behaviour given the amount of 'questionable' content found across a variety of mediums. Mainstream news, tabloid magazines and sensationalist right wing views, for example, are far more harmful in my eyes as they tend to enrage and misinform, and are often more believable because of their station in life. Fox News, A Current Affair, Today Tonight etc - all worse than games.

Gaming is still a selectively interactive medium, though in saying interactive, you're really only pressing buttons or moving a mouse. By and large, you might as well assume weekend warriors, or laser-tag/paintball enthusiasts are as equally likely to allow their "interactive activity" to influence their irrational violent self to enact the actions of their fantasy in the real world.

Everyone here is right in that there needs to be a stronger, my authoritative look (sans political agenda) into the long-term psychological effects of games.

On the other topic of review methods for classification here in Australia, the sheer fact the board point us on the direction of their "review guidelines" yet cite that each review is on a "case by case basis" shows just how imbalanced the whole thing is. You can't have guidelines and then decide how to look at each game individually - that in itself is a contradiction. It's also unfair on consumers to not allow the idea of a precedent, because we as consumers look for a benchmark, and given there are bloodier, more impactful games doing the retail rounds right now and Left 4 Dead 2 isn't, is proof of this. I argue that Dead Rising is far more bloody (especiially because half way through you encounter humans more f***ed up than the zombies), and having played that game's sequel, it's even more gory and ferocious.

After all of this, I really think the way in which games are reviewed for classification needs to be broached...
Posted 01:39pm 14/11/09
After all of this, I really think the way in which games are reviewed for classification needs to be broached...

It's an interesting point, but I'm not really sure that a doctrine of precedent would really improve the process. I think that fundamentally, these are subtle issues of context that amount to a relatively subjective evaluation of the impact of a particular game. Two games that share identical physics and mechanics, with a comparable level of gore, but have a different atmosphere ought to be dealt with differently.

I don't think that it's as simple as saying that Dead Rising is more bloody than L4D2, as there may be other factors that influence the decision. I think it's probably legitimate to say that one classification was incorrect, and to review that decision on its merits, but trying to fit all games on a big continuum of precedent is likely to be pretty difficult, if not impossible.

In short, I think that each review must be on a case-by-case basis - context is everything. (Take the Bill Henson images controversy, for example.) Classification is always going to be a somewhat inexact science; I think we can disagree with the results, but I'm not sure that we can easily say that one game is objectively more or less offensive than another - a doctrine of precedent may well be more trouble than it's worth.

I personally think the answer lies in a more open discussion of the standards that games are held to. We need a better discussion about what goals the classification policy is trying to achieve; and perhaps, if the aim really is to enable adults to make informed decisions for themselves and those minors in their care, then we need something more subtle than 5 general categories.

I guess the other point is that if these classifications really are advisory only (i.e., not resulting in a lot of prohibited content), then it doesn't matter so much if the Classification Board makes some mistakes, because consumers still have the power to decide for themselves.
Posted 10:05am 15/11/09
I think L4D2 does look a bit more gorey then MW2 but I havent played either yet. However, it still does not excuse why we have to neuter games because we dont have an 18+ game rating considering the average age of the gamer in Aus is over 18 its just plain rediculous to dumb down games as they are ruining for the majority of the gaming market (which are over 18)

Its like taking away the "full drivers licence" and keeping the P plater restrictions for ALL drivers, then saying oh hang on they cant drive high powered vehicles - so all high performance cars must be banned in australia unless modified with low performance parts. How rediculous would this be?

It makes no sense, unless of cause your board is full of very old volvo drivers... I would be really interested to see each member of the classifications board and their background both in up bringing, groups they belong to and religion, im without doubt there would be a conflict of interest in there which is behind this absolutely stupid decision.

I honestly dont think the classification board even know what the majority of australians want.

BTW im 29
Posted 11:30am 15/11/09
As an adult, i have the right to purchase alcohol, R rated and even X rated films. So why is this any different? Also, funny isnt it we dont ban say... alcohol or porn because maybe it contributes to a very high portion of income for Australia...
Iv'e played the MW2 no russians mission. You know what i did, i mowed down those civies. Why? because it's not real.
How i enjoy my past time is irrelevent to anyone BAR myself. If the classification board can not see that, there is something wrong with the notion of 'free choice'
Posted 03:37pm 15/11/09
I have to agree with Steve's comments, actually, I think he really hit the nail on the head with his first paragraph.

I will add that while I also don't think violent games instigate violence in people generally, however I think if an individual is mentally unbalanced already, a violent game can potentially provide a focus point, but it's certainly not a black & white case of cause and effect.

Also Steve's comment on sensationalised media being more harmful than a game is very true in my opinion also - if little Billy wandered in to the lounge room while Mummy and Daddy are being deeply disturbed by current affairs - Billy is at a high risk of being scarred for life by what he might see, much more so than peaking a look at his older brother playing Left4Dead in the study.

What constitutes mature content in a game is rather glorified by the superficialness of stylised blood & gore violence. I am certainly no authority on the Australian ratings advisory board, but I get the distinct feeling the individual(s) who review these games prior to release don't play or fully understand video games themselves, and are judging content on personal biasses sans overly conservative attitudes in an industry that has grown and matured over the years even if the Australian ESRB hasn't.

I think a pertinent question is - does say, COD Modern Warfare 2, have tractors loads more impact on the end players' mental disposition than say, Wolfenstein 3D, simply for the fact the former game is obviously more sophisticated? At the end of the day do you not sit in front of some video display pressing keys or buttons to point and shoot at the alleged 'bad guys' in both titles? Maybe I present an oversimplification with my example, but I think it presents some food for thought anyway.
Posted 12:16am 17/11/09
A bizarre situation on the even of the Australian/Steam launch of Left 4 Dead 2. Have just been playing Dragon Age: Origins and cut of a blokes head in a pretty graphic manner. And don't get me started on Fallout 3. There is no consistency and at nearly 41 years of age I am not happy about it!
Commenting has been locked for this item.