Breaking: Saints Row IV Has Been Refused Classification

Count this as a headline I never thought I'd have to write again, but Saints Row IV has been refused classification by the Australian Classification Board.

"The Acting Director of the Classification Board, Mr Donald McDonald announced today that Saints Row IV was the first computer game in Australia to be Refused Classification under the Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games that commenced on 1 January 2013," read a statement posted on the Classification Board's website.

According to the board, the rating was a result of sexual violence.

"In the Board’s opinion, Saints Row IV, includes interactive, visual depictions of implied sexual violence which are not justified by context," a press release explained. "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."

To be perfectly honest, I didn't think we would ever be in this position again. Despite Australia being in possession of a full R18+ rating a game that will be available in other territories will not be available in Australia.

We've gotten in contact with the local Australian representatives for Saints Row IV and will update when we learn more.

UPDATE: Head here for the iGEA's response.

UPDATE 2: Deep Silver is planning to resubmit a modified version of Saints Row IV.

Via AusVGClassifications


Comments

    I wondered how long it would take for the classification board to say, "Okay, band-aid solution worked. People who wanted it have shut up, lets get back to controlling adult content."

      It took exactly 496 days from when they passed the bill till now. :(

      time to kill the igea board and replace it with PEGI and time to kill julia gillard

        Yeah, you show them that video game violence has no effect on players. Fight the good fight.

          "She" needs to be taken out, and it has nothing to do with video games.

          Yep, because there are so many gun massacres in S Korea and Japan, where there's far more gaming going on than in the US or here.

          it wasnt banned by the violence, it was banned of drug use. retard

        No, that's definitely not the solution. Perhaps back to the drawing board.

    Wow... so much for being able to make an adult choice about the kinds of things I play.

      Forcing Sexual intercourse onto a character is not the kind of thing that you should get to make a choice on... If you want to have the choice to anally rape someone then you have an issue buddy

        But the choice to inflict any other type of violence is fine? Why is the line drawn there?

          Because there is no reality where sexual violence isn't abhorrent?

    Ugh...

      GTAV ban incoming; they probably wouldn't stand having that widely popular game endorsing crime in Australia again. People obviously see this game as real, even the people who don't believe it's real do to a degree, better ban it... ? Anyone happen to see the failure of logic here. The people who play games having the higher degree of common sense in these issues. Que endless cycle of politicians reinforcing their out of touch and misguided principles.

    MA15+ is confidently parading around in R18's robes.

      We always knew that, though. It was pretty clear from the R18+ discussions that the level of content allowed wasn't going to increase substantially.

      The R18+ rating has definitely been an improvement, and it's at least providing a proper representation of the content in the games in question, as opposed to them just being labelled MA.

    So after 10+ years all we have is a rebadged MA15+

    F'n pathetic...

      No, that's not true.
      We do have a bonafide R18+, but the limitations on this do not extend to sexual violence, as they shouldn't.
      Now that precedent has been set, if you feel strongly enough about Saints Row 4, go start a political party and do something about it... Or you could just whinge incessantly online and put your ignorance of the rating system out in the public eye for all to see.

        Agree with you 100%, we’ve already seen a handful or releases here that wouldn’t have made it though the censors previously.
        Calling it “rebadged MA15+” is just throwing a tantrum, that’s clearly not what we’ve received so far.

        The R18+ legislation has (AND SHOULD) always contained provisions allowing the banning of extreme material, we have legislation recognising gaming as an adult pursuit and while I can’t comment on whatever has tipped Saints Row over the edge (having not played the game), images of “sexual violence” are always going to be contentious.

        It is what it is, I’m not getting too upset about it. I’ve seen some REALLY offensive stuff in games over the years and while I almost always find it funny I’m not going to have a cry about the lack of higher levels of “sexual violence” in games. No matter what we do there’s always going to be a developer who wants to push things too far, there’s always going to be a classification board with the occasional member who is overly conservative and there’s always going to be gamers who think we should be allowed to go far beyond what reasonable standards would dictate.

        You guys can get upset if you want, that’s your prerogative if you feel that as adults you aren’t given sufficient choice or access to “adult” material, but I’m out. The line exists, it should exist and I can deal with it where it is.

        Go start a political party? No, its easier just to torrent it.

          buy it overseas from ozgameshop.com, simple, get the UK version, and everyone is happy, all AUSTRALIA is doing is losing sales because of this.

      Typical Australian Government, putting the spin on things to make it look good.

    Great, back to square one, i thought this country had matured but is now still the same old country as before.

    Thank fuck i didn't have this on pre-order.

      Really? cause you would enjoy the game so much more by anally raping people? Not being able to do this is enough to warrant not buying this game??

      You sir are the reason the classification board exists...

    Seriously ACB what the fuck?

    I can't imagine volition would have gone any further in that regard as opposed to SR3, and you guys rated that MA!

    I think the real tragedy here is that a man has lived his whole life with the name Donald McDonald.

      And now he's taking out that angst on the rest of us.

      the guy's obviously a clown, just not as good a one as his brother though.

      Last edited 25/06/13 6:42 pm

        LMAO. This is the only possible way the original comment could have been made funnier. Good job.

        well of course he is
        Quoted from Wikipedia: "In Japan, Ronald McDonald is called Donald McDonald due to a lack of a clear "r" sound in Japanese."

        if, ronald mcdonald is a shootable cameo in the game, i reccommend to australian importers that they get the japanese version

      Damnit! Beat me to it Trjn... Not sure what's more of a joke, refused classification considering SR3 was pretty over-the-top OR Mr Donald McDonald's birthname. What were his parents thinking?!?

      Somebody please explain to me why we're still allowing dinosaurs to set public policy?

      Could this be the most upvoted comment ever?

    Didn't we setup this new classification system specifically for games like this? Pretty pathetic to be honest.

    Last edited 25/06/13 6:34 pm

      No, we amended the classification system to include an R18+ rating to include the type of graphic violence often seen in modern videogames.
      We did not amend it to include sexual violence of any sort, as was made clear in the many, many reviews of the language used when the newly amended classification was being introduced.

        It doesnt have sexual violence tho, it's just implied, surely that is borderline and whats with all this drug stuff, surely we see all this and worse in movies.

          exactly, and this is where the inconsistency lies. Movies and printed media get away with far more than the limitations imposed on video games. I have to think that it is at least partially due to the perception of games are an immature media, despite MA or R ratings.

          Implied? You think this is implied?

          -----

          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.

          -----

          If that's what you think is implied, I'd hate to hear what you think is graphic sexual violence.

        So are you suggesting that killing someone in cold blood with a gun is "less of an offence" than raping someone? Which by all accounts we don't even know if that's the case in this.

        And sorry, but if you think anyone over the age of 18+ that hasn't tried drugs, thinks they are going to try them for the first time over a video game, then you're sorely out of touch with today's society. People know full and well before the age of 18+ whether they are going to do drugs or not.

          As an accepted social standard for entertainment…… yes.

          As a society we are FAR more accustomed to violence in entertainment then we are sex and particularly sexualised violence, but the two things cause VERY different reactions in people when exposed to them.

          Without getting too creepy about it I’d have to say that if I’m seeing a hot naked girl having sex on the screen my urge to recreate that kind of act is a billion times stronger than if I’m watching a Rocky movie and I get the sudden urge to punch someone on the face (which I do).

          Nobody’s saying that killing someone is less of an offence than raping someone, it’s a common sense acknowledgement that exposing someone to sexualised imagery is far more likely to elicit an emotional (and physical) response in a person that they feel compelled to act on. When you combine sex and criminal acts (violence, abuse of children) then you run a genuine risk of pushing a particularly unbalanced individual over the edge.

        The drug use is certainly a double standard. That shit is rampant in other media. There are whole movies about taking drugs. Good movies, with worthwhile stories to tell (requiem for a dream, trainspotting, etc etc).

