On Monday afternoon it was announced that Saints Row IV had been slapped with a fresh Refused Classification rating by the Australian Classification Review Board. The Classification Review Board is a separate panel which reevaluates classification decisions made by the Australian Classification Board. Its decisions then take the place of the original ones.
“
It’s easy to be cynical about what looks like just another layer of classification bureaucracy but publishers have successfully had RC ratings overturned in the past.
It’s easy to be cynical about what looks like just another layer of classification bureaucracy but publishers have successfully had RC ratings overturned in the past. In December 2009 the Classification Review Board quashed a Refused Classification decision for Aliens vs. Predator, opting for an MA15+ rating instead. The Classification Review Board agreed with SEGA’s Australian branch that the violence in the game, while extreme, was acceptable within the context of the Alien franchise.
In the case of Saints Row IV, however, Koch Media’s appeal was unsuccessful. In the end, the Classification Review Board unanimously agreed with the original RC decision; Saints Row IV cannot be accommodated within the R18+ classification guidelines as proscribed drug use related to incentives and rewards is not permitted. The sexual violence Saints Row IV was also pinged for first time out of the gate was not mentioned on this occasion; perhaps the Review Board disagreed it crossed the line or perhaps the fact that the offending alien anal probe gun is apparently Season Pass content rather than in-game content has seen it factored out of the equation.
The big question is, why spring AUD$10,000 for an appeal for the original version of Saints Row IV in the first place? State of Decay developer Undead Labs recently demonstrated just how easy is it to sidestep the strict guidelines against proscribed drug use related to in-game rewards and incentives. You simply change the names of the real-world drugs and/or avoid using terms like stimulants and narcotics, terms that are most regularly used to refer to real-world illegal drugs. State of Decay is out now, rated R18+. Saints Row IV is still in a classification no-man’s-land.
Why fork out the cash, particularly considering the “Australian Edition” of Saints Row IV – which was available for the public to play at PAX Aus – appears to be waiting in the wings? If a single weapon and a solitary drug reference are really the only thing standing between Saints Row IV and an Australian release I can’t see a version sans those not making it through.
However, is AUD$10,000 a small price to pay for another salvo of PR that’ll only serve to make Saints Row IV even more infamous? Perhaps. Especially when, as State of Decay has already proven, eventually squeezing it through classification is likely just a matter of semantics.
We’ve reached out via Saints Row IV Australian representation for comment, but I can already see the one-sheets; “Saints Row IV: So boss they banned it twice.”
Meanwhile, based on some of the hyperbole Saints Row IV’s unsuccessful RC appeal has dredged up, now seems like the perfect time to clear up some of the debates and confusion around the classification problems that Saints Row IV and State of Decay faced in Australia over the past several weeks.
Drug use is permitted under the R18+ guidelines
I really can’t stress this enough. Drug use is permitted in R18+ games in Australia. I actually can’t make this any more plain. Under the R18+ guidelines for DRUG USE it very literally confirms “Drug use is permitted.” The mere presence of drugs in a video game, the sale of them, or even the use of them is not sufficient reason to believe a game should have been (or will be) refused classification. Any claims to the contrary are unhelpful. The guidelines don’t say you can’t see drugs. They don’t say you can’t sell drugs. They don’t even say you can’t use drugs. They just say you can’t get in-game benefits from using identifiably illegal ones.
If you haven’t checked out the R18+ guidelines, you probably should. You may be surprised how broad they are. There are virtually no restrictions on themes and language, and drug use, simulated sex and nudity are all permitted. In terms of violence? If Mortal Kombat is the new yardstick, well, the R18+ rating certainly doesn’t seem to have any trouble accommodating extraordinary gore. All this worry about what game will be next under the axe seems like much ado about nothing, really.
Proscribed drug use related to incentives or rewards has always been a problem
The new Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games that commenced on January 1, 2013 are not stricter than the previous ones. The use of proscribed drugs in games has been an issue for several games released in Australia in the past. Don’t confuse proscribed with prescribed. Proscribed means forbidden. When the guidelines talk about proscribed drugs, they’re talking about the ones you wouldn’t want to be caught with a duffle bag full of.
In 2008, Fallout 3 was refused classification for containing “material promoting or encouraging proscribed drug use.” It was simply the morphine; morphine is a controlled substance. Bethesda called it Med-X instead and the game was reclassified and released with no further hurdles. In 2007 Blitz: The League was refused classification for associating gameplay benefits with steroid use. In 2005 Narc was refused classification for featuring power-ups gleaned from drug use; for instance, doing speed gave you bullet-time abilities.
