backtop


Print 32 comment(s) - last by MZperX.. on Jul 23 at 1:12 PM

The ACB's decision not to classify "Saints Row 4" marks the first time this has happened since the new R18+ rating was released

Australian gamers, if you were looking forward to "Saints Row 4" coming out later this summer, you may now have to wait a bit longer.

The Australian Classification Board (ACB) refused classification of "Saints Row 4," which means that it cannot be sold in Australia's retail stores (it's even illegal to own the title in certain parts of the country). According to the board, the new game has unnecessary sexual undertones and sends the wrong message about drug use. 

“In the Board’s opinion, Saints Row IV, includes interactive, visual depictions of implied sexual violence which are not justified by context," said ACB. “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.”

Volition, "Saints Row 4's" developer, said it will create a special version of the game just for Australia. This new version will cut out the sex and drug use, as part of the ACB's recommendations. 


"Saints Row 4" was due to be released on August 22 in Australia, but there's no word on when the new version will be complete and whether it'll still make that deadline. 

"Saints Row 4" is an action-adventure, open-world video game that takes place five years after "Saints Row: The Third." The Saints are kidnapped and placed in a virtual simulation after an alien invasion occurs, and the Zin Empire must be destroyed. 

In January of this year, new classification guidelines were released to include an R18+ category. This particular option means no one under 18 years of age can purchase the game. 

The ACB's decision not to classify "Saints Row 4" marks the first time this has happened since the new rating was released. 

While the new category means that racier content can pass with a classification for adults only, the ACB feels that this doesn't mean anything will pass

"Saints Row 4" will still be available in the U.S. on August 20 and in Europe on August 23. It will be released for Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and PC (Windows). 

Source: The Guardian



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Umm...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/25/2013 4:03:28 PM , Rating: 1
Hey fascist, that's some good propaganda about censorship and trampling the rights of the individual there. Is there a Totalitarian newsletter where I can read more of this drivel?

quote:
Australia thankfully has had the sense to enact sensible gun laws in response to the Port Auther massacre in the 1990s.


Mass shootings are statistical outliers that make a big impression, get a lot of press, but don't tell the real story.

Australia's gun control policy has been a massive failure. The previous 25 years before the gun ban, Australia violent gun-related crime and armed robbery with firearms were on a steady decline. However this is the statistics from just one year after the gun ban:

-Australia-wide, homicides were up 3.2 percent
-Australia-wide, assaults were up 8.6 percent
-Australia-wide, armed robberies were up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent).
-Hot Burglaries are up 300% (where the intruders come in while you are home and knows that you are home).
-In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms were up 300 percent.


And yet the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said, "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm."

It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense does not end violent crime - it just makes victims more vulnerable! Society benefits from ordinary people who accept the responsibilities of firearm ownership - not from gun-control laws.


RE: Umm...
By StevoLincolnite on 6/25/2013 7:45:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Mass shootings are statistical outliers that make a big impression, get a lot of press, but don't tell the real story.


Lets be realistic.
Since the gun bans in Australia there has been no mass gun massacres.
Prior to the implementation of the gun laws, 112 people were killed in 11 mass shootings.

Homicide rates in Australia are only 1.2 per 100,000 people, with less than 15 percent of these resulting from firearms.
In the USA however it's Homicide rate is 5 per 100,000 people, with the majority being gun related.

But you are correct, it was in a decline before the bans were introduced, but you can't just ban guns and hope everything will end well.
The Australian people as a whole don't want guns in society and they still don't. - And frankly, it's not like I feel in anymore danger knowing I don't have a gun.

http://guncontrol.org.au/

Besides, you can still buy and own a gun in Australia, you just need a license.


RE: Umm...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/26/2013 2:43:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Since the gun bans in Australia there has been no mass gun massacres.


Yes but as I already explained, so what? You don't have a magic eight ball, you cannot tell me for a fact you would have no mass shootings in the same time period without the gun ban.

And as I've explained, mass shootings don't tell the whole story.

quote:
The Australian people as a whole don't want guns in society and they still don't


I don't believe you can speak for them as a "whole". Logic tells me if the Australian people didn't want guns, the Government wouldn't have had to force over 600,000 guns to be surrendered from it's citizens, and waste over 500 million dollars doing it. If the people didn't want guns, why did they own so many?

quote:
In the USA however it's Homicide rate is 5 per 100,000 people, with the majority being gun related.


Yeah well not to stereotype, but I'm not aware of Australia having the kinds of problems we have. When you share a poorly defended border with massive drug-exporting countries just to your south, you're probably going to have lots more violence.

If you looked deeper into those numbers, you would see the number of those crimes where a lawfully owned handgun was involved were far lower. Like I said, gun control just impacts law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care.


RE: Umm...
By croc on 6/26/2013 8:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
Mate, your country has its rules. If we Aussies don't like those rules, we don't have to go to the US.

Do us the same favour, OK? You've made it clear that you think that we Aussies are oppressed, fascist socialist pigs unworthy of your presence anyway, so just.... don't.


