Why Wasteland 3 Was Refused Classification And Modified Before Release

Why Wasteland 3 Was Refused Classification And Modified Before Release
Image: Wasteland 3

2020’s thrown a lot of normal things out of whack, and one of those things has been the regular cadence of classification reports. So it’s interesting to know that for all of the 2019-20 financial year, Wasteland 3 was actually refused classification — and what the developers had to modify it to guarantee its Australian release.

The game was originally refused classification in late February — just before the COVID-19 pandemic — and it wasn’t reclassified until March 13. The listing on the Classification Board website says the game was first banned under the Games 1(a) clause, which states:

The computer game is classified RC in accordance with the National Classification Code, Computer Games Table, 1. (a) as computer games that “depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified.”

Obviously, however, that doesn’t really explain why the game was banned.

In the board’s annual report for 2019-20, however, the Australians censors opted to go into detail over the ban. It was the only game refused classification in the 2019-20 financial year, out of 316 reviews conducted by the Board. And in the original version of the game, characters were allowed to smoke “Rocky Mountain Mousegrass”, which was effectively weed:

During the game, characters are able to smoke a drug known as ‘Rocky Mountain Moosegrass’, which appears to be a strain of cannabis. The drug is denoted by an icon of a cannabis cigarette or joint in the player’s inventory that is accompanied by captions that attest to the cannabis-like effects of the drug. One caption features the text, “It’s like… man. It’s like a fresh mountain breeze. You gotta try some.” Another caption states, “Smoke to take the edge off. Like… way off.”

On selecting the item from the inventory, the sound of a lighter sparking is heard and the player character leans back, implicitly inhaling smoke. The player character then breathes out a plume of smoke. The use of the drug results in a positive effect known as ‘bouldered’ worth ‘1AP’ (Ability Point) being applied to the character, which is “usable in combat or exploration”. After using the drug, a text box appears on screen noting that the ‘bouldered’ effect lasts for 350 seconds and has a “strike rate” of +2%. These details are accompanied by the caption, “Hey man, like, just take the weight off, you know? Feel the world. Yeah.”

The board noted that cannabis/weed/marijuana wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the game, but that “Rocky Mountain Moosegrass” was “a clear reference to the drug”. “The name ‘Rocky Mountain Moosegrass’ is a clear reference to the drug and is accompanied by several signifiers that are obviously drug-related including the joint icon and the references to the cannabis-like effects of the drug – such as the resultant ‘bouldered’ or ‘stoned’ effect,” the Board noted.

Wasteland 3 was subsequently altered to remove the “interactive use” of “Rocky Mountain Moosegrass”, which allowed the game to be rated R18+ under the Australian guidelines.

This is one of the reasons people — including the now-former director of the Classification Board, Margaret Anderson — have been lobbying so hard to modernise the restrictions and clauses in the Australian classification system. The classification review has been completed and a report has been with the Communications Minister since late May, according to the Classification Board.

For their part, the Board argued that games should be classified under the same regime as film and literature (emphasis mine):

The Board’s submission therefore argued for the harmonisation of both classification categories and guidelines for all classifiable content, regardless of delivery platform, so that films, computer games and publications (or hybrids of all three) would be classified to the same standards whether they are broadcast on television screens, watched in theatres, played or read in homes, or streamed to or read on tablets or mobile phones. In the Board’s experience, it is highly desirable that there is a single set of guidelines for the classification of media content as we progress further into the 21st century. The distinctions between films, games and publications are rapidly eroding.

If implemented, such a change would resolve just about all of the issues most Western video games run into when being refused classification. More explicit anime titles probably wouldn’t benefit from such a change, though.


  • [obligatory ‘abolish the classification board and move to industry-based classification schemes’ post here]

    • I haven’t heard that suggestion before, bit out of the loop. What’s the gist of it?

      My knee-jerk reaction is that putting any industry in charge of classifying/regulating the products that they are selling/profiting off is probably a bad idea, in that it potentially creates a conflict between appropriate classificication and profits. Not entirely related but the ESRB’s stance re: loot boxes spring to mind.

      • It’s an argument that you might make if you’re in favour of no classification/censorship, since the conflict of interest will likely result in more lenient ratings.

        The obvious downside is that industry bodies tend to only be accountable to that industry rather than the general public, which is a problem for things like the ESRB’s loot box stance as you mention.

    • While I dont agree with all of ACBs decisions cause I think the R rating could be more forgiving, I am grateful for their work and happy for them to continue… I think the Cyberpunk 2077 classification shows its improved from 5 years ago.

      I dont trust industry self regulation, they take too many shortcuts and do the bare minimum to maximise exploitation of consumers. I find PEGI and ESRB are pathetic in refusing to take action over loot boxes and online gambling.

    • Since when should you have to pay for that?

      Seriously – I think there is something to be said for a distinction being made between games and books/movies. The reason being that games are implicitly more interactive, and hence activates different responses. For that same reason, I feel very uncomfortable with some forms of torture-porn in games (not a fan of it in movies – but I think it’s different when you are passively watching). My understanding of the classification rules is that it comes down to the fact that players receive a positive advantage from the drug-use, rather than the drug use itself.

      • That has been one of the more recent ‘foul’ zones, where drug use has a benefit without any negatives to the use. From the write up in the article it seems that smoking fantasy weed just gives a straight out benefit without any negatives.

        Some fun negatives would be “Consumes all food items in inventory after use, while babbling about the munchies” or “1 extra AP, but more likely to miss, because who has time for aiming, man?”

        • …Slower movements, Last chosen action sometimes disappears out of turn (Wait, what was I doing?)…

          That could’ve been hilarious

      • That’s a bit of a slippery slope and is the same type of comment used to link violent video games to criminal activity. There is no evidence to tie interactive video games to the same type of activity in real-life. Killing people in a video game doesn’t make you a mass-murderer and using drugs in a game doesn’t make you a drug addict.

  • So our country allows borderline softcore child porn through with Cuties but bans drug use in video games come on Classification Board get some actual people that play video games on the board.

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!