Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters of the Board's stance argue that classification systems are entitled to treat categories of content differently rather than applying a single sliding scale, and that depictions of drug use carrying a tangible in-game reward (a gameplay 'buff') raise distinct concerns from fictional slasher violence, since they risk normalising or trivialising real-world substance use, particularly for younger or more impressionable players who may access the game despite ratings controls. They would add that regulators are simply applying long-standing, publicly known guidelines consistently, and that a developer aware of these rules months in advance bears responsibility for designing within them rather than expecting exceptions.

The case against

Critics contend the decision exposes an incoherent hierarchy of harm, in which a game can freely depict a masked killer stalking and murdering teenagers yet be refused classification over a minor, non-glorified reference to cannabis, suggesting the framework is out of step with community attitudes and inconsistently enforced. They would argue that adult players and a mature market are capable of engaging with such content responsibly, that the collateral withdrawal from New Zealand punishes consumers in a jurisdiction whose own regulator raised no objection, and that opaque, seemingly arbitrary classification outcomes chill creative decisions far more than they protect anyone from genuine harm.