[Engel220]

I realise that SR4's OTT plot and gameplay isn't to most people's taste, but the fact that it's been banned, especially since the previous games went through virtually untouched, is maddening.

The AUS ratings system for games allegedly went under a fairly dramatic change recently with the intent to be more openminded and lenient, but SR4's "implied sexual violence" and "illicit drug-taking" was too much, apparently, and earned the game an RC (Refused Classification) rating. 17 other 18+ games came through fine, but apparently SR was too much to handle.

I bring this up not so much as a fan of the series (At this stage I just love the sheer whackiness of it, really) but because it's completely ridiculous, especially when the other SR games got through untouched(2 was certainly uncensored and featured drug taking) and nobody raised an eyelid.

[----]

I don't know too much about Astralian laws.

Does banned mean you cannot even import it legally, i.e. buying from another country and have it shipped to Australia legally (costs for that aside, it is just a question about the law)?

[Green]

Quote

Yesterday news broke that Saints Row IV was refused classification by the Australian Classification Board and we’ve just received a copy of the report.

According to a statement from the Classification Board the game was refused classification as a result of implied sexual violence. Now we can confirm that the report states the following…

Quote

The game includes a weapon referred to by the Applicant as an “Alien Anal Probe”. The Applicant states that this weapon can be “shoved into enemy’s backsides”. The lower half of the weapon resembles a sword hilt and the upper part contains prong-like appendages which circle around what appears to be a large dildo which runs down the centre of the weapon. When using this weapon the player approaches a (clothed) victim from behind and thrusts the weapon between the victim’s legs and then lifts them off the ground before pulling a trigger which launches the victim into the air. After the probe has been implicitly inserted into the victim’s anus the area around their buttocks becomes pixelated highlighting that the aim of the weapon is to penetrate the victim’s anus. The weapon can be used during gameplay on enemy characters or civilians. In the Board’s opinion, a weapon designed to penetrate the anus of enemy characters and civilians constitutes a visual depiction of implied sexual violence that is interactive and not justified by context and as such the game should be Refused Classification.

The report also made mention of the use of illicit drugs.

Quote

The game contains an optional mission which involves the player obtaining and smoking drugs referred to as “alien narcotics”. Smoking the “alien narcotics” equips the player with “superpowers” which increase their in-game abilities allowing them to progress through the mission more easily.

According to the report these are the two main reasons why Saints Row IV has been refused classification.

An ‘Alien Anal Probe’ Is The Reason Why Saints Row IV Was Refused Classification

[Engel220]

fuegerstef, on 25 June 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

I don't know too much about Astralian laws.

Does banned mean you cannot even import it legally, i.e. buying from another country and have it shipped to Australia legally (costs for that aside, it is just a question about the law)?

You can't import it legally (including buying it digitally uncensored as it still counts as an import), or even be found in possesion of it. Doing so can carry hefty fines or anything up to jail time, unless you live in certain parts of Australia (which places exactly I'm unsure) where you can legally own RC-rated games unless they contain illegal content like child pornography. It's more or less like owning illegal drugs; if you get caught then you're in trouble for possesing something the government said is not permitted, and they basically treat banned games as anyone else would treat cocaine.

And an 'anal probe' with all the actual penetration being pixelated does imply something sinister, but it's basically self-censoring which is fairly rational thinking. It's easy enough to cut that weapon fr the AUS release (As much as I disagree with cuts), but considering that most Saints games featured drug-taking based on real-life substances and were waived through then SR4's "Alien narcotics" that bestow superpowers should be reasonably tolerable.

[Fox]

Green, on 25 June 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

An ‘Alien Anal Probe’ Is The Reason Why Saints Row IV Was Refused Classification

So South Park is banned from the very first episode?

[Lunick]

State of Decay Refused Classification

What's next for the ban list?

[Engel220]

Lunick, on 26 June 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

State of Decay Refused Classification

What's next for the ban list?

I'm waiting to see about GTA 5, if that's banned soon there'll be revolution.