RE: Umm...
By Mint on 6/26/2013 10:35:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Logic tells me if the Australian people didn't want guns, the Government wouldn't have had to force over 600,000 guns to be surrendered from it's citizens
You call that logic? He said "as a whole" Australia doesn't want guns, i.e. the vast majority. He didn't say 99.9% of them don't. Gun fans generally have more than one, so it's very likely that 600,000 figure represents only 200,000 people, or less than 1% of their population.

Use some critical thought before aimlessly citing numbers without context.

quote:
Like I said, gun control just impacts law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care.
The point of gun control is to reduce the circulation and production of guns in the long haul, making it harder for at least a good fraction of criminals to get a gun (obviously you can't stop all or even most). You should also see effects like robbers being unarmed if they expect most households to be gun free (if they get caught with a gun then sentences are way more severe), whereas in the US their mentality is shoot-or-be-shot.

Having said that, I don't think second amendment proponents are unreasonable in the US. There are so many guns in the US that gun control would be an exercise in futility. It'd take 20+ years to start seeing any of the benefits I mentioned above. The homeowner in my example above also faces the same shoot-or-be-shot dilemma, so I see their point.

So yes, you're right that circumstances matter, and the US is pretty much a hopeless case.

Still, things like the "stand your ground" law are scary. If Zimmerman walks, then anyone can kill whomever they want as long as they bang their head on something to show there was a struggle. That'd be an awful precedent, especially for minorities that get targeted for whatever reason.


RE: Umm...
By Scoot2000 on 6/25/2013 11:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
Your post is full of rubbish you've heard from the NRA or other gun advocates. If you want to see some discussion of this, here's a link.
http://theconversation.com/faking-waves-how-the-nr...

If you're interested in the real situation, it's more complex.
I would like to note two things though.

1.
Crime in Australia as a whole is not worse. There have been no massacres in the last 17 years and the 17 before 1996 had several. None of this can definitely be attributed to gun control. There are all sorts of issues to consider like other changes in society and how crime is reported. It's unlikely to be considered rationally in much U.S. debate in any case because it's so politicized. Anybody claiming that gun control doesn't work based on the Australian example is hard to comprehend though. At best, you could argue that it's hard to prove a positive impact. Then again, Australia had no gun problems in comparison to the U.S. to begin with.

2.
The U.S. has a serious problem with gun crime. Which empirical evidence do you want to see, take a pick?
The most telling, the most need of addressing I would think, is the intentional homicide rate in comparison to other developed countries. 4.8 times higher than Australia. 8 times higher than Germany. 12 times higher than Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...
Yes, this is for the most part firearm deaths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_... about 75% of them in the U.S. In Australia, it's about 13%.
Let's consider why this might be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_ca...
Gun ownership could be part of it, but look at the rate of ownership in places like France and Finland. They own a lot of guns but maybe they have some better controls.

There might be some sane argument against blaming this on gun availability and lack of control in relation to other OECD countries. If there is, this other difference needs to be identified and corrected because the United States is far, far worse in this measurement.


RE: Umm...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/26/2013 3:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
I got all my figures from the Australian Government itself, NOT the NRA. Nice try though.

You know for the record, I don't really care what Australia does with their guns. I'm just tired of seeing it brought up in that holier-than-thou tone of voice.


RE: Umm...
By MZperX on 6/26/2013 12:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
I have no idea why you got downvoted. The irrational fear of firearms (hoplophobia) displayed by supposedly educated adults is bordering on insanity. It is a sign of immaturity and is basically a projection of distrust in their own ability to responsibly handle firearms onto the rest of society. Subconsciously these people feel that "Since I don't think I can be trusted with a firearm, no one can be." Then they take this one step further and use irrational fear to justify draconian censorship of even images of firearms or anything related to them. It’s embarrassing.

Gun control kills, every time. And censorship is tyranny.


RE: Umm...
By Mint on 6/27/2013 8:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is a sign of immaturity and is basically a projection of distrust in their own ability to responsibly handle firearms onto the rest of society.
Umm, what? Since when do we trust everyone to be responsible? I suppose we should get rid of age limits for purchasing alcohol and cigarettes? Let's get rid of licenses and mandatory insurance for driving too, because hey, what's the worst that can happen since everyone is responsible?


RE: Umm...
By MZperX on 7/23/2013 1:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
I just saw this, so let me get it straight. It sounds like you are making the argument that since there are age limits on alcohol purchases and cigarettes, any depiction of smoking or drinking should be censored in movies and video games. Also, since privilege of driving is regulated by age limits and other restrictions, video games and movies with any content that has to do with cars or driving need to be censored. That about covers it, right?

I'm saying because the original article and the comments dealt with censoring gun related content which apparently you feel is okay since gun ownership and use has limitations (such as age and criminal or mental health background).

Are you aware this argument makes you sound like a lunatic? My point was that none of these activities or their movie or video game depiction should be censored. At all. And that guns are only being singled out because there is an epidemic of crazy people who suffer from a condition known as irrational fear of inanimate objects.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki