Video Game Question

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah; I'm not a big fan of them; what's your point?

They're often touted as heros of the community, but they can be killed in games. But then they draw the line at kids?

But don't games like True Crime and the Hitman series (where you can slaughter everyone you see) already have adult ratings?

Manhunt basically had to get remade to get it even in the stores because everybody was banning it.

Ashley in RE4 looks like a kid.. I know she's supposed to be 18, but I'd bet she's really 15 or 16 in Japan.

However in Bioshock, I think that's the only current example you can actually kill a kid without a mod. The old fallout series you can kill kids with lazers. However in Fallout 3 you can't unless you mod it.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah; I'm not a big fan of them; what's your point?

my point is that you dont understand that theres a difference between shooting a grown man who is a police officer and shooting a child is because you hate cops. im just explaining your confusion.

So then what's the real difference between AO and Mature? Levels of gore? Because games rated M already have profanity and blood.

And kids aren't in games, because they don't want people killing them in the game? But adults are fine? That's dumb logic and reeks of PC.

Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
my point is that you dont understand that theres a difference between shooting a grown man who is a police officer and shooting a child is because you hate cops. im just explaining your confusion.

No, I don't understand their selection process of who is and isn't ok to kill in games.

yes thats... what i said.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So then what's the real difference between AO and Mature? Levels of gore? Because games rated M already have profanity and blood.

And kids aren't in games, because they don't want people killing them in the game? But adults are fine? That's dumb logic and reeks of PC.

Police being killed in games are still chewed out but not as enforce like children. Saints Row series have been a major target by this accusation but as long as a kid isn't being killed in it, its ok.

Police are grown men that can defend them selves typically with fire arms, children can't. usually.

Originally posted by Phanteros
no real difference but AO takes it up a notch. AO games are not published by Sony nor Nintendo, both of whom out right refuses to even consider them.

What "notch" though, and how far? It just seems arbitrary, because to what scale would you apply a spectrum of gore and cursing?

I think the reason Sony and Nintendo are afraid of the label is because they know kids will get their hands on them anyways (like cigarettes and porn). So its basically legal bet-covering, I would surmise.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think the reason Sony and Nintendo are afraid of the label is because they know kids will get their hands on them anyways (like cigarettes and porn). So its basically legal bet-covering, I would surmise.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What "notch" though, and how far? It just seems arbitrary, because to what scale would you apply a spectrum of gore and cursing?

I think the reason Sony and Nintendo are afraid of the label is because they know kids will get their hands on them anyways (like cigarettes and porn). So its basically legal bet-covering, I would surmise.

Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
my point is that you dont understand that theres a difference between shooting a grown man who is a police officer and shooting a child is because you hate cops. im just explaining your confusion.

He has a point about the double standard, though.

Mow down grownups by the dozen, and no one cares. But hurt a kid, and people go nuts.

Nothing really confusing about it, though.. It's an old cultural meme to value children over full grown men.

What confuses me much more, is the taboo against anything sexual. Kill a full grown man in cold blood, and it's an action game, but show a nipple and it becomes fodder for every news media outlet for the next six months.. (Remember the Hot Coffee incident?)

And don't forget that wang incident in GTAIV Lost and Damned. That scarred me for life and as a bonus, I nearly vomited and no, I'm not exaggerating on that part. That stunt Rockstar pulled was not funny.

There was a penis in Lost and Damned?

And seeing it nearly made you vomit?

Lol.

Originally posted by Phanteros
nailed it. AO games are simply not marketable

Yup. Manhunt 2 was originally going to be slapped with an AO rating so they redid the game to lessen the violence and get an M rating so it could be sold. GTA: San Andreas was re-rated as AO because of Hot Coffee and pulled from shelves; only the Greatest Hits version of the game has an M rating and is all that can be sold.

Retailers refuse to stock AO titles, and hence developers and publishers won't make them.

Originally posted by cdtm
He has a point about the double standard, though.

Mow down grownups by the dozen, and no one cares. But hurt a kid, and people go nuts.

Nothing really confusing about it, though.. It's an old cultural meme to value children over full grown men.

What confuses me much more, is the taboo against anything sexual. Kill a full grown man in cold blood, and it's an action game, but show a nipple and it becomes fodder for every news media outlet for the next six months.. (Remember the Hot Coffee incident?)

Sex in games isn't unusual and by itself isn't enough to warrant stronger than an M rating most of the time. The problem with Hot Coffee, which got GTA: SA rerated as AO, was that it was a pornographic sex minigame. Sex doesn't necessarily mean porn, and when it's the latter is when it earns the AO.

However, yes, I do agree in general that I find it ridiculous that people are find with ridiculous amounts of blood, gore, and violence, but anything sexual is bad and horrible and shameful.

Originally posted by Peach
Yup. Manhunt 2 was originally going to be slapped with an AO rating so they redid the game to lessen the violence and get an M rating so it could be sold. GTA: San Andreas was re-rated as AO because of Hot Coffee and pulled from shelves; only the Greatest Hits version of the game has an M rating and is all that can be sold.

Retailers refuse to stock AO titles, and hence developers and publishers won't make them.

Sex in games isn't unusual and by itself isn't enough to warrant stronger than an M rating most of the time. The problem with Hot Coffee, which got GTA: SA rerated as AO, was that it was a pornographic sex minigame. Sex doesn't necessarily mean porn, and when it's the latter is when it earns the AO.

However, yes, I do agree in general that I find it ridiculous that people are find with ridiculous amounts of blood, gore, and violence, but anything sexual is bad and horrible and shameful.

Come to think of it, God of War had full nip-page.

No censuring or anything. Even had an "off screen" sex game, which I'm surprised got past the watch dogs (Because they're usually pretty anal about even implied sexual content..)

Originally posted by NemeBro
There was a penis in Lost and Damned?

And seeing it nearly made you vomit?

Lol.

In one of the cut scenes, yes.

Your sexuality is different from mine. Like you'd understand what I went through.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
In one of the cut scenes, yes.

Your sexuality is different from mine. Like you'd understand what I went through.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You'll have fun when you take anatomy.

When I said sexuality, I meant that I'm straight and you're bisexual. Dudes who are bi don't mind seeing other men's packages but when a straight person sees them, they feel uncomftorable. That is common.