[Micky C]

You see, the reason why they ban games which have potential negative influences is because they think the people who play games are complete total idiots, which can't be hard for them to believe because they're probably idiots themselves.

[Engel220]

Micky C, on 26 June 2013 - 01:07 AM, said:

You see, the reason why they ban games which have potential negative influences is because they think the people who play games are complete total idiots, which can't be hard for them to believe because they're probably idiots themselves.

Yup. Their basic thinking is that all gamers are psychopaths who play 'evil' games and then want to murder all life on earth, when in actual fact the majority of people buying violent games are sensible human beings who just want to play a game. Hell, violent video games can even be considered as an outlet for rage by some, a directive for anger that could otherwise be vented physically on other living people as opposed to a bunch of ones and zeros. It's just censorship and political corectness gone awry.

[Radar]

Isn't Duke Nukem 3D banned in Brazil?

[Minigunner]

I'm not surprised by this. At all. :|
And no, it's not that they think that adults are violent idiots (though they do want to modify societal norms in any way they can), it's that no matter what they do, they know that most parents buy such games for their kids. It's the same with their gun control situation (I could joke that they will eventually require background checks for violent video games, but eh, that's not in good taste).

[Kathy]

Radar, on 26 June 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

Isn't Duke Nukem 3D banned in Brazil?

Considering that Brazil have a huge piracy rate, propably no one gives a shit.

[Radar]

I heard Duke was banned in Brazil due to some nuthead back in 1996 going rampant in a movie theater trying to re-enact E1L1. He killed a ton of people who he pretended were aliens while spouting Duke quotes before popping off himself, or so I've heard. Either way, Brazilians make up half the whole multiplayer Duke community. Banning something is a great way to attract attention to it.

[Soap DX]

Australia bans lots of games, at least more then most places, they where going to Ban L4D2, but Valve made a censored version for them.

They could remove the weapon, but the drugs mission id be more surprised, In other SR games drugs are quite present.

I hear your gripe, SR4 feel so much like SR3, so much so there is a weapon in SR3 which you could almost consider sexual violence.... but if you really thing about it, it's almost like a bat. I guess if you'd rape an orifice with it, then it would have been banned.

[Micky C]

Minigunner, on 26 June 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

I'm not surprised by this. At all. :|
And no, it's not that they think that adults are violent idiots (though they do want to modify societal norms in any way they can), it's that no matter what they do, they know that most parents buy such games for their kids. It's the same with their gun control situation (I could joke that they will eventually require background checks for violent video games, but eh, that's not in good taste).

Our gun control situation actually works pretty well. You never read/hear about people being shot in the news. The difference between guns and games is that guns (potentially) ruin lives, while games are games. So the gun thing is justified and I'm pretty sure everyone here feels the same way.

[Fox]

Actually it's quite the opposite: Australia is one of the best exemple of how ineffective gun control is.

[Minigunner]

...Woah, I think I didn't clarify my statement comparing Australia's game regulation to its gun regulation. What I mean by the gun control situation being the same is that many types of guns were banned outright because the government knows that people outside of the eligible demographic (minors, criminals) have their ways of getting firearms (and kids will always find ways to get mature-rated games, hence the ban on certain offensive content).
Again, I was making a correlation, I didn't want to express support or dissent for their gun laws (I still dislike what they're doing with game regulation, but considering I live in a country that exaggerates the right to free speech, it doesn't come off as a surprise).

[X-Vector]

Fox, on 26 June 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

Actually it's quite the opposite: Australia is one of the best exemple of how ineffective gun control is.

I think you posted the wrong charts.

Anyway, this thread isn't about gun control; in fact, I don't think there is a direct correlation between banning guns and banning videogames.
For example, the Netherlands may have one of the strictest gun control laws in the world, but as far as I can ascertain games have never been banned or even censored here (one or two proposals have been made in that direction, but they didn't get very far).

[Micky C]

Fox, on 26 June 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

Actually it's quite the opposite: Australia is one of the best exemple of how ineffective gun control is.

