'll play the game and curse the day religion ever made it into australian politics.
Religion has nothing to do with this. The Bible, the Quran, most religious texts are more violent than these games.
Besides, I have AvP, the reasonably new one, in my account. I stab people, drown them in acid, shoot them, burn them, then tell them to "come on out motherfker" before tearing their spine out. That's more violent than any RO I've ever played. So no need to curse religion, since that has no relevance on anything. Instead, curse the devs who cut down games before they're even rated, thus giving uninformed reviewers the impression that the game _needs_ to be cut.
Hasn't been rated in Aus, doesn't need to be cut.
Although this can all be solved by one simple question..
When the R18+ rating comes out in Aus (because TWI obviously don't want to argue their case with games like SoF, AvP, Dead Space, Dead Island and such), will the low fi versions be upgraded to legit copies?
If they cut the game and then just left us with that.. Well I'm not preordering till I get an admin telling us they'll upgrade it. More's the pity, it's the only game I want this year, apart from King Arthur: The Roleplaying Wargame 2.
But I still don't get the thing with the bloody IP's. If I buy it from UK will the game still be cut because I download it with a german IP?...
It depends. Most people will tell you that it's based on the serials and thus you'll be fine. But most people aren't Steam admins. Steam bases it's regions on IP, each country has a designated section so it's fairly easy to tell where you are. Steam then looks at whatever they've got going on in that country, and gives you that version. It doesn't appear to be completely uniform though, I know people in Aus who bought a UK version of L4D2 and got cut, and others who didn't. If it says Low Violence Version, then assume it's going to be cut, rejoice if it isn't.
Nice work dude.
Lots of long words, but you can sum it up pretty easily.
Page 12, bottom: Is the game extraordinarily violent with no saving grace?
If violence is the only way to complete an objective, then..
Page 16, bottom: Does the game promote, lessen, or otherwise make violence seem normal or even desirable?
So if it's idealized (Putting it on a pedestal. slo mo katana hacking someones arm off and making that the point of the game), trivialized (lessening, so making it seem that hacking said arm off is normal or otherwise not worth paying attention to. Think your average post apocalyptic setting. The Book Of Eli is a good instance of that.) or problemized (not entirely sure.. I wouldn't call that a word, so I'm going to go with context and say that it makes violence seem ok or excessive, over the top. If someone surrenders and you shoot them anyway, for example.).
WWII was horrible for everyone involved, directly or indirectly. If TWI made RO2:HoS all about how cool WWII was, then the game gets banned. If it shows that war is hell, and that this is a historical simulation for educational purposes, for instance, then the game would be ok because it's not promoting violence.
Page 17, top: This gets onto the specifics. The style of a game impacts it's portrayal of anything. If it looks like a cartoon, with POW! BANG! BIFF! written everywhere, then it's cute, cuddly, and doesn't have a big impact. But it would still be under the above rules. Promote violence and then setting doesn't matter.
RO2 is semi realistic. I say semi because it's more realistic than most games, but as far as reality goes it's not even close.
There is blood, I can't remember hearing limbs breaking? Been a while since I played RO1, also can't remember burns specifically showing up. If you hit someone with a molotov flamethrower and they were definitely on fire, screaming, and the graphics made it look relatively realistic, then that's considered to have a higher impact.
Page 17 bottom and 18, top: Specific setting. This is where RO2 would have a problem. It's based on a real war, it has realistic ish sounds, weapons, vehicles, possibly maps, etc. This would be the first real stumbling block to getting a rating in Germany. It's based in WWII which Germany seems extraordinarily sensitive about. To the point that the Nazi flag isn't used in EUIII because it's offensive. It happened, can't change it, so long as it isn't promoting the idea of killing everyone (which is taught in schools under the name "Evolution", eugenics is simply putting that into practice), then I can't see what it would be a problem. Politics though.
Apparently they don't have female snipers, so we could call that discrimination since the USSR had a fair few of them in Stalingrad. Given that you know, everyone else was dead.. But hey, screw realisim, this is gaming.
Overall, that one section, realistic setting, is the main thing they need to worry about. Submitting it pre cut though drags gaming back down. If they'd submitted the full game and argued that it wasn't promoting violence, they could have made it. Hell, it's realistic because it's educational. Books aren't banned because they have a Nebelwerfer, a game shouldn't be banned because it has a Panzer IVG. But they don't want to argue their case, politics you see. Reviewers seeing a cut game get the impression it needs to be cut, politics you see, so then they're adverse to giving a full rating to the game because it's obviously bad, even the developers think so.
NOTE:
This post looks angry.. It kind of is, because TWI isn't even trying to get their game through, they're playing politics and cutting a game before it's even rated, which just makes it more likely to be cut. As an Australian player of a cut L4D2, I can say it looks absolutely terrible to L4D1. Not just the gore, but the graphics overall look very toned down. If dismemberment is all that is cut, then I'll be disappointed that a "democratic" country with non elected leaders is stopping me from playing the game, but c'est la vie. I'll be much more disappointed if TWI don't upgrade the game when the new rating comes in. That would be pathetic on their part, but we shall see.