Activision Says Valve and Epic Can't Make Destiny

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
Treblaine said:
Interesting idea. HAWX and the X-series have consistently garnered only T-ratings but while I think it is a safe bet that Bungie's new game will be heavily focused on flying and/or space simulation, I think they'll give up their guns when you pry them from their cold dead hands. First Person Shooting is in bungie's blood, it's in their DNA, they have never made a game without FPS-ing (they did not make Halo Wars).
One is quick to forget a Bungie before they released Halo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oni_(video_game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_(series)

I'd love a star-wars/flyfly-esque space shooter where you are dogfighting then land to duke it out toe to toe with guns and grenades. It could add great pace and variety to the games, like how GTA interrupts gunplay with street chases, or RDR interspersed old-west shootouts with horse riding and caravan trails. But that's going to be very hard to square with a T-rating.

Actually, if they ARE REALLY aiming for this T-Rating, that may be evidence they are focusing entirely on a Space sim! Hmm, it definitely is a possibility I'd be open to consider but not something I'd consider a huge likelihood.
It is only my most wishful thinking, but my best case scenario would be the Battlefront 3 there never was, or the next Rogue Squadron in a completely new universe. If there is more traditional infantry combat on foot then it is possible to tone down the blood or other factors and still have lethal gun on gun combat. Battlefront 2 got a teen rating so I think something similar to it still could.
 

CrazyCapnMorgan

Is not insane, just crazy >:)
Jan 5, 2011
2,742
0
0
John Funk said:
Develop Online [http://www.develop-online.net/features/1644/Revealed-The-huge-promises-and-secret-stipulations-behind-the-Bