It has been confirmed that 'Grand Theft Auto VI' (hereinafter 'GTA 6') came close to a rating refusal during its classification review in South Korea. In the initial review held on September 10 by the Game Content Rating Board (GCRB), the vote ended in a dead heat of 3 votes for Adults Only (hereinafter 'Adults Only') and 3 votes for rating refusal. After having its decision postponed twice, 'GTA 6' eventually received an Adults Only rating by an 8-to-1 vote in its third review on October 16.
According to the meeting minutes for the rating review of 'GTA 6' obtained by Inven on the 12th, concerns among gamers prior to release about a domestic rating refusal were not groundless rumors. Throughout three review sessions, committee members clashed over out-of-context genital nudity and the legal grounds for a rating refusal.
Beyond merely rating a single blockbuster title, the process laid bare all the challenges facing private rating boards at once.
Decision Postponed Twice: The Core Issue of 'Out-of-Context Genital Nudity'
The rating application for 'GTA 6' was submitted on September 1. When the initial review on September 10 resulted in a 3–3 tie between Adults Only and Refusal, the committee chose to postpone the decision following a recommendation for modification rather than reaching a conclusion. Due to security concerns, a playable build was not delivered to the committee until September 28. The second review on October 2 postponed the decision once more, citing the need for "sufficient gameplay examination." A meeting scheduled for October 8 was canceled due to lack of a quorum. Finally, in the third review on October 16, the rating was finalized with 8 votes for Adults Only and 1 vote for Refusal. The content descriptors were assigned as Sensuality, Violence, Crime, Drugs, and Language.
The reason the game came close to refusal was not violence, but sensuality. What the committee members took issue with was the frequent background appearance of male genital nudity without any sexual context. Opinions coalesced around the view that depictions of violence, crime, and drugs were not significantly different from 'GTA 5'. In 2013, 'GTA 5' received an Adults Only rating with content descriptors for Sensuality, Violence, Language, Drugs, Crime, and Gambling.
Behind the debate was a recent revision of the rating regulations. Prior to the September 2025 revision, the classification regulations treated cases where "genitals, etc., are not fully exposed but suggestive bodily exposure is excessively expressed" as subject to an Adults Only rating. After the revision, this wording changed to "cases where suggestive bodily exposure is directly and specifically depicted." This relaxed the standard under which genital exposure automatically triggered a rating refusal. 'GTA 6' served as the first test bed applying this loosened language to a major AAA title.
The issues went beyond sensuality. Because a rating refusal is an administrative action that effectively blocks a game's domestic release altogether, members repeatedly pointed out the need for clear legal grounds. It was noted that the guideline handbook used for judging sensuality refusals carries no legal binding force, and that no refusal criteria even exist for crime and drug depictions. The limitations of verification—whether the committee could realistically inspect a game whose main story alone spans dozens of hours—were also put on the chopping block. The pressure of South Korea being the sole country to issue a refusal while 10 overseas rating boards had already granted adult ratings was also brought up.
The final outcome was an Adults Only rating. However, the documents do not reveal how the recommendation for modification issued in the first review was handled. Committee members were acutely aware that this decision would set a precedent for future titles. Proposals followed in quick succession to revise regulations on out-of-context genital nudity and establish internal rules.
1. First Review on September 10: 3 Votes for Adults Only vs. 3 Votes for Refusal
During the first review, committee members spent about 30 minutes debating the level of sensuality. Up to this point, the committee had not yet received an actual playable build. Key statements from committee members are presented below in minute format, edited for clarity based on the original document without altering their intent.
Arguments for Refusal
Member A: It is not that genital exposure is completely forbidden, but it has never appeared this frequently without context. We have allowed a certain degree of genital exposure where there is narrative justification. However, even outside of explicit sexual acts, a rating has never been issued for out-of-context genital nudity like this. Typically, in such cases, we issued recommendations for modification.
The level of sensuality is definitely much stronger than in the predecessor. Under the old rating regulations, any genital exposure resulted in an automatic refusal. To allow some leniency for exposure that might be contextually necessary, the wording was softened slightly in the recent revision. I do not believe genital exposure to this extent falls within acceptable limits under the current standard.
Arguments for Adults Only (Approval)
Member B: According to the rating guidelines, a rating refusal requires overall sexual acts to be depicted in a specific and explicit manner, including the depiction of body parts such as genitals, vulva, pubic hair, and anus. In this game, scenes with heavy exposure are not particularly sexual. Conversely, in sexual scenes, exposure is limited. We must judge the content holistically.
This game has stronger criminal elements in its content than violence. However, since there are no refusal regulations concerning criminal elements, I believe an Adults Only rating is appropriate. Drugs are also depicted specifically and explicitly, down to the player controlling the method of ingestion. I view this as quite problematic, but as there are no refusal criteria for it either, we have no choice but to let it pass.
Member C: The point that criminal elements cannot be used as grounds for refusal is correct. Aside from that, even comparing it to 'GTA 5', which GRAC rated, it is hard to argue that the depictions of cruelty, crime, or drugs have become worse. If we respect the precedent set for its predecessor, nothing has significantly changed other than sensuality.
Member A: Since the rating regulations are a higher norm than the guidelines, shouldn't we follow the regulations?
Member C: Even taking that into consideration, it is hard to say that elements other than sensuality have become significantly stronger compared to the previous title.
Member D: If we respect the predecessor, and considering ratings will be issued worldwide along with media reports, there will also be a burden if South Korea alone holds back the rating.
Member C: Even so, we must consider whether gamers actually perceive frequent male genital exposure as sexually suggestive. From the perspective of gamers playing this title, and considering our society tends to be somewhat more lenient toward male exposure, we should reflect on whether this truly reaches a level that arouses sexual intent.
The vote resulted in a 3–3 tie. Member E summarized: "The vote split 3 to 3 between Adults Only and Refusal. It is ambiguous whether the exposure stems from player interaction in the game or appears as background exposure regardless." The committee chose to postpone the decision following a recommendation for modification. They communicated the reason for postponement to the publisher and asked if there was any intention to make modifications.
2. Second Review on October 2: Postponed Again for 'Sufficient Gameplay'
According to the progress report document, the playable build was only delivered on September 28 due to security issues. The reviewing researcher played the game focusing on key contested areas from the Monday afternoon of the week of the second review until the morning of the meeting itself. Given that the publisher stated following just the main storyline takes dozens of hours, it was explained that completing the story within the review window was difficult. The report added that because it is an open-ended game with high freedom, it is difficult to reliably find hidden elements unless disclosed by the developer.
The researcher's gameplay report served as the foundation for evaluating sensuality. Genital exposure scenes mostly appeared as one-off mission backgrounds and did not lead to sexual interactions. Because the in-game map is vast, the location containing exposure scenes was only found after requesting maps from the publisher multiple times. Once there, the player could not engage in any sexual interaction and could only hit another character, ending with the character being arrested by police. The researcher also presented case studies of other games that received ratings despite containing genital nudity as reference material.
Issues with Gameplay Verification
Member E: This is a sensitive game, so I wonder if it's acceptable for us not to inspect everything beyond what the publisher pointed out; that is our biggest burden. Although seven overseas rating bodies have issued ratings, we don't know what else might be there besides what the publisher disclosed.
Member C: If a rating is granted and an unexamined portion causes a societal controversy, that concerns me. Conversely, if we deny a rating, we will face criticism for issuing a refusal without thoroughly inspecting the game. We must examine this as prudently as possible.
Member F: For other games as well, we do not play through every single scenario before rating them. If something was missed in 'GTA', the fault lies with the publisher for failing to fulfill its reporting obligations. It is practically impossible for the committee to examine every single thing just to grant a rating.
Arguments for Refusal
Member D: I don't think gameplay is significantly different from GTA V. The graphics have improved and content has expanded. What trips us up is that there is far too much genital exposure. It feels like the publisher keeps pushing the line. It's a matter of whether we condone that line each time an entry in the series comes out.
Member A: There may be other games that received ratings despite containing exposure. However, there is likely a considerable difference in detail and frequency. The guidelines state that even showing a silhouette can warrant a refusal. Here too, it's just static visuals without interaction. If it were only a nude resort, one could argue it is not obscene. But there are other suggestive scenes. Suggestive scenes between the main protagonist couple themselves are not grounds for refusal. However, when seeing this kind of exposure alongside such scenes, it becomes hard to view it as mere black humor.
Member H: The basic principle of rating refusal applies when bodily exposure or sexual acts are depicted explicitly or excessively so as to disrupt social order. By that standard, the current bodily exposure is sufficiently explicit and excessive.
Member B: Exposure isn't limited to character creation or special isolated instances. It is an area visible throughout gameplay. Based solely on the submitted content, I doubt we can pass it as Adults Only unless we change our criteria.
