Australian? No Saints Row 4 for you then.

[IC-1101]

The site wrote an opinion piece to shed some light.

http://ps3.mmgn.com/Articles/the-banning-of-saints-row-4-and-the-prob

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I couldn't really give a shit because Saints Row 3 was shit but still these sorts of things are easy to overcome by simply importing. It's usually cheaper anyway.

 

[Foolery]

Import that shit. PS3 is region free. Have any Canadian or American friends willing to send a package? You could have them disguise the disc and box.

 

[Voulan]

Does this affect New Zealand, by extension?

There's always importing then (which is massively cheaper than buying games here anyway) but this is just getting stupid now.

 

[Zeckt]

I could just steam gift it to my australian friend anyways.

 

[Arakasi]

I'm sure soooo many people will use drugs because this game rewards it. Just like so many people run around collecting stars, golden bananas and black magic whale-bone charms. It's a freaking epidemic.

 

[daveman247]

Its a little odd about the "drugs" thing. Since apparently in the game the drugs are completely made up, just being called "alien drugs" which happen to give you super powers.

Fallout 3 managed to get past it by not naming any real-life drugs. Whats the difference here?

 

[Nata117]

OK Australian Classification is retarded the only bad thing Is the alien Drugs and An Alien Probe Which the Alien Probe is pretty F*@#k$d up.
The Nudity is blurred.

And they let in Games which have nudity Such as Metro:last light.
And As another user said they let in Saints row the Third which has drugs and blurred nudity and coarse language the exact same as Saints Row 4 Except Has /ALIEN-DRUGS\ and an Alien Probe And Slightly more Coarse Language.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

OK Australian Classification is retarded the only bad thing Is the alien Drugs and An Alien Probe Which the Alien Probe is pretty F*@#k$d up.
The Nudity is blurred.

And they let in Games which have nudity Such as Metro:last light.
And As another user said they let in Saints row the Third which has drugs and blurred nudity and coarse language the exact same as Saints Row 4 Except Has /ALIEN-DRUGS\ and an Alien Probe And Slightly more Coarse Language.

Its not RCed for nudity, nudity is compleatly fine under the code

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?series=12258
Its 4 min in

I'm hoping your in Australia because this will only work if you are, if your not your going to have to wait till they upload it to youtube tomorrow

"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."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-26-saints-row-4-banned-in-australia-for-including-alien-anal-probe

 

[Windcaler]

I heard about this a little while ago and it confuses the hell out of me. I thought R-18 was just going to be a way for all games to come to Australia but rather then using as a means of rating games for the appropriate ages its instead being used as a new means of censorship and while Im thinking about it don't think for a moment this wouldn't happen in the US if we didn't have the first amendment backing up the pursuit of art.

What really confuses me about this situation is why theyre limiting what grown adults can experience through the arts. Surely a person of 18+ years of age has the mental capacity to decide for themselves what is appropriate or inappropriate media for them to consume. Right? I mean think about it R-18 is a legal barrier that prevents the sale and/or playing of said rating by any minor. However adults have full range of reasoning that every other average human being has so once again I fail to see why adults (you know the only people that can legally buy/play R-18 rated games) have to be locked out of any piece of art when they can make an informed and reasoned choice on whether they believe it is appropriate or inappropriate for them. I just don't get it

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

I heard about this a little while ago and it confuses the hell out of me. I thought R-18 was just going to be a way for all games to come to Australia but rather then using as a means of rating games for the appropriate ages its instead being used as a new means of censorship and while Im thinking about it don't think for a moment this wouldn't happen in the US if we didn't have the first amendment backing up the pursuit of art.

What really confuses me about this situation is why theyre limiting what grown adults can experience through the arts. Surely a person of 18+ years of age has the mental capacity to decide for themselves what is appropriate or inappropriate media for them to consume. Right? I mean think about it R-18 is a legal barrier that prevents the sale and/or playing of said rating by any minor. However adults have full range of reasoning that every other average human being has so once again I fail to see why adults (you know the only people that can legally buy/play R-18 rated games) have to be locked out of any piece of art when they can make an informed and reasoned choice on whether they believe it is appropriate or inappropriate for them. I just don't get it

I will post that tommorow when they release it on youtube for people outside Australia but for the moment look at it like this

Certain things are illegal, across the board and there is no ifs buts or maybes about that. Child porn for example is a crime to make so dead or alive was censored because the game dev made a stupid comment overseas about the age of the women being 17 (which is STUPID because the age of consent is 16 in Australia but anyway not all laws are consistent), in the same way if Red Dead redemption had him screwing his horse that would be illegal because beastialitiy is illegal. Sexual violence is considered to be in that category where it is considered so abhorrent that unless you can justify the context of it in your game, ESPECIALLY if its interactive your going to get slapped with an RC.