          It's not tied to rewards, though. In games drugs often provide you with a boost, implying that "taking drugs makes you better".

          I can't think of many movies where that's the case, even when they do improve performance it's usually the villain using them and the hero overcomes them through good old-fashioned heart and determination.

            Arguably, drugs do make you better. Drugs do produce desirable results (in the short term, at least).
            This is not a secret, even though people would like to keep it that way.
            Drug use (in games) is completely safe and has no proven correlation to any sort of real world behaviour (much like video game violence)

    I can't believe that we're doing this again. Unreal.

    Thank god for steam and US buyers, I guess.

    "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

    As an avid and self-proclaimed GTA fanboy, I often run into instances against people who prefer Saints Row, but this is just wrong. This is absolutely ridiculous, what was the point. All the stupidity and low brow toilet humour of the Saints Row franchise and how bastardised it has become annoyed me to no end, but it still has the right to exist and be allowed for those who want it. Seriously hoping Volition/Deep Silver (?) try and appeal this because this is beyond ridiculous. This just leaves me speechless.

      Please tell me more about how stupidity and toilet humour is completely missing from GTA games...

    It's hard to see where the ACB was coming from when it banned Saints Row 4. Considering that Saints Row 3 got through with a MA15+ considering that it had a giant dildo, naked drug trip and soliciting prostitution.

    So this to get banned must have included some rather questionable content.

    Also, why do my comments always have to be moderator approved?

    Last edited 25/06/13 6:22 pm

      Or it's yet another case of double standards being applied.

      Also, why do my comments always have to be moderator approved?

      lol, you're clearly a dodgy bastard

    Hate to say this openly, but I guess I'll just pirate the shit out of this if that's the case...

      Already forgotten how we used to get around this? Buy online or if you're using Steam, get a key from a non-Aussie retailer.

        Never done it that way via steam, ta for the info!

          NZ or UK normally work without issues

          Also with saints row 3 there was no region locking on the key so you could buy the Russian version on day one for 15 bucks and it worked worldwide.

          I had preordered it from GMG for the bonus content but these days I think they will force the AU version on us.

            Yeah GMG do, seeing as they went all AU discount (good thing) and had regional versions now to coincide with STEAM (bad thing)

        It's still available on Steam. Get it while you can!

          Wouldn't it end up getting refunded???

            We shall see.

              You'll get the cut version. It's not totally banned, they're reworking it.

            That's what I would assume. I noticed on the game's Steam page it's got the R18+ on it, I guess they assumed (as I did) they would get rated.

      That's only hurting the developers and they aren't the ones at fault here.

        I know I know... reactionary comment. I'll buy it... I've bought the last 3 :)

          Yeah, I had a similar reaction for a second, also I didn't see the other replies you got about getting international versions gifted versions or whatever, that works pretty well.

            Yeah, loved 2 but with 3 Volition completely secured my love. I know it copped flack but anyone who syncs up Bonnie Tylers I NEED A HERO with a rescue mission? Complete f*cking badass. lol.

    The context is that it's Saints Row 4. I though that was obvious.

      Indeed, its like hiring a porno and being offended its got sex in it...

    Please help us ozgameshop and greenmangaming, you're our only hope.

    Has GTAV been rated yet?

      GTA V hasn't been rated yet. But I doubt it would be refused classification for sexual violence because I don't think there will be "interactive, visual depictions of implied sexual violence" in GTA V. Of course there are the 'killing hookers' violence but the classification system got pass that for the previous GTA games.

        Agree. Grand Theft Auto is a class above Saints Row. Even if they have confronting themes, It will all be in the context of the story - Max Payne 3 was a great example i think

        Last edited 25/06/13 8:53 pm

    Good thing I don't buy games from Australian retailers any more.

      I used to feel bad for not supporting retail but I'm past that stage.

        Gerry Harvey killed any guilt I had. Single handedly.

    OMG, when i saw this i was like, everyone's going to go fucking mental!

    i swear it was that supermoon

    Last edited 25/06/13 6:28 pm

    Why are you all complaining, as a parent and avid gamer I see no need for any implied sexual violence in any game. Some lines need to be drawn to ensure we do not approve of certain behaviour in our society.

    Someone please explain to me their desire for interactive sexual violence?

      That's not the point. The point is as an adult we should have the right to choose whether or not we play a game that may have that type of content. You obviously would decide not to play the game based on your personal opinions/beliefs etc. I on the other hand don't care and would like to play the game. Forced censorship is crap and shouldn't occur.

      That being said I thought this would happen at some point. When the new legislation passed it was clearly stated that any game with sexual violence and the like would still lead to a game to be RC as the R18+ rating is not a free for all for any type of content.

      Not all anger comes from the actual content being blocked, but the act of refusing to allow it in the first place (i.e. Censorship) Personally, Saints Row 3 turned me off, I think it's a mediocre sandbox game in general, and there are just so many other faults I find with the series. Having said that, I am livid that this has happened. And it is especially bad as we just got the adult R18+ rating this year. This should no longer be an issue. I think it's great that you actively monitor your children's interactions with games. I wish all parents would. People weren't going out to but this game because "Hey cool! Implied sexual violence! Just what I wanted!". It's not like something that deserves banning (e.g. Rapelay, the Rape simulator). That's not what it is marketed as. People wanted it for all the other features and things possible. In fact I'm sure most people would complain about the specific part that got the game banned in the first place as being distasteful.

      that's why we have the R18 rating, so there is no need for the parent to worry.

        I'm not worried, i'm supportive of the Classification Boards decision to refuse classification.

          You're a horrible, disgusting human being if you support censorship, and that is absolutely what this is.

          If you don't like it, don't buy it. I don't care if it's a how-to book on suicide, a video game where all you do is kill Jews, or a comic book where people use frozen dogs to rape the homeless: If it was created without impinging upon the life, liberty or property of someone without their consent, there is no reason it should not be available to adults who want to purchase it.

          Last edited 25/06/13 7:07 pm

            Bingo. This is censorship at it's most inappropriate.

            I can sign up for the military, go overseas and shoot people. If the government deems me too irresponsible to witness "implied sexual violence" in a video game, then I don't know how they can justify putting a gun in my hands and going overseas and shooting people.

            Should we not limit what drugs our citizens can produce and take? Should heroin and ice be accepted? Should we not censor the behaviour of rapists?

            The game is available to those who wish to purchase it. Your personal freedom is not under attack. If you want the game, get the game.

              Yes, we should limit what drugs our citizens can produce and take, because it can lead to tragedies and death. And yes, we should censor the behaviour of rapists lest vulnerable individuals are affected negatively by it. What you're missing here is that this is a video game, portraying presumably comedic material. You're really of the mindset that this is as bad as Heroin being freely available or footage of rape being shown on TV?

              There's far worse than this shit in plenty of horror films. The fact that video games are interactive have caused these worried old men to treat all content in video games as if it's ten times worse than it actually is.

                I would argue that we should not be limiting what adults want to do with their own bodies. If someone wants to smoke crack in the privacy of his own home, without exposing others to it (unless they consent to that), it's not anybody's business but his own.

                If it doesn't affect the life, liberty or property of someone else without their consent, there is very very very VERY rarely any reason the government should have any say in it.

                Rapists are affecting someone else's life and liberty without their consent, which obviously fails the test.

            I hate the idea of censorship, but that first sentence of yours is the only thing disgusting about this. Seriously, that wasn't necessary.

            Last edited 25/06/13 10:14 pm

              It's not necessary in the strictest sense of the word, but I consider censorship to be nothing short of a crime against humanity. It's horrifying, and the cretins that support it are the scum of the earth. Book-burning dogs.

                I agree with Ben J. Ad hominem attacks rarely give your argument more merrit. I agree with the rest of what you said though.

          So every game-playing adult in Australia has to suffer because you're a crappy parent and a sub-moronic tool who can't differentiate between what happens in games and what happens in real life.

