It’s regrettable that government policy in Australia is denying adults the right to play Syndicate. The game will be not be available in Australia despite its enthusiastic response from fans. We were encouraged by the government’s recent agreement to adopt an 18+ age rating for games. However, delays continue to force an arcane censorship on games – cuts that would never be imposed on books or movies. We urge policy makers to take swift action to implement an updated policy that reflects today’s market and gives its millions of adult consumers the right to make their own content choices…

· We are not releasing Syndicate in Australia. The reason for this is because we do not have an R18+ in place as yet.

· We will not be appealing the RC decision. Syndicate is a game made for a mature audience and any changes to would significantly affect the game’s quality and appeal.

· Syndicate will continue to be released in New Zealand (unchanged) on the 24th February 2012, and has a confirmed rating of R18

EA chose not to release Syndicate for two reasons. Firstly, as mentioned, the game is designed for adults, not those under eighteen.

And secondary, it costs a lot of money to appeal the decision, and to send the game back to the developer so that they can tone down the content just for Australians and release it under the MA15+ banner. Other companies may do this, but not EA.

games.on.net has managed to get a hold of the Classification Board’s report explaining why the game had to be banned. Matt Williams, the author of the article, has named two games that already feature the type of violence the report covers.

It is not clear what EA Games will do following this decision. They have three options on their hands. They can release the game in Australia, in a modified form; appeal to have the rating lowered to MA15+; or just refuse to sell the game in Australia.

Kotaku has been speaking with both EA and the Classification Board about the matter. The Board states that just because the word ‘modified’ is used doesn’t mean that the game is watered-down.

We usually use the word ‘modified’ when we get a second version of the game in for classification, and that often happens for a number of different reasons.

“For example, if the game is multi-format, and the Wii version has extra characters, then we’ll term that version ‘MODIFIED’. Same goes for any other extra content – extra levels, stuff like that. It doesn’t have any bearing on the classification itself.”

EA confirmed that the Australian release would remain uncut, saying that the game’s ‘modified’ status is the result of the Bulletstorm Epic Edition as well as the extra content in the Gears of War 3 beta.

So, with adult-only games like Left 4 Dead 2 receiving watered-down versions while others like Bulletstorm are getting through unscathed, how can anyone have confidence in our game classification system? If every Attorney-General agreed to introduce an R18+ rating in Australia instead of dragging their feet, then Bulletstorm would have gotten the rating it deserved. Instead, it is rated MA15+, making it available to minors.

Bulletstorm will be released in Australia on February 22, 2011.

Gibeau then goes on to explain the changes in the userbase, saying that the average age of gamers is 28, yet the rating system only goes up to MA15+. This “demonstrates a distance between those policies and the reality of the video game industry and the people that play interactive games in Australia today.” and the legislation “effectively censor[s] entertainment choices for adults.”

Read the full statement here. Note that you have to login or register with the site to be able to read it.

This morning, we awake to the news that the Classification Board have granted Left 4 Dead 2 an MA15+ rating for “Strong, bloody violence”. According to Softpedia, this classification applies to the censored version, as the appeal process for the original, uncensored version is not due to commence until October 22.

Thanks to everyone who emailed in this morning with this news!

I had the opportunity to speak with the Classification Board as I was commissioned by games.on.net to write them a feature article on the Classification Board’s decision. Below is the full text of my questions and the answers that their spokesperson gave to me.

1) Was Left 4 Dead 2 examined by any of the same members of the Classification Board that examined the original Left 4 Dead?

The Classification Board acts as a body. It does not discuss or speculate on the opinions of its individual members. The Classification Board is broadly representative of the Australian community.

2) Does the Classification Board believe that the level of violence in Left 4 Dead 2 is objectively greater than in the original Left 4 Dead?

The Classification Board determined that the impact of the violence in Left 4 Dead was ‘strong’, and the impact of the violence in Left 4 Dead 2 was ‘high’. The Board classifies each computer game on a case by case basis.

3) Which specific areas of Left 4 Dead 2 would, in the Classification Board’s opinion, need editing in order to meet the requirements for sale and distribution as an MA15+ title in Australia?

The Classification Board does not advise on how material could be edited to receive a lower classification. That is a matter for the distributor of the computer game. The Board’s decision report contains information about the content that caused the computer game to be classified RC.

4) Have the publishers, Electronic Arts, stated or suggested to the Classification Board that they will be seeking a review of the RC rating for Left 4 Dead 2?

I understand the distributors applied for a review of the classification on 25 September 2009.

5) In the case of such a review, would the same members of the board who rated Left 4 Dead 2 as RC undertake the review with Electronic Arts, or would the review panel be composed of different people?

It would be a different board altogether. The Classification Review Board is an independent board, entirely separate to the Classification Board.

6) Is the Classification Board in a position to comment on the Discussion Paper for an R18+ rating for games which was developed by the Attorneys-General, and is the Board aware of any possible date at which the paper will be released to the public?

See answer to next question.

7) Was the Classification Board consulted on this Discussion Paper in any form, or will it be consulted in the future?

The Classification Board’s role is to classify material according to the National Classification Scheme. Changes to classification policy are a matter for Government.

As you can see, the Board was unwilling to provide me with any clarity on their seeming inconsistency with the different classifications with the original and the sequel. It was interesting to learn though that the Classification Review Board are entirely separate to the Classification Board – giving us slim hope that these new people will agree with the original minority decision of the Board to award L4D2 an MA15+ rating.

A big thankyou to everyone who left comments on the last article, the discussion was fantastic to see, and thanks to everyone who emailed in links about the events unfolding after the ban. Let’s cross our fingers and see what happens over the next week.

For reference, the original Left 4 Dead only warranted an MA15+ rating. While it seems possible that L4D2 added some highly objectionable new content to warrant its Refused Classification branding, chances are that this is simply another case of woeful inconsistency from the Classification Board.

Kotaku AU is reporting that:

An EA spokesperson has told us they “are still working through the submission process with OFLC and want to explore all opportunities before making any comment.”

While this does leave open the possibility of Australians being allowed to play L4D2 in the future, realistically the game is very close to being finished, and it is likely any massive changes will either push the release date further back, or simple be skipped over in favour of getting the game out the door.

This is one of the highest profile titles to be Refused Classification in a long time. We will follow this case with interest.