# Talk:Saints Row IV

I can't believe this talk page is empty.

Removed the voice cast list from the article per video game scope guideline #10: voice cast mentions should be in prose (not lists) and brief, if worth mentioning at all. czar ⨹ 07:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saints Row IV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 21:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@David Fuchs, courtesy ping czar ⨹ 12:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
General:
I think the article presumes a bit too much familiarity with the game. For instance, the lead says The player is free to explore the city while completing main and side missions at their leisure., but there’s never been any mention of the city at this point.
Likewise, I think care should be taken to look at each instance of comparisons with previous games and whether it should be used. Readers shouldn’t be expected to have foreknowledge of the other games, and referring to something shorthandedly because it was in another game doesn’t help aid their understanding. If all the Saints Row games are open world shooters, telling me that it’s like this is less useful than fluff.
Article is on the shorter side, but I don’t see issues with comprehensiveness for the GA criteria.
While I think there’s plenty there to satisfy GA requirements, the structure of the reception section seems off to me, in that it privileges a select few reviewers heavily rather than deep-diving into aspects of the game.
Prose:
Some reviewers noted its improved treatment of women. — without any context in the lead and knowledge of the games, this seems like a really weird sentence. “improved treatment of female characters” or something else would probably be more accurate.
The dubstep gun, which Polygon described as "iconic", inspired a functioning replica. — Wouldn’t “functioning replica” imply that this worked as a gun that bombed people with electronic music? (Also, at least where it’s placed this seems like irrelevant trivia, especially since the publishers produced a version that shipped with the game.)
Think swapping the first and second sentences of the gameplay section would be a good idea. It’s odd to launch into a logline of the plot without introducing anything about the gameplay.
On the same note, is there any reason there’s not a standalone plot section?
The studio announced Saints Row 4 two months later, which was produced by Koch Media brand Deep Silver. “Produced” is nebulous and never clarified. Just using “published” would probably be better here, since otherwise it sounds like Deep Silver created the game.
I’d explain the game’s origin’s as an expansion first, instead of doubling back to it after the first sentence of the second paragraph.
Images:
Only one image, and File:SaintsRowIV.jpg is appropriately labeled and tagged per NFCC.
References:
Refs look good, properly formatted, and archived (yay!)
Spot-checked statements sourced to current refs 2, 4, 13, 24, and 26, didn’t see any issues.
Overall, it’s a solid article, I’d just like to see some of the above points addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@David Fuchs, appreciate the review. I think I've covered the above, if you'd like to take a look. As for the few references to SR3, I think the usage is on par with the amount to which the game references/uses parts of its predecessor, and how very often the sources made these comparisons. So every mention of SR3 is purposeful, including that the setting was nearly identical, despite not actually needing to go into detail about what was identical about it. Similarly, the sources did not cover the plot in any depth, which I would contend echoes the game's lack of significant plot. I also think a primary-sourced "characters doing things" plot is best kept for Wikia, as it would not be interesting (as the sources agreed in practice) or of encyclopedic use. I usually almagamate the reviews, but I felt it was preferable to present the reviews by reviewer this time as their points were more nuanced than general impressions of graphics, music, etc. czar ⨹ 11:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. Since you've addressed the major issues I had I will pass as GA.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Did you know nominations/Saints Row IV}} czar ⨹ 03:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Saints Row 4 is where the series makes a sharp left turn away from crime drama with wacky comedy elements into full blown bizarro land, which turned some people off but gave Volition an excuse to make a really good Crackdown game at a time when nobody else was willing to.
Hillier, Brenna (July 26, 2017). "This week's Humble Bundle includes the best Crackdown successor and gaming's greatest flight mechanics". VG247. Retrieved August 18, 2018.
czar 19:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Diff of disputed content
Link to GA reviewed version – section: Release and downloadable content (has had consensus for 5 years)
User452 is disputing the above content, you can see their objection in the diff provided. Discussion has also taken place on my talk page, and has now escalated to edit warring and shouting at me. Bringing the discussion here for other editor's to weigh in and so User452 can shout here instead. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

User452, it is clearly and properly sourced. Stop shouting and reverting. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I think they have a point. User452 is complaining about the specific wording "..an optional mission that involved an anal probe weapon...", User452's point about the weapon not being in the cut mission appears to be correct and is supported by this EuroGamer reference that clearly quotes the official Facebook page in saying that "this is and always has been a bonus weapon for the Season Pass. If it is a DLC bonus weapon, it can't be in the actual cut mission of the original game. The weapon was obviously already in the code waiting for activation. This Kotaku report on the original rating refusal makes it clear that they are two separate problems. Our article reads as though the weapon is part of the mission, which I agree it is not. Additionally, User452, THIS is how you raise an issue with an article, not your way. - X201 (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, X201.  It's nice to know someone has some decent reading comprehension around here.
In addition the those new articles you've linked, both of the IGN references in the article already support my point - that is what is particularly perplexing about this.  Anyone who actually bothers to read the IGN articles can see that that sentence doesn't match what IGN said.
However, I disagree with the characterization that I am "complaining": I didn't "complain", I fixed the problem by finding and restoring the previous correct paragraph, only to have it reverted by "Isaidnoway" - an apt name for someone unswayed by evidence.
MY WAY was to fix the problem by restoring the previous correct paragraph.  Isaidnoway's way was to restore false information despite the references in the article supporting my point, even after I explained the problem.  Isaidnoway's response?  To complain.
User452 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Isaidnoway — Let me break this down for you.
First, let's look at the facts

