Saints Row 4

[JackSlack]

No. Just the usual combination of "Protect the children!" logic and political back room dealing.

If nothing else, the new guidelines at least have them banned for reasons that approach sensible. I mean, I remember when BMXXX was banned for nudity. Saints Row 4 is being banned for implied sexual assault and drugs used as reward. That's far more defensible, at least, and is approaching a sense of reality. I'd still like to see them simply copy the film code and treat the content, not the medium, as the issue. But this is better, if nothing else.

[empath]

Like I said, that's my tin-foil-hat-paranoid-cynic side saying that.

But it's good to hear measurable progress is being made, at least!

[JackSlack]

The iGEA has responded, and they've offered a good, cool, measured answer. I actually am not too unhappy with the refusal at this point; like I said, the actual decision is at least for stuff that seems sensible. I'd like to see further reform to the classification criteria, but this really is progress.

[RedNightmare]

What the heck Australia?! If you guys are gonna keep doing this, then why get a 18+ rating?

@JackSlack: I get your point, but why would Call of Duty not be banned under this ruling? I mean, is drug use really worse then shooting up enough people to fill a small village?

And I don't think the sexual assault part is really that bad, because I'm betting that's the purple dildo (if it really is something worse then that, then Volition is digging their own grave, cause that won't be allowed anywhere)

[My pseudonym is Ix]

I mean, is drug use really worse then shooting up enough people to fill a small village?

Drug use, no. Sexual assault...

[RedNightmare]

I mean, is drug use really worse then shooting up enough people to fill a small village?

Drug use, no. Sexual assault...

Which is why I added the last paragraph, because I agree with you there. I mean if there is real genuine sexual assault in the game, then I will gladly eat my words. But I find it hard to believe Volition would cross that line.

[Vigafre]

And I don't think the sexual assault part is really that bad, because I'm betting that's the purple dildo (if it really is something worse then that, then Volition is digging their own grave, cause that won't be allowed anywhere)

I'm gonna put it in spoilers just in case, but here's the actual in game stuff that caused the ban:

From what I read, it's an alien anal probe. You stick it up people's butts and launch them. The drug one is what gives you powers.Source for my info: http://kotaku.com/alien-anal-probe-gets ... -579208506

In all honesty, that's a wee bit too much, Saints Row. Just a bit.

[RedNightmare]

Ok, read the spoiler.
Yeah, that is very on the line. I do not know on which side it falls yet, but I get the problem now. Still, banning something always leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Ptangmatik]

Hmmm. Though it's hard to say where the line is between a depiction of sexual violence and a legitimate parody of the occasional occurrence of similar actions in other games, I think that's too far.

[JackSlack]

The drug use thing, I admit, to me feels like BS. You could smoke weed to gain health in SR2: How is this different? I'd appeal that part, personally. Fine, I know it may be, say, a meth analogue instead of a marijuana analogue, but both seem to violate the "no depiction of drug use may reward the player" guideline to me.

Maybe the line is very clear, but...

[Vigafre]

Well, yeah, the drug use thing sounds stupid.

[JackSlack]

Randomly, I decided, out of curiosity: Would Saints Row 4 have been banned had it been a film?

Answer: Yup.

R18+ ratings in Australia are pretty clear in both film and games: "Sexual violence may be implied, provided it is justified by context". Now, that last phrase is vague, sure, but it's clear here that the ratings board felt it wasn't. And, key point for me, that would still have been true in a film as in a game.

I've decided the banning of Saints Row 4 was justified. With the exception of one line of attack, it's really hard to argue it isn't: The probe is pretty clearly a representation of sexual assault, the guidelines on sexual assault are uniform across media types, and while the disclaimer is regrettably vague, it appears to have been applied in a way that is defensible. That leaves only the 'floodgates' argument left: That since it's for adults, any and all material should be legal. And, well, that's not on the table right now. It's flatly not.

By Australian law, there is simply no way SR4 could not have been refused classification.

