Saints Row IV Refused Classification in Australia (Again)

[Steven Bogos]

Saints Row IV Refused Classification in Australia (Again)

Saints Row IV was refused due to "drug use related to incentives and rewards."

Saints Row IV, which was originally refused classification [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/125362-Update-Saints-Row-IV-Refused-Classification-in-Australia] last month, has once again been refused, this time by the Australian Classification Review Board. "In the Review Board's opinion, Saints Row IV could not be accommodated within the R 18+ classification as drug use related to incentives and rewards is not permitted," said the board in an official statement.

Saints Row IV being refused classifciation would normally not be a big deal, as Australia has a long history of introduced [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108045-Mortal-Kombat-Banned-in-Australia] specifically to prevent these kind of bans.

It should be noted that this is not the edited version of the game that was playable at PAX Australia, but rather a re-assessment of the original, unedited game. The next step from developer Volition will be to re-submit the watered-down version of the game to the Classification Board, and hope for the best.

The original refused classification report cited "interactive, visual depictions of implied sexual violence which are not justified by context," an obvious reference to the game's "Rectifier" anal probe weapon [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.823118-Saints-Row-IV-Season-Pass-Includes-Anal-Probe-Weapon]. The "elements of illicit or proscribed drug use related to incentives or rewards" statement was also included in the original report.

Either way, its a good thing we have the government trying so hard to make sure adults aren't subject to naughty things like this, or God knows what would happen to our society. I believe the Mad Max films were based on a version of Australia where the censorship board didn't ban violent video games. Slippery slope people.

Source: Australian Classification Board [http://www.classification.gov.au/Public/Resources/Documents/CRB%20-%20Media%20Release%20-%20Review%20Board%20decision%20-%20Saints%20Row%20IV.pdf]

Permalink

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I've said it once, I've said it twice, I said it over three damn times. This is why Oz Game Shop gets my money and not my local EB Games. Seriously this is supposed to be played by people who are over the age of 18, if an 18 year old cannot define whether or not a drug is bad for them, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[TheEvilCheese]

Because a mature adult with no existing drug problems will develop them due to seeing glamorization in a game that is 98% self parody? No.

Everything is justified by context in Saint's Row. That's the point.

Australia, you so crazy.

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

Their banning is totally justified. After playing "Saints Row: The Third", I fell on bad times, pushing drugs, while being carted around in a gimp-suited-guy-drawn carriages, shooting at people and laughing as they were devoured by sharks.
It was only the prim and properness of the saintly people at the Australian Classification Board who managed to turn me from my criminal ways, before I started blowing up sky-carriers.

 

[icemasteryeti]

I think it's important to remember that it's not just the ratings system that is the problem, the Australian Classification Board just plain sucks at its job.

I believe after being confronted with the fact that Left 4 Dead was more violent than the censored version of Left 4 Dead 2 they responded with something to the effect of each game being judged independently of all others which is just mindbogglingly stupid.

All games should be judged to the exact same standard which means comparing ratings that were given previously. What's the point of a rating system if Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2 can be given the exact same rating despite having very different levels of violence?

 

[CriticalMiss]

Would they refuse a game classification if the main character was a cancer patient and their reward for completing missions was a dose of chemotherapy drugs?

 

[Sabrestar]

And now we see how the anti-R18 group is retaliating against it being introduced - they're simply ignoring it.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

The original refused classification report cited "interactive, visual depictions of implied sexual violence which are not justified by context," an obvious reference to the game's "Rectifier" anal probe weapon.

Since when did we need any kind of context for anal probes?

 

[Something Amyss]

I believe the Mad Max films were based on a version of Australia where the censorship board didn't ban violent video games. Slippery slope people.

Mad Max was not a film series. It was a documentary of the future as told by the mad prophet Fairdinkumessia.

Do not mock the prophecy!

Because a mature adult with no existing drug problems will develop them due to seeing glamorization in a game that is 98% self parody? No.

Everything is justified by context in Saint's Row. That's the point.

Australia, you so crazy.

I like the fact that they're okay with running around shooting random people in the nuts for no reason, but drug use is wrong.

Would they refuse a game classification if the main character was a cancer patient and their reward for completing missions was a dose of chemotherapy drugs?

I doubt cancer treatments are considered "proscriptive." Even still, I doubt giving a cancer patient chemo would count as "proscribed use."

 

[Something Amyss]

And of course people are going to ***** because they can?t play some stupid piece of shit game.

Saints Row IV should be not played because it's a stupid piece of shit game, not not played because it offends some puritan censorship board.

 

[Cecilo]

And of course people are going to ***** because they can?t play some stupid piece of shit game.

So glad you are the person who decides which games we may and may not play. Oh great Blitzwing, please, please give us your opinion on every game ever, so we may know which is good and which is bad without ever playing it for ourselves.

 

[CriticalMiss]

Would they refuse a game classification if the main character was a cancer patient and their reward for completing missions was a dose of chemotherapy drugs?

I doubt cancer treatments are considered "proscriptive." Even still, I doubt giving a cancer patient chemo would count as "proscribed use."

So I can finally release my hit Indie game 'Grand Theft Chemo' in Oz? Brilliant!

 

[Something Amyss]

So I can finally release my hit Indie game 'Grand Theft Chemo' in Oz? Brilliant!

As long as you don't use an anal probe on anyone (beating them to death with a dildo is fine, though).

 

[Dark Knifer]

Fuck off my country, let us adults have our fun.

 

[JoshuaMadoc]

As someone living in Australia, it's actually amazing there's apologists supporting this second banning of something that doesn't take a fucking government to dictate to the common man in terms of restraint and control.

It makes me sick that I'm in the same country with such sheeple.

 

[lacktheknack]

All they have to do is rename the drugs Fallout style.

Come on, that has TONS of bowdlerization and "if you know what I mean" potential! I'm staunchly anti-drug, but I'd still play a game where you deal "You Know, That Stuff".