          I assume that you have never purchased a game which portrays any kind of violence or killing, because we don't find those activities acceptable in our society either.

          Get a dog up ya, you absolute tool.

            Why are you so bent on personally attacking me? You have no idea of my parenting ability and are making a lot of assumptions. Why is it so offensive to you that I support a ruling made by an elected representative body?

            Using phrases such as "Get a dog up ya" demonstrates an abysmal lack of judgement and maturity which would embarrass any self respecting member of the public. You are the an example of what would happen to this nation and it's society were allowed to behave in whatever manner they saw fit. We have laws and restrictions on any product sold, traded or advertised in this country. These restrictions are reflective of the greater public's majority decision regarding how we live our lives in Australia. You are the minority.

            What I have purchased with regards to entertainment media has been passed by a board of representatives from this country.

            "every game-playing adult in Australia has to suffer" Really? Every game playing adult will suffer because of your assumption of my parenting? What do you base your assessment of my parenting on? Is it based on your own experiences of being parented, because if your manners are the result of what you deem to be acceptable parenting then I hope you are not able to breed.

            Don't get so personal and make assumptions about strangers, you arrogant individual.

              Appreciate your views on the subject.
              The board of classification needs to give itself an upper cut. Their job is an advisory capacity to place the appropriate age recommendation on the box. The gaming majority (75% over 18 according to Digital Age Australia) has the right to choose what is acceptable for themselves.

              Parents need to take a more active role in choosing age appropriate games for their kids. Every smart phone can get access to YouTube. There are plenty of game play videos and trailers available; in 5 minutes you can establish if a game is appropriate or not. Every time I visit a games reseller I see parents buying games like COD kids.
              Do not excuse lazy parents expecting the government to save your kids while sacrificing your right to choose.

          I'm a bit upset about this and I'd really like to see a more indepth reason behind this.

          I can't believe we gave SR3 an MA15+ but SR4 can't get an R18+, if this is the same old problem of inconsistent ratings it needs to be fixed and stopped.

          And I would never give Saints Row to a kid, or GTA and no way in hell would I expose them to the toxic Multiplayer of COD. For my argument a kid is under 13, at 13 they become a teenager and I'd seriously consider some of the games if my child is demonstrating a proper level of maturity.

      I think the issue is that people don't trust the ACB's interpretation of "implied sexual violence". It would be easier to make a judgement on their judgement if we knew the context. At the moment, all we know is what the previous games and the trailers depict. Which if my memory is correct, they may be referring to things like the gun that shoots dildos that smack into people (comically) or the same issue people had with GTA, where you can hire a prostitute and then as with anyone in the game the player has the option to kill them. I don't remember this previously being a scripted part of the game though, it's usually something players may or may not do in the open world.

      It's a game not real life or even trying to portray real life. Your kids shouldn't be within a 100 miles of this game, the game was made for adults who don't take things so seriously and can see it for what it is. I haven't seen the "implied sexual violence" (whatever that means) so I can't comment personally on what is actually in the game but I wonder how bad is it? We had a film called the human centipede with no humor in it whatsoever, is it worse than that!

        Maybe the government is just trying to make sure there's no game within 100 miles of any kids then??... Or not.

      Its not that we want sexual violence. Its more that we want to be able to play what the creators put out, without having an over-the-shoulder government worker that DOES NOT PLAY GAMES FOR FUN deciding what I or you can play or view.

      I'll be my own moral compass, thank you.

        We live in a country with elected representatives who we have chosen to makes certain judgements on our behalf. Perhaps you would be happier in a country with a more relaxed view on the subject matter.

          But the ACB is not elected by the people, it's selected to apparently be representative of the people.

      Firstly, where did anybody say they want sexual violence in their game? Quote it for me. I'll bet you you cannot.

      Secondly, what bothers me more than any "implied sexual violence" scene would, is the fact that grown adults are apparently too tender and innocent to decide for themselves what is real and what isn't. I mean come on, why did you even mention you were a parent? It's an R18 rating, why does the thought of children even enter into your head? You shouldn't be buying anything with R18+ stamped on it if it's going to be accessible to your children.

      Thirdly, where on earth did you get the idea that there was "interactive" sexual violence anywhere, whatsoever? It clearly says "implied", not "interactive". That probably means it's not even graphic.

      Fourthly, the point is that we're being treated like dumb children and being barred from playing a freaking video game that some people may have been looking forward to. Not that people want implied sexual violence.

        "Saints Row IV, includes interactive, visual depictions of implied sexual violence"

        “In the Board’s opinion, Saints Row IV, includes interactive, visual depictions of implied sexual violence which are not justified by context,” a press release explained.

        Did you actually read the article before scrolling to the comment section to rage about being treated like a "dumb child"?

          So, wait, if it's interactive, then how can it be only implied? If you get to interact in sexual violence then it sounds to me like it's a tier above "implied". It sounds like it's "confirmed" sexual violence in that case.

            It sounds like it's "confirmed" sexual violence in that case.

            I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

              interactive - You are able to partake in
              implied - creates the illusion that an act or event takes place without it happening in the view of others

              The outline of the statement contradicts itself is what @toasty_fresh was getting at.

              Last edited 25/06/13 7:19 pm

                Yes, I understand that. I don't understand what "It sounds like it's "confirmed" sexual violence in that case." means, though. What's confirmed? We already know that the game has sexual violence.

                  I believe (Can't speak for the bloke) he means that by saying its interactive, that the sexual violence actually takes place in game, thus "confirmed".

                  By using contradictory terms in the statement the ACB has created a "panicked and confused" state of outrage. The sooner the classification report is issued, the sooner things become clear.

                  They mean "confirmed" as in, the sexual violence is shown explicitly on the screen.

                  As opposed to implied sexual violence, where the user is shown enough detail to 'imply' that sexual violence has/is/will occur, but it is not actually shown on screen.

                  I don't know how I can put it better than that. Something cannot be interactive and thus obvious and prevalent and just be implied.

            I remember it was either GTA4 or one of the previous Saints Rows that let you have sex with prostitutes, but it would happen behind a closed door so you didn't see anything and you had to play a minigame with the thumbsticks to determine your performance. Maybe it's a similar thing here.

            Interactively beating someone with an enormous purple dildo. The 'sexual violence' is 'implied' but you're doing it interactively.

            Or perhaps if you had a QTE that allowed you to sentence someone to 10 years in Jail with Bubba, implying prison rape, that could also be 'implied sexual violence' which would be 'interactive'.

            I'd argue neither example (and they're poor ones I came up with from the top of my head) would remotely constitute something worthy of a higher rating, but Atelier Totori Plus on Vita received an 18+ rating, for "references to sexual violence", for a scene which is described by the ESRB here and which was in the original PS3 release (rated PG in Australia), so I guess anything is possible.

              Why does everyone seemingly have "sentenced to jail with Bubba" (implying prison rape) embedded in their psyche? I've read or heard that many times. Where does it come from?

      The problem is the keyword "implied". Apparently even textual descriptions of something that may possibly be interpreted that way is enough to get you thrown straight into R18+ (see: Atelier Totori on PS Vita controversy earlier this year) so it's not hard to imagine that the material they're referring to is far tamer than the wording of this would suggest, especially since actual interactive sexual violence would see the game banned or effectively banned in Europe and the US as well.

      It's honestly more likely to be drug use tied to incentives though. The ACB have always taken a dim view of that for some reason, though like with anything else they're wildly inconsistent with whether they apply or don't apply their guidelines.

      The popular theory is that the sexual violence mentioned is the same seen in Saints Row III (eg. attacking people with a large dildo), which was rated MA15+.

      Until more details are available it's impossible to draw a conclusion. I'm sure those complaining would agree that if the game involves interactive violent sex, as opposed to interactive sexual violence, the RC verdict is understandable.