[Lurkon]

Randomly, I decided, out of curiosity: Would Saints Row 4 have been banned had it been a film?

Great idea, clearly that is the kind of question that should be asked more often. We want games to be treated as an art, so why not ask if they're being treated the same as other artforms that are treated this way?

By Australian law, there is simply no way SR4 could not have been refused classification.

This is both unfortunate and quite nice. I mean, it's kind of sad you'll have to wait to play a (slightly) modified game, but it's also nice to know that games seem to be being treated fairly, now. Only time will tell, I suppose.

[JackSlack]

This is both unfortunate and quite nice. I mean, it's kind of sad you'll have to wait to play a (slightly) modified game, but it's also nice to know that games seem to be being treated fairly, now. Only time will tell, I suppose.

Unfortunately, I can't really say this is true anymore.

Because it just got refused classification, again.

And this time, it's entirely on the drugs. Now, I'm not really surprised. It sounds like Deep Silver and Volition tried a "just the tip" strategy here and removed the anal probe while still keeping in the drugs. If that's true, it's wholly unsurprising the ratings appeal board looked at them and shook their heads sternly: You breach ANY of the code, you're meant to be banned. Them's the rules.

But this time, the rule remaining is the drugs as reward rule. And (due to its nature) it can't have an equivalent in film. Now, I'd have to argue: As a film, Saints Row IV would have been allowed after this cut. But as a game, it can't be.

[Mara Kalat]

I vastly preferred Saint's Row 2 to Saint's Row 3.
As long as they bring back mission replaying and deeper appearance customization from 2 I'll be a wacky president, I don't care.

Mara.

[JackSlack]

Unbelievable.

Saints Row IV has now been allowed in Australia.

The anal probe is apparently fine. But the drugs were a total no-go.

This isn't a surprise to anyone who's paid attention to the OFLC and the Classification Board, but good GOD, the sheer ludicrousness of the ruling is astonishing.

[Lurkon]

Unbelievable.

Saints Row IV has now been allowed in Australia.

The anal probe is apparently fine. But the drugs were a total no-go.

This isn't a surprise to anyone who's paid attention to the OFLC and the Classification Board, but good GOD, the sheer ludicrousness of the ruling is astonishing.

Wat?

[JackSlack]

I know. It's just... kind of staggering. Any level of violence, the classification board is fine with. Implication of sexual assault? They balked, but came around. But drug use? Kiss of death. You will not get past that.

(Except when they do.)

[empath]

*long, lingering sigh*

I wish I could say I'm surprised at this turn of events, and the stupefyingly asshattedness, tokenism & self-evident redundancy and uselessness of the OFLC...but I'm not...

At least you get the game...

...now we just have to work on making the games available to you at a reasonable price point...

[Vigafre]

I'm mostly asking this out of curiosity and am no way saying it's fair, but isn't the high price based on the high minimum wages in Australia (you know, compared to America)?

And by "based", I mean "justified by the price gougers".

[korvys]

Well that would make sense, if everything was in direct proportion to the minimum wage, which it isn't. For one, taxes are higher. But then Aus has universal healthcare. And on and on with the differences.

Basically, it's bullshit.

[Vigafre]

Figures.

[JackSlack]

It's bullshit. It's based on a much, much earlier time when the exchange rate was much lower. But the Australian dollar got stronger and stronger, and hit parity, but the prices never changed.

[My pseudonym is Ix]

Even if I think it's somewhat bullshit, as an outsider looking in I can't say I'm surprised. The only thing I think I know about the Australian economy ATM is that the price of living is just generally ridiculous; I heard of one place where a single lime coast a dollar thirty. Still, I know not enough about the issue to comment.

[JackSlack]

Eh. It's not that bad. Big Mac Index has us ($4.94) only a single burger behind the US ($4.20), and on par with Canada ($4.63). Our price of living is only slightly higher than the US. We're more expensive, yes, but not that more expensive.