Arguments for Adults Only (Approval)
Member F: The level of explicitness is high. However, current standards target cases where sexual context or obscenity is prominent. When refusing a rating, guidelines are important, but legal aspects are even more critical. Since there are specific statutory clauses allowing refusal, we must examine whether the content fits what is stipulated in the law.
Member E: We must carefully evaluate how much space such scenes occupy relative to the game's overall content. Since it is an open-ended game, players can avoid those areas if they wish.
Legal Grounds for Refusal
Member F: Even if we use guidelines to determine ratings up to Adults Only, a rating refusal is not a matter of classifying content—it is a major issue of restricting rights by blocking market release. We cannot look solely at our own standards; we must check whether we have legal grounds sufficient to restrict those rights. We must also consider whether we can defend that we haven't restricted rights beyond the refusal criteria set by law.
Member C: In past lawsuits over rating refusals or revocations, the specific statutory provision relied upon had to be cited. If we refuse a rating, answering that it 'violates classification criteria' will not suffice—we must conclude which specific article of law it is based on.
Member E: If we choose refusal rather than Adults Only, we must secure that legal rationale to a sound extent.
Overseas Ratings and the Burden of 'Korea-Only Refusal'
Member E: The reason we are proceeding with Phase 2 of the private transition in late October is precisely to align realistically with international standards rather than imposing excessive rating regulations. If overseas rating bodies are granting ratings and South Korea alone refuses, it creates a significant burden.
Member D: If this game fails to receive a rating only in our country, it will become a massive controversy. Globally, we would be the only ones withholding a rating. Had it been made to GTA V standards, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they keep pushing the boundary. Seeing that even Arab nations have approved it makes us hesitate. Since this series was originally known for controversy over violence, we judged it based on violence in the past.
Member C: Whether we refuse it or issue a rating, we must decide with the justification that we inspected it as thoroughly as possible.
Member E: Issuing a rating refusal blocks the release. News reports will surface whether a rating is granted or not, so whether we played it sufficiently is what matters most. Once news breaks, defending our decision falls on the committee, so researchers must review it thoroughly for us to stand our ground. Refusal is the maximum authority we can exercise, and we must bear that responsibility. If simply being uncomfortable with content becomes the core of our judgment, we won't be able to defend it later.
Regulations and Precedents
Member B: Further inspection is necessary, but if a rating is actually granted, we should take this opportunity to review changing the regulation that treats simple genital exposure as grounds for refusal. If we refuse, there is no need to change regulations. But if we issue an Adults Only rating, it would be proper to amend sensuality regulations so that out-of-context genital exposure can pass with an Adults Only rating. That said, I am not certain if that aligns with our legal system.
Member C: I urge caution. This is not something that ends with rating just this one game. If a rating is granted, it also establishes our direction for games that follow. If necessary, standards must be revised.
Member E: We plan to hold an industry advisory meeting in Seoul in mid-October regarding the guidelines. Though set to be made public in late October, they were drafted purely internally without gathering external feedback. It is proper to hear at least minimum feedback from industry operators and reflect what can be amended before making them public.
The committee postponed the decision once more, citing the need for further gameplay evaluation. The October 8 meeting was not held due to lack of a quorum.
3. Third Review on October 16: Adults Only by 8 to 1
All nine committee members attended the third review. The progress report document outlined considerations leading up to this review, placing Article 3 of the Rating Regulations—stipulating that "classification aims for international and universal values"—and current overseas rating statuses at the top. As of October 16, ten rating bodies including North America's ESRB, Europe's PEGI, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, UAE, South Africa, and Brazil had issued adult ratings for 'GTA 6'. Saudi Arabia and the UAE granted ratings for ages 21 and older. Japan's CERO had not yet reached a decision.
Legal grounds were compiled alongside. The progress report noted that evaluation factors in the handbook used to judge sensuality refusals were created internally by the committee referencing training materials from GRAC, and carried no legal or regulatory binding force. As legal grounds for refusal, Article 22, Paragraph 2 and Article 32, Paragraph 2, Item 3 of the Game Industry Promotion Act, along with Article 44-7 of the Information and Communications Network Act, were examined. A note next to the Information and Communications Network Act provision read "Applicability check required."
Researchers reported results from playing the build further. In genital exposure scenes, no sexual interaction was possible, nor did scenes with higher harm than previously submitted footage appear. Problematic scenes featured in leaked overseas footage—specifically where characters were completely stripped of clothing or where players could manipulate the camera to view genitalia—were also not found in the current build.
Researchers viewed 'GTA 6' as an action-adventure game rather than one centered on sexual acts. Scenes where male and female protagonists build affinity leading to sexual acts are viewable only as cutscenes, showing exposure up to the breasts, without showing genitalia. The reference game introduced for comparison featured background genital nudity akin to a nudist colony and had been released domestically. However, researchers noted that the frequency of genital exposure in 'GTA 6' was clearly higher.
Arguments for Refusal
Member A: Suppose we consider genre characteristics to permit background genital exposure in adventures or RPGs while remaining conservative only with suggestive games. I am concerned that background genital exposure will frequently appear in future RPGs as a result.
Arguments for Adults Only
Member B: Individual perceptions will vary, but a game previously submitted under a content modification report felt even more sensual because it actively pursued suggestive scenes, even though exposure was covered.
Member C: It appears that they intentionally covered genital exposure in explicitly sexual scenes, while allowing exposure in background settings.
Member D: Games are developed with a target audience in mind anyway. Games that lacked such elements won't all suddenly gravitate toward this. Rather than over-interpreting, it would be better to evaluate this game on its own merits.
Member E: Unlike determining age ratings, a refusal is an administrative sanction that requires clear statutory grounds, and I understand there are relevant legal precedents. Refusing a rating based solely on classification regulations cannot serve as grounds because those are merely internal administrative rules. We need to find clear statutory grounds, and that part concerns me.
Member F: Taking this case as an opportunity, how about establishing internal rules to treat non-sexual, simple genital exposure as an Adults Only rating, similar to film ratings?
Member G: Whether something is obscene or not inherently involves subjectivity. Each committee member should make their own judgment.
The vote resulted in 8 votes for Adults Only and 1 vote for Refusal. Even in the final review, a dissenting vote for refusal remained until the end. Content descriptors were finalized as Sensuality, Violence, Crime, Drugs, and Language. Horror and Gambling, which had been flagged as harmful categories in the preliminary review report, were excluded during the committee's review.
The publisher had requested that the classification result remain non-public until the release date on the 19th. This means the earlier reports were leaks.
4. What Changed After the Recommendation for Modification?
'GTA 6' is set to launch on November 19. However, it remains unconfirmed how the recommendation for modification issued by the committee in the first review was handled. According to the progress report, following the 3–3 vote on September 10, the committee informed the publisher of the reasons for postponement and asked whether it intended to make modifications. What response the publisher provided, or whether specific scenes were actually modified, does not appear in subsequent meeting minutes or progress reports.
Records from the third review also shed no light on whether modifications were made. Researchers reported that problematic scenes from leaked overseas videos were not identified in the current build. Whether the publisher removed those scenes in accordance with the recommendation for modification, or whether they were absent from the launch build from the start, remains unknown.
Conversely, out-of-context male genital exposure—the primary bone of contention in the first review—remained a topic of debate in the third review as well. Researchers noted that the frequency of genital exposure in 'GTA 6' was clearly higher than in the reference game. It is highly likely that the final judgment was delivered without major alterations to the scenes that prompted the recommendation for modification in the first place.
If so, the reason the vote swung from 3–3 to 8–1 appears to lie not in the game itself, but in the evaluation process. The committee played the build directly and confirmed that exposure scenes involved no sexual interaction. They also repeatedly emphasized that because refusal is an administrative sanction, clear legal grounds are essential. The fact that 10 overseas rating bodies had already issued adult ratings also played a role in the decision. That the conclusion was reached after careful deliberation deserves positive recognition.
The gap in legal grounds also remains. Article 32, Paragraph 2, Item 3 of the Game Industry Promotion Act, examined as grounds for refusal, prohibits the production and importation of games that "excessively depict crime, violence, obscenity, etc., likely to disrupt social order." This is the exact provision against which gamers filed a constitutional complaint in October 2024, alleging a violation of the principle of clarity. In effect, the review members themselves questioned whether a single ambiguous provision could be used to block the release of a major title.
What the recommendation process for modification actually achieved also remains an open question. If the committee requested modifications and the publisher did not make them, the recommendation served as little more than a tool to delay the decision. If the publisher did modify portions of the game, knowing which modifications shifted the judgment would serve as the most useful benchmark for future titles. Either way, it is information the industry needs to know.
In the end, there is still no rule in place to indicate whether a future game presenting similar scenes will pass or be refused. How far out-of-context exposure should be permitted, and which specific statutory article would ground a refusal, are questions the committee members raised themselves. To these must be added the question of what actually changed after recommendations for modification. Presenting those answers as transparent, public criteria is the next challenge facing private rating oversight.