Now I agree with you in some areas the changes to the law didn't go far enough. For example realistic sex is still banned because that falls under an X category rather than an R and there is no x for games. WHY? God only knows, considering consensual sex is good and violence is generally considered BAD but there you go. The other main one which is still RCed is realistic drug use when used as an incentive and that is more of an issue which could go either way. On one hand we have a push to ban all smoking from all media because of the health dangers and on the other we have a push to allow depictions of drugs in games. That could be argued either way and I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other with regard to that

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

I wonder how many people here would be defending this if the civilians you used this gun on were 12 or even younger

 

[Karoshi]

This again?

Saints Row 4 will be sold in Australia, albeit a censored version without any Alian Anal Prober weapons. A regrettable loss, but at least you can buy it without any repercussions.

Source <link=http://www.polygon.com/2013/7/2/4485748/saints-row-4-low-violence-option-appears-on-steam>here

 

[Windcaler]

I will post that tommorow when they release it on youtube for people outside Australia but for the moment look at it like this

Certain things are illegal, across the board and there is no ifs buts or maybes about that. Child porn for example is a crime to make so dead or alive was censored because the game dev made a stupid comment overseas about the age of the women being 17 (which is STUPID because the age of consent is 16 in Australia but anyway not all laws are consistent), in the same way if Red Dead redemption had him screwing his horse that would be illegal because beastialitiy is illegal. Sexual violence is considered to be in that category where it is considered so abhorrent that unless you can justify the context of it in your game, ESPECIALLY if its interactive your going to get slapped with an RC.

Now I agree with you in some areas the changes to the law didn't go far enough. For example realistic sex is still banned because that falls under an X category rather than an R and there is no x for games. WHY? God only knows, considering consensual sex is good and violence is generally considered BAD but there you go. The other main one which is still RCed is realistic drug use when used as an incentive and that is more of an issue which could go either way. On one hand we have a push to ban all smoking from all media because of the health dangers and on the other we have a push to allow depictions of drugs in games. That could be argued either way and I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other with regard to that

Now wait a second, are you saying that depictions of "sexual violence" or other crimes as well as the actual act of them is prosecutable under the law of Australia? If so I think you have a point (even though that particular point sounds abhorrent to me). However we are talking about a situation in which these illegal acts are clearly fictional. To use one of your examples, here in the US the actual act of bestiality is illegal because its considered animal abuse under the law however creating a picture, a simulation, or something that is clearly fictional but still depicts bestiality is not prosecutable.

That doesnt even go into the morale and ethical sides of the debate with video games being art and the fact that no artistic medium should be censored by the law or the people.

I just want to be clear, Im fine with all games having a classification. Im not ok with a system that allows a government to censor art under some vague classification rules. The tragedy isnt that this happened to saints row the tragedy is that it can happen at all and remove the ability to choose from adults

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I heard they are getting the game, just with that particular content changed. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/04/saints-row-iv-australia It is coming, just a bit later, I just hope we in NZ don't end up with that version.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

I will post that tommorow when they release it on youtube for people outside Australia but for the moment look at it like this

Certain things are illegal, across the board and there is no ifs buts or maybes about that. Child porn for example is a crime to make so dead or alive was censored because the game dev made a stupid comment overseas about the age of the women being 17 (which is STUPID because the age of consent is 16 in Australia but anyway not all laws are consistent), in the same way if Red Dead redemption had him screwing his horse that would be illegal because beastialitiy is illegal. Sexual violence is considered to be in that category where it is considered so abhorrent that unless you can justify the context of it in your game, ESPECIALLY if its interactive your going to get slapped with an RC.

Now I agree with you in some areas the changes to the law didn't go far enough. For example realistic sex is still banned because that falls under an X category rather than an R and there is no x for games. WHY? God only knows, considering consensual sex is good and violence is generally considered BAD but there you go. The other main one which is still RCed is realistic drug use when used as an incentive and that is more of an issue which could go either way. On one hand we have a push to ban all smoking from all media because of the health dangers and on the other we have a push to allow depictions of drugs in games. That could be argued either way and I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other with regard to that

Now wait a second, are you saying that depictions of "sexual violence" or other crimes as well as the actual act of them is prosecutable under the law of Australia? If so I think you have a point (even though that particular point sounds abhorrent to me). However we are talking about a situation in which these illegal acts are clearly fictional. To use one of your examples, here in the US the actual act of bestiality is illegal because its considered animal abuse under the law however creating a picture, a simulation, or something that is clearly fictional but still depicts bestiality is not prosecutable.

That doesnt even go into the morale and ethical sides of the debate with video games being art and the fact that no artistic medium should be censored by the law or the people.