Assuming those graphs are authentic and correct, they don't seem to take into account population growth, which probably increased by about 15% since gun regulations. Besides, If people are intent on killing other people, nothing's really going to stop them.

The armed robberies graph also isn't very clear. Are those successful armed robberies? Were people injured or killed during them? Personally if I was being robbed somewhere, I'd rather my attacker have a small knife or a baseball bat so I can have a chance to run away or possibly even fight back.

Another problem for Australia is that we don't have any kind of X rated movie system. We have R (restricted) movies for people aged 18+, but anything harsher than that isn't allowed in. Personally I can't think of video footage so bad that they won't allow full adults to see it if they wanted to. If freakishly terrible movies which will ruin my frame of mind and haunt me forever exist, then I don't have a clue about them, I don't want to have a clue about them, and the board of movie classifiers are actually doing their job

[The Commander]

http://www.gameplane...-Saints-Row-IV/

Quote

Saints Row IV will get a complete, uncut release in New Zealand, publisher Deep Silver has confirmed.

Good news, generally what happens is that AU and NZ get the same game bundle when they are sold retail.

[Lunick]

[Master Fibbles]

I think Lunick encountered someone with the Alien Anal Probe weapon...


I never used the phallic weapon in SR3. I have no intention of using the phallic weapon in SR4. I'm not sure why they include those at all. The rest of the game is fun because of the wackiness, but I think making a weapon a rape tool is quite a bit too far. I'm surprised they didn't get an AO rating from ESRB but then I remember that unless you have actual on screen simulated sex or murder, you can get away with anything.

[Kathy]

Mr.Flibble, on 27 June 2013 - 02:59 AM, said:

The rest of the game is fun because of the wackiness, but I think making a weapon a rape tool is quite a bit too far.

Dildo is a rape tool?

[Fox]

Micky C, on 27 June 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

Assuming those graphs are authentic and correct, they don't seem to take into account population growth, which probably increased by about 15% since gun regulations. Besides, If people are intent on killing other people, nothing's really going to stop them.

A population growth of 15% would barely make any difference.

Micky C, on 27 June 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

The armed robberies graph also isn't very clear. Are those successful armed robberies? Were people injured or killed during them?

How is that relevant? Am I supposed to believe that gun control laws would make armed robberies less successful?

Micky C, on 27 June 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

Personally if I was being robbed somewhere, I'd rather my attacker have a small knife or a baseball bat so I can have a chance to run away or possibly even fight back.

I had rather if there were no robberies at all, however it is not a matter of what I like or not. The government numbers show that gun control doesn't effectively reduce the chance of someone using a gun to commit a crime.

[leilei]

What about Destroy All Humans! ? Open-enough world, developed in Australia, released in Australia, has anal probe.

So i'm pretty sure the bias is more on the drug use part.

[The Commander]

Fox, on 27 June 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

How is that relevant? Am I supposed to believe that gun control laws would make armed robberies less successful?

I strongly believe that graph is taking into account "armed" robberies as any type of weapon, e.g. Knife, Baseball bat, imitation firearm.
I watch the news all the time and I never see any of these news reports for these so called stats.

Because a robbery with a real firearm rarely happens so it makes for top news, both in AU and NZ.
Lunick and Micky C should also be able to confirm this.

[Kathy]

Shouldn't matter more whether robbery was commited with a registered gun?

[The Commander]

All I am saying is that I disagree that there are 13-15 (on a 5000 a year average) armed robberies a day in Australia with a firearm.
If taking into account the word "armed" is with any type of weapon, then I will believe that rating.

[Mikko]

Backwards country. Should join Africa.

[Fox]

NZRage, on 27 June 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

I strongly believe that graph is taking into account "armed" robberies as any type of weapon, e.g. Knife, Baseball bat, imitation firearm.
I watch the news all the time and I never see any of these news reports for these so called stats.

Because a robbery with a real firearm rarely happens so it makes for top news, both in AU and NZ.
Lunick and Micky C should also be able to confirm this.

I am sorry, but that is not form of evidence. At least I tried to use some numbers to prove a point.