        I'd argue neither is acceptable, but in this case it is implied sexual violence, and no one actually knows what that means.

      the problem isn't the content, the problem is that the wankers who refused it think they know what content is too inappropriate for us better then we do, and frankly I'm offended they would not only make the assumption that I can't tell a video-game from real life, but then act on it as if it were true.

      and pray-tell how allowing a video-game to have certain content is the same as it being approved of by society? I'm pretty sure society doesn't approve of rampant murder yet I see that in video-games daily.

      and you want to know the desire in interactive sexual violence? IT'S A GAME! IT'S NOT REAL! stop treating it like it's real sexual violence, it's not, and I can't fucking believe that the guys banning it think anyone is stupid enough to think it's anything close to reality.

      oh and next you'll be telling me we should outlaw roleplaying a rape fantasy, because obviously people who consentingly decide to do that are crossing a line and they'll start thinking rape is OK, next thing you know they'll be out on the streets raping your children!

      P.S. the fuck does you being a parent have to do with anything? people are asking the game be rated 18+ because we don't need them to tell us what is and isn't appropriate content, it has absolutely dick all to do with children.

      P.S.S. and another thing, I have no idea what the appeal of interactive sexual violence is, but It must have some if the creators of the game decided to put it in there, and I'd like to know why, but I guess I'll never be allowed to do that if these guys have any say.

      Last edited 25/06/13 7:13 pm

        Agree. All saints row games have very poor graphics. How anyone could confuse it with real life is mind-blowing.

        Sexual violence has always been banned / censored / modified / toned down in Australia an R+18 rating is not going to change that. Now my guess is they looked at the game and the publishers application and said nope to the sexual violence. Case in point. If you buy the porn version of Pirates of the Caribbean "PiratesXXX" it came with 2 dvds the porn on one DVD and the Violence (well fighting CG animated skeletons and crappy swordplay) on the other disc. this was the only way they could officially release the DVD here. The board has made that moral choice for us, good or bad the only way that is going to change is through Parliament and I don't see that happening.

        Last edited 26/06/13 8:54 am

      That's your choice and that's great. But those who like this franchise should have the choice to play it if they so choose, instead of having a ratings board telling them what they can/can't play. We also don't know what the content is question is either, so it's a bit hard to defend either side. Knowing this series it would be something lewd, immature, maybe even a lil' graphic, but nothing that would be above a R18 rating. I haven't heard of other countries having this issue (unless it hasn't been rated elsewhere yet).

        No one is choosing for you, it just will not be sold here in it's current form.

          "it just will not be sold here in it's current form."

          That is the very definition of "choosing for you".

      It's because there is now a classification just for this game (R18) which took so long to get recognised and put into law. Getting it classified R18, should stop kids being exposed to it. And people have all sorts of things that draw them to play a game, just because you personally aren't interested in sexual violence, doesn't mean other won't be either.

      It does not make any difference if you are a parent, the rating is 18+. Meaning, only adults can play the game. Why would you being a parent mean a thing in this context? Do you buy R18+ games for your kids? because if you do, not only are you a pathetic excuse for a parent, but your argument disappears.

        By "play" you mean "buy", yes?
        Or "can" meaning "should".

        It's also a Crime to provide a minor with R18 content.

      Whats your desire for murder then? Terrorism? Theft? How about the blatant treatment of women as sexual objects?

      I too am a parent and avid gamer. I monitor my kids gaming and internet activity and at just 5 years of age they are aware of the rating system, what they can and can't play.

      "Interactive sexual violence" can be as simple as slapping someone on the bum. The other key word you're missing here is implied. How about the implied threesome in God of War? Whats your desire to have a threesome? Thats pretty naughty too, especially in a game suitable for 15s.

      Whats my desire for sexual violence and all of the other atrocities depicted in every other video game? My desire is always that its something that I cannot do. An escape from reality if you will. Why do people watch horror movies, pornographic movies, war movies? These are all escapes from reality. Check out Irreversable or Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Its not interactive sexual violence, but its also right there in your face - nothing is implied.

      If your worried about your kids, then you should teach them what the rating system is there for and don't sit back and let the government do your job.