The Rectifier Probe weapon is not featured in the Psychosomatic mission, and no news articles have ever claimed that the weapon is featured in the mission.
The Rectifier Probe weapon and the Psychosomatic mission are two separate things, which the Australian Classification Board cited for two separate issues.
The Rectifier Probe is a weapon in a single-item DLC which is included in the Season Pass bundle as well as for individual purchase.
The optional Psychosomatic mission takes place later in the game, and does NOT feature the weapon.  And no news article ever claimed it did.
The mission name is "Psychosomatic", while the QUEST name is "Girls Night Out", leading to that name often being used instead.
(Additionally, the Rectifier Probe DLC remains unavailable in Australia, as a search of the Steam forums will verify.  This is an unimportant detail which is unrelated to my point, but it is a fact nonetheless.  All news sources accepted the publisher's pre-release statement that the weapon would still be available, and none of them followed up post-release.  So, wikipedia is free to make the false assertion that Australia has access to the weapon, because all of the pre-release articles say that the publisher said it "will".)
Second, let's look at the history

Before 16 March 2015, the information was accurate. (Apart from using the quest name as the mission name.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saints_Row_IV&oldid=651563113#Controversy
"Saints Row IV was refused classification in Australia, stating "interactive, visual depictions of implied sexual violence which are not justified by context" in reference to "the Rectifier" weapon. The board also stated that the game includes "elements of illicit or prescribed drug use related to incentives or rewards" referring to the mission "Girls Night Out" in which Shaundi takes an alien drug to gain superpowers."
This version clearly and correctly stated that there were 2 issues: "implied sexual violence" in reference to the weapon, and also "drug use related to rewards" referring to the mission.
Since 16 March 2015, the information has been inaccurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saints_Row_IV&direction=next&oldid=651568002#Release_and_downloadable_content
"but was later accepted when modified to remove an optional mission[15] that involved an anal probe weapon and incentivized drug use.[16]"
This version clearly and incorrectly states that the mission involves BOTH the weapon and the drugs.  This is not true, and is not supported by the references.
Luckily for me it's worded with the weapon mentioned first and the drugs second, so you can't weasel out of it by claiming it's just an ambiguous "and".  I guess you can still try to claim the "and" is ambiguous, but reading it as "(an optional mission[15] that involved an anal probe weapon) and (incentivized drug use[16])" would be even more wrong than claiming they're both part of the mission.
Third, let's look at the references

There are 2 relevant references - the 15 and 16 in the above quote - both from IGN.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/29/saints-row-iv-refused-classification-in-australia-again
An alien anal probe weapon and a side-mission that featured the use of “alien narcotics” related to in-game superpowers were the reasons the Classification Board cited for the ban.
Note the word and, because they are separate issues.
Note that this does not say: "a side-mission that featured an alien anal probe weapon and the use of “alien narcotics”".
https://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/02/saints-row-iv-cleared-for-australian-release
A single, optional side mission has been removed in order to comply with Australia’s classification guidelines. The mission contained the use of a substance Volition referred to as ‘alien narcotics’ which improved certain superpowers temporarily within the game.
The anal probe weapon, which was highlighted as problematic when the Classification Board initially rated Saints Row IV RC back in June, is still due to be available in Australia as part of the Season Pass DLC package.
IGN at no point claims that the mission contained the weapon, only that the mission contained drugs.
IGN even specifically mentions that the mission has been removed, but the weapon has not, and has this quote: "The rectifier weapon will be available as part of a DLC package as originally intended."
The IGN references already fully support my point that the weapon is not part of the mission, but here are some other articles with additional details:
https://kotaku.com/alien-anal-probe-gets-saints-row-iv-banned-in-austr-579208506
https://www.refused-classification.com/censorship/games/saints-row-4.html
Meanwhile, I cannot find a single source which claims the weapon is featured in the mission.  Because it isn't.
Question 1: Does the IGN article say "a side-mission that features (a weapon AND drugs)", or does it say "(A weapon) AND (a side mission that features drugs)"?
Question 2: How does it make any sense to come to the conclusion that the weapon was part of the mission, since the cited article clearly states that the weapon was always DLC?
I expect answers to both of these questions, and an apology.
However, please don't correct the sentence.  It has been wrong for 5 years already, so let's just leave it incorrect forever!
Who cares about accuracy or correctly comprehending referenced articles anyway?
User452 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This was a pretty simple fix as the detail is trivia anyway. It did not require all that explanation. A matter-of-fact message to the talk page is sufficient. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me, also agree that amount of detail is trivial. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is a "good article" now apparently despite the incorrect plot summary (GA. does that mean "gay", by any chance? 🤔🤣🤷‍♂️ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sasVW3debSc). I played the game recently despite the shitty "simulation" story and saw that the ending mentioned in plot summary here is not accurate at all. I am talkin' about the part that says:
"Otherwise, the Saints learn they can restore Earth using time-travel, after discovering that Zinyak captured several historical figures and placed them in suspended animation."
At least the plot summary I 'membered reading is still there (the part about restoring Earth). Anyway, they learn that they can visit Earth using time travel before it gets destroyed. They can't actually "restore" it, no. As in, it will still get destroyed by Zinyak but they can travel back in time as far back as they want to still enjoy visiting Earth or whatever. And narration by "Jane Austen" in after credits scene suggests that they were using time travel to "shape history" and eventually the "novelty" of doing so wore off and thas when they decided to awaken her from suspended animation.
One of you "real life" NPCs should do the correction though. I am not gonna. Besides, I am not even an "approved wikipedia editor". "Anyone can edit" is jus' an illusion after all. Like "time" is also jus' an illusion apparently. 🤣🤷‍♂️
-Playa
"He thinks he is the 'playa' and we are all 'real life' NPCs!" --Random "real life" NPC 106.202.47.93 (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)