I just want to be clear, Im fine with all games having a classification. Im not ok with a system that allows a government to censor art under some vague classification rules. The tragedy isnt that this happened to saints row the tragedy is that it can happen at all and remove the ability to choose from adults

Are yes, the argument from the US that "free speech" should be completely unrestricted, who then funnel protesters into "free speech zones". Are you saying that if you had a game that you interactively raped children that would be ok in the US because "its art"? No of course not, every country has laws and just because something "is art" is not a licence to get out of those laws.

The video I posted has now been uploaded to youtube the relivent portion is at 4 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMfRo5nHGis&feature=c4-overview&list=UUSWJTP7X8ytO_xhA6x5v21Q

As I said, the law isn't perfect, there fact that realistic consensual sex has the chance to fall outside the ratings is wrong and there is a case for whether realistic drug use related to rewards should be allowed but that debate should include smoking generally and then society as a whole can decide whether we wish to continue to censor smoking and drug use or if we want to relax that. However sexual violence is one where realistically you are going to find few supporters because that is considered abhorrent in this society


Once again I ask, if you found out the civilians you use this gun on were 12 or younger would you be supporting its inclusion?


BTW the rules aren't vague, they are VERY clear, and its not actually the government doing anything, they pass the legislation but the classification board is independent. I know that's hard to understand if you only know the US system because EVERYTHING falls under the purview of government there but here we have lots of statutory bodies who don't actually fall under the control of a minter, the Reserve bank is one example of this, the classifications board is another, the DPP's office

 

[Windcaler]

I will post that tommorow when they release it on youtube for people outside Australia but for the moment look at it like this

Certain things are illegal, across the board and there is no ifs buts or maybes about that. Child porn for example is a crime to make so dead or alive was censored because the game dev made a stupid comment overseas about the age of the women being 17 (which is STUPID because the age of consent is 16 in Australia but anyway not all laws are consistent), in the same way if Red Dead redemption had him screwing his horse that would be illegal because beastialitiy is illegal. Sexual violence is considered to be in that category where it is considered so abhorrent that unless you can justify the context of it in your game, ESPECIALLY if its interactive your going to get slapped with an RC.

Now I agree with you in some areas the changes to the law didn't go far enough. For example realistic sex is still banned because that falls under an X category rather than an R and there is no x for games. WHY? God only knows, considering consensual sex is good and violence is generally considered BAD but there you go. The other main one which is still RCed is realistic drug use when used as an incentive and that is more of an issue which could go either way. On one hand we have a push to ban all smoking from all media because of the health dangers and on the other we have a push to allow depictions of drugs in games. That could be argued either way and I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other with regard to that

Now wait a second, are you saying that depictions of "sexual violence" or other crimes as well as the actual act of them is prosecutable under the law of Australia? If so I think you have a point (even though that particular point sounds abhorrent to me). However we are talking about a situation in which these illegal acts are clearly fictional. To use one of your examples, here in the US the actual act of bestiality is illegal because its considered animal abuse under the law however creating a picture, a simulation, or something that is clearly fictional but still depicts bestiality is not prosecutable.

That doesnt even go into the morale and ethical sides of the debate with video games being art and the fact that no artistic medium should be censored by the law or the people.

I just want to be clear, Im fine with all games having a classification. Im not ok with a system that allows a government to censor art under some vague classification rules. The tragedy isnt that this happened to saints row the tragedy is that it can happen at all and remove the ability to choose from adults

Are yes, the argument from the US that "free speech" should be completely unrestricted, who then funnel protesters into "free speech zones". Are you saying that if you had a game that you interactively raped children that would be ok in the US because "its art"? No of course not, every country has laws and just because something "is art" is not a licence to get out of those laws.

The video I posted has now been uploaded to youtube the relivent portion is at 4 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMfRo5nHGis&feature=c4-overview&list=UUSWJTP7X8ytO_xhA6x5v21Q

As I said, the law isn't perfect, there fact that realistic consensual sex has the chance to fall outside the ratings is wrong and there is a case for whether realistic drug use related to rewards should be allowed but that debate should include smoking generally and then society as a whole can decide whether we wish to continue to censor smoking and drug use or if we want to relax that. However sexual violence is one where realistically you are going to find few supporters because that is considered abhorrent in this society


Once again I ask, if you found out the civilians you use this gun on were 12 or younger would you be supporting its inclusion?


BTW the rules aren't vague, they are VERY clear, and its not actually the government doing anything, they pass the legislation but the classification board is independent. I know that's hard to understand if you only know the US system because EVERYTHING falls under the purview of government there but here we have lots of statutory bodies who don't actually fall under the control of a minter, the Reserve bank is one example of this, the classifications board is another, the DPP's office

Taking what I say out of context is not the way to have an intelligent discussion on the pursuit of art, games as art, and the potential censorship of an artistic medium by an independant (but as I understand still government sanctioned) group who has huge power over the potential shaping of the australian culture.

That said you did not answer my questions pertaining to fictional acts depicted in an artistic medium vs actual acts performed in real life.