Do the milkshake the milkshake do the shake

Opinion: Saints Row IV Refused Classification is a GOOD thing

I decided to write this opinion piece after the reactions I was reading concerning the Refusal of Classification in Australia for Saints Row IV. Naturally the original posts I had seen from the majority of people on my Twitter/Facebook feed was anger. I can understand people who have been waiting for a game to be naturally angry if they cannot obtain it. However the majority of messages targeted the recently introduce R18+ Classification put in Australia to the point of "what is the point of that then?"

A small list of the many, many people raging in the wrong direction

A small list of the many, many people raging in the wrong direction

The point of R18+ in Australia?

I can tell you the point very easily: 17.

17 is the number of games given the R18+ classification in Australia currently. Without our years of fighting and defending mature content for mature audiences in this country, we would have had 18 games refused classification. Sure, some might try to argue or counter point that these may have slipped through or gotten in on an MA15+ Rating like many beforehand did. But that doesn't stop a parent seeing their child play something that REALLY should be rated for an adult audience and making a bigger fuss that may lead to bringing in more restrictions.

This is all completely theoretical and really should not to be brought into this discussion on the topic of why Saints Row IV was banned.

But why was it banned?

In the media release from the classification board, which you can read for yourself right here, they state the reason behind the ban is due to the following:

In the Board’s opinion, Saints Row IV, includes interactive, visual depictions of implied sexual violence 
which are not justified by context. In addition, the game includes elements of illicit or proscribed drug 
use related to incentives or rewards. Such depictions are prohibited by the computer games guidelines.

Now having sexual violence can unload a bigger can of worms than ever before. This is such a touchy topic and one that I don't think the majority of people would want to see in a game without warning of what they are getting into. This doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed in a mature adult world.

This was pointed out by David Wildgoose in a tweet when replying to the idea of all of it has no place.


A topic on this scale should have no place in a Saints Row game, based on their previous titles and scandals.

The board's decision has come in, following the guidelines thet have introduced recently. This is a fantastic thing. This proves that the updates to our system are working. It has proved that there is still the other end of the spectrum. We have all been so focused on looking towards what can make it into the R18+ bracket, that we keep forgetting it is a bracket. Some things can go on the other side of this.

Does this make you a bad person for still wanting to play it?

Well, no, you might get funny looks from a few people - but curiosity is a powerful thing to have. I once heard about a movie, when I read the wikipedia article that described some... not nice events, beyond any level my mind had on classification. My curiosity peaked and I decided to obtain a copy of this movie and watch it. I was shocked, but expected it coming... but still shocked. Eventually due to "showing" people this movie I became desensitised to it and that is not a good place to be.

Now this movie got refused classification in Australia and so it well should! The difference with movies and games with our current rating board is that movies have a level higher than R18+ that can fit in another smaller bracket, the X18+, while illegal to sell almost anywhere in Australia (looking at you NT and ACT) it is still another bracket here.

When I worked at the video store in Queensland, where X18+ adult pornography can't be sold or rented,  we did have the option of R18+ for the customers. Some enjoyed the service, others complained it was "Shit". Why? Simply put, the minute you see penetration in an adult porno, *BAM* X18+rating. That was a simple level needed by the classification board. Now if this showed say, child rape, *BAM* refused classification.

What does this have to do with Saints Row IV?

In truth? Everything. Obviously the developers have pushed some boundaries, as they have done in the past, and obviously somethings seen by the sensors have moved it up out of the R18+ bracket and into the next level, which for games is refused classification.

The point to having an R18+ Games in Australia is to allow adult content into games but without being completely open to everything. We need to have boundaries.

While the full report to the scenes in question has not been released, it is no reason to jump to conclusions to go against what the classification board has seen in regards to their criteria for each classification bracket.

What does this mean for Saints Row IV?

The publishers have decisions to make with the developers, they can appeal the rating, edit the content of the game or accept the decision. Right now, there is no reason as a fan of the series to be angry. Annoyed? Yeah okay. But this is not a bad decision on our government of laws. The fate of the game is still unknown at this early stage and it may still be released for those who want it to enjoy. Edited or not.

This is a good thing, we know where the other end of the spectrum is now in terms of game productions. We now have the next level. We can see in terms of real world product what has happened and not just "guidelines" from the classification board.

What do we do from here?

Chill out!

Yes, public opinion will cry out this is bad. Yes, some people will want to see WHY it was banned to give justification for the reason. But those who have fought for the introduction to R18+ games should support this move, regardless of the outcome in the future for Saints Row IV. We don't know all the details or the plan in action. But what we do know is this shows that the R18+ is working.

We wanted a system that allowed mature content for mature ages, we have it. The R18+ is in place and 17 games have been successfully fitted into this category. Sure, some more government lobbying to inform the masses about this could be helpful. BUT it is there, it is in stores, the logo is up and it is working.

Just because this is the first that goes outside of that range does not make this a bad or wrong decision. It doesn't mean we should hate the system the first chance it stops something popular. We need to accept and support the decision we fought for. For games with exceeding content to be banned and mature content to be accepted and available for those who wish to play them.

The R18+ is a good thing and doing its job correctly.


This is an opinion piece by Timmy from his own blog at fivecentsshort

Why not check out our latest vidcast!
Player Attack TV: October 2 2015, SE3 EP31 or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Delicious
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Myspace
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • N4G
  • Follow us on Twitter or like us on Facebook

Get The Latest Episode News
Email Address

8 Responses to “Opinion: Saints Row IV Refused Classification is a GOOD thing”

  1. Vikeyev says:

    I have to completely disagree with you. RC’ing this game is not a good thing. What you have to try to realise is that, this is *FANTASY* (emphasis not to be taken lightly). Reread that all caps word. Now contrast that with, reality. Of course I do agree that there is a line that does need to be drawn, but what the board has described does not really cross that line. This is another example of Australia being a fucking retarded country (Australia is the *ONLY* country in the world that the porn movie Stagnettis revenge had to be sold on 2 separate discs. One with the sex scenes and one with the rest of the movie, due to there being fantasy violence in it) Oh no, sexualised violence how….inappropriate???

    “This is such a touchy topic and one that I don’t think the majority of people would want to see in a game without warning of what they are getting into”

    On what basis do you know what the majority of adults would find unreasonable or unacceptable to see in a game? I’d go so far as to say your wrong, based on the response the original article and other articles I have seen, have had. So far, from what I have found on the articles that do mention the decision (even an article mentioning the company was going to edit the game and resubmit the edited version here Almost all of the responses I have seen have not been accepting of the decision, to put that in perspective with a percentage I just made up off the top of my head, probably about 99% that I have seen (in other words, don’t take that as 99% of all comments as I haven’t counted but I have seriously seen virtually no one in favour of the decision). They have been in strong opposition to it.

    “This proves that the updates to our system are working. It has proved that there is still the other end of the spectrum.”

    I highly doubt there is anybody who didn’t realise there wasn’t another end to the spectrum (although I’ve seen some pretty stupid people) but the problem here as I have said, is the fact that “visual depictions of implied sexual violence
    which are not justified by context” doesn’t really hit the other side. Sexualised violence isn’t necessarily a bad thing and nor is drug use, or even an incentive to do so. Now maybe I could understand if you could go around dragging women into alley ways and raping them, or drugging them and raping them or doing something like that. I would even be willing to bet there would be quite a lot of people opposed to such a thing. But obviously from the boards description, that is not the case.

    New Zealand is getting the real version, America is, the UK is and so is much of the rest of the world. So why do you think many of these other countries don’t think that this game crossed the line so far it shouldn’t be sold to adults when Australia does? Do you honestly believe Australia’s standards on this better then the rest of the worlds? If so, why?

    “Well, no, you might get funny looks from a few people”

    I highly fucking doubt it. If you think wanting to play this game will make people look at you funny then either your an idiot or you seem to be/know some weirdly uptight people. The purpose of this game is not to partake in sexual violence. It just happens to be in some way a part of the game and you have failed to explain why that is a bad thing for the community in the first place.

    “Eventually due to “showing” people this movie I became desensitised to it and that is not a good place to be.”

    Hard to comment on when you don’t even mention the name of the movie. Being “desensitised” to these things isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I have been desensitised to violence (having not only grown up in a violent family but I love violent movies like horrors and actions etc. I also love extremely violent games, ripping peoples heads off with the spine attached in mortal kombat was always very satisfying) but I abhor violence in real life and I find only 1 reason anyone should ever use violence, self defence. Actually, you only really stated that it’s a bad thing, you never explained why it is such a bad thing so it makes it a little difficult to understand why it should be a problem.

    I’m going to end there because I had actually intended for this to be a single paragraph and it’s already become 5 or 6.

  2. Chad says:

    Dude, sexualised violence IS rape. It is literally the definition of rape. Look it up. And you’re saying that’s ok. Not cool.

Leave a Comment

Player Attack Fri 9pm, Aurora

Article Details

Author Bio:

Gamer, designer, writer.
My life seems to revolve video games and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Popular Articles

Subscribe to our Youtube channel and get all the latest TV episodes.