(I have not read EVERY comment on this story)
I feel that there is one question that has neither been asked, nor answered, regarding this controversial element of, "Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number." What is gained here by even alluding to the act of rape perpetuated by the player-controlled character?
Last year the topic of sexual assault came up in regards to, "Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes."
In that game's conclusion it is suggested that Skull Face placed a time-bomb inside the vagina or rectum of Paz. This is not explicitly stated, but implicitly suggested. When I first watched the cut-scene I'm referring to I was immediately disgusted. As I continued to play the game and unlocked the cassette recordings that grew more and more explicit as to what was being done to Chico and Paz by Skull Face I began to feel a genuine hatred for the character of Skull Face and a desire to exact retribution, (or pehaps 'Revengeance') against him for the wrongs he had committed.
In my opinion that is an example of using the perpetration of a reprehensible act as an effective means to manipulate the player into feeling actual animosity towards the antagonist. I hope that Skull Face is the end-boss of, "Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain," so that I can satisfy my virtual-personal quest for vengeance.
In regards to, "Hotline Mami 2: Wrong Number," the depiction, or implication of sexual-assault relates directly to the character you control commiting the act. Even if direct-control of the character is removed from the player, the player's experience of the game is being related through that character. The actions of the character directly relate to the player regardless of video game contrivancies.
Many of the comments I have read here seem to justify themselves as an argument for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, or as a defense of artistic choice. Art is an aspect of a society's culture. If the Australian Rating Board has decided that, "Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number," is a piece of art that they do not want to officially endorse as a part of Australian culture, then they are well-within their rights to ban its sale within their country. Why would they want to collect sales-tax on something they consider morally reprehensible? Who would want to profit from that, why would anyone?
Artistic expression is worth defending and protecting. That being said, there are such things as, "bad artists." They are not immune from criticism or condemnation and they are not deserving of massive exposure. Killing is a violent act that the victim only experiences once , rape is a violent act that the victim may experience over and over in their mind and that is what makes it both violent and cruel. Why would any of us want to embrace that as part of our culture?