State of Decay featured, among other drugs, several real-world proscribed drugs. They were associated with in-game buffs. Applying the guidelines, the ACB slapped State of Decay with an RC rating. Undead Labs, demonstrating a solid understanding of what was required to navigate the language of the guidelines, responded quickly (“Stimulants out! ‘Supplements’ in!”) and simply changed the names of the in-game drugs. Job done.
In the case of Saints Row IV, the Board’s opinion was that dubbing the in-game drug an “alien narcotic” meant there was “insufficient delineation” between it and real-world proscribed drugs. The Board noted that the label “narcotics” is commonly used to describe real-world, illegal drugs. Slightly anal, sure, but hardly tough to work around, right? Does anybody remember The Warriors? It contained a healing drug you snorted. It was called Flash. Flash, a term commonly associated with what your camera does when you’re sending photographs of your junk to your partner from a poorly-lit room, is not the name of a drug. Sufficient delineation, it would appear, because The Warriors was released in Australia without protest.
Fallout 3, The Warriors, State of Decay, and many more all prove the guidelines are a doddle to work around.
Nope, Max Payne’s painkillers and the anal probe from Destroy All Humans! aren’t the same thing
Yep, painkillers are drugs. However, painkillers are not illegal. Alcohol is also a drug too, and you could swig gallons of it to mend bullet wounds in both Gun and Wet. Beneficial indeed. However, alcohol isn’t illegal either. Any arguments that begin with, “But Max Payne…” don’t take into account the nuances of the guidelines as they deal with drugs.
Incentive or reward is the other element to consider. Yes, the effects of weed were featured in the likes of GTA: San Andreas and Far Cry 3 while torching marijuana plantations, for instance, but in these cases the swaying, blurry effects were hardly helpful. (Strangely enough, weed in Saints Row 2 did actually increase damage resistance, although it also came with several additional gameplay hindrances.)
But there was an anal probe in Destroy All Humans! Sure, but it wasn’t shaped like a cock sword. But there was a dildo in GTA: San Andreas! Sure, but you didn’t stuff it in NPCs' anuses. Saints Row IV just went a bridge too far with this battle, it seems. This kind of stuff exists on a scale. The mere presence of a dildo or similar may raise an eyebrow, but it doesn’t mean the game is in breach. How it’s used is important context.
“Why have an R18+ rating if you’re not going to use it?”
Since January 1 this year, 21 games have been classified R18+. It is being used.
Remember, the Classification Board doesn’t set the guidelines, it applies them. Threatening the board only reinforces violent gamer stereotypes and petitioning the board is simply barking up the wrong tree.
Nobody is required to like the fact Saints Row IV remains rated RC for now, but you can at least be aware of why. The system still has limits. Those limits are sexual violence and rewards related to drug use. There’s no need to spend sleepless nights worrying if your most-anticipated game is going to be refused classification. Is it violent? Well, in Mortal Kombat you can tear a woman in twain, and that’s available in Australia. So relax; it’ll probably be okay. Do you need to inject yourself with something to heal? Is it heroin? No? It’s just a stab-this-in-your-arm-to-get-better syringe, a la Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon (rated R18+ and totally not banned in Australia)? Yeah, it’s probably going to be okay too.
Is it GTA V? I haven’t heard of GTA V containing a sexual assault launcher from outer space or drug-induced power-ups, so I’m going to go ahead and not panic for now.
“
There are plenty of discussions left to have about Australia’s overhauled game classification system.
There are plenty of discussions left to have about Australia’s overhauled game classification system. Considering Saints Row IV hasn’t had the same problem in other territories, is the board being too heavy-handed by deeming an alien anal-probe unacceptable? Does this decision really represent where the community would place this seemingly slapstick weapon on the sexual violence spectrum? Is the focus on prohibiting developers assigning in-game benefits to drug use largely a waste of time considering developers can sidestep the issue by simply not identifying real-world drugs? And is this hardline stance on drug use somewhat odd considering the many types of other antisocial behaviour the guidelines allow for, up to and including cold-blooded murder?
Is self-regulation the next step? Letting the industry police itself, like the Entertainment Software Rating Board in the US or the Interactive Software Federation of Europe’s PEGI system?
All valid questions we need to keep asking. But we need to do it with maturity.
Luke is Games Editor at IGN AU. You can find him on IGN here or on Twitter @MrLukeReilly, or chat with him and the rest of the Australian team by joining the IGN Australia Facebook community.
Source : ign[dot]com
