Editor's note: I've always felt that Australia's a bit of an untapped gaming market. Sure, it doesn't quite have the population of many countries in Asia or Europe, but it's an affluent, industrialized nation that speaks English -- which should, in theory, mean minimal localization costs. But with all the stories about its draconian game-classification process, it sounds like the Australian government isn't doing its economy any favors -- getting a game approved Down Under sounds like way more of a headache than it's worth at this point. Australian Bitmob reader Aaron Betts explains the situation in detail here. -Fitch

It occurs to me that very few non-Australians are aware of just how absurd the whole "game banning" issue is in my country. For some reason, a lot of folks seem to think that we, as a nation, simply aren't interested in mature games -- which is 100 percent false. The only person in the world saying that is South Australian attorney general Michael Atkinson. But because he manages Australia's game laws, he controls what we get to play.

Now, he doesn't actually "rate" the games -- that's up to the Office of Film and Literature Classification, which isn't much different than the ESRB in the United States and Canada. But he decides the available ratings for the medium in Australia; essentially, he's a one-man army solely responsible for Australia's game bans. We don't have an "18+" game rating because he doesn't want one -- simple as that.

And the reason he doesn't want one isn't because he's unaware that gamers exceed the age of 17. No, it's because he believes that the majority of Australian gamers are children, and he thinks that releasing so-called "high-impact" games in that kind of environment would harm Australian society. Never mind the fact that plenty of "high-impact" games already sell here under our "MA15+" rating -- and those games have yet to show any negative impact on Australia's youth.

Michael Atkinson, however, is a firm believer in the notion that video games cause high levels of impact on any individual and can result in players attempting to "act out" in real life what they see in-game.

Here's a photo of Mr. Atkinson:



Remind you of anyone?

Like American anti-game activist Jack Thompson, Atkinson views games the same way overly conservative parents viewed rock music in the '50s or rap music in the '80s. Before video games, folks blamed music, film, or television for delinquent behavior. And if you go back even further, literature -- yes, words on paper -- also served as a similar scapegoat.

Like many people in power, Atkinson just wants what he thinks is best for us -- that's understandable. No one wants to see children growing up with a twisted view of the world. But let's face it: You can't prevent violent acts completely; they're going to happen one way or another. You can't generalize the source of these problems and say that games are the cause.

Sure, maybe the occasional criminal gets an idea from an entertainment source, but that's not what motivated them to carry out the action -- that comes from within. Most criminals do horrible things because all they've known all their life is horrible things -- for example, many child abusers are victims of abuse themselves.

Now that you know my stance on the issue, I'm going to look at some relevent current Australian laws and compare them to Michael Atkinson's decision to attempt to keep "high-impact" games out of Australia -- a decision he bases solely on his beliefs and views of the world and people.

When an Australian turns 18, he or she can legally do any of the following:

Buy and smoke cigarettes.

Buy and consume alcohol.

Buy pornography.

Buy and operate heavy and/or high-powered machinery, including any form of motor-based transport (with a license).

Buy and use a real gun under certain limitations and conditions (with a license).

Now, obviously, opinions vary on what constitutes an "adult," but research says that giving these kinds of rights to anyone below their early 20s -- whether or not they think they're capable of handling them -- generally leads to young people getting hurt or killed.

The Australian government believes that 18 is the suitable age to gain these rights -- unlike America, where the drinking age is 21. Our country has one of the worlds highest levels of underage drinking and road-accident-related fatalities, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with these laws.

Scientists say that the typical adult brain isn't fully mature until age 25 -- at 18, most people are still very much growing and developing mentally. Naturally, they don't have as great an understanding of choice and consequence as someone several years older than them. Before your early 20s, you're still capable of devleoping bad habits that could have a severe impact on you later in life. Any number of these things could alter your life in very bad ways -- four actually being capable of leading to death.

Keeping this in mind, let me reiterate Michael Atkinson's law more specifically:

An Australian adult cannot legally purchase and own any video game that would be deemed unsuitable for someone below the age of 18. It doesn't matter who's playing it -- just owning the game is illegal. Because of this, all games that would be 18+ are not allowed to be sold or distributed here.

So a form of entertainment that involves pretending to be and do things you aren't or never will do in real life is considered MORE HARMFUL than four VERY REAL things that can KILL YOU.

So the next time you read about an Australian game ban, remember this: Even though we can't purchase that game, we're still fully and legally capable of drinking, driving, buying guns, and collecting all the porn we could ever desire.

My country's priorites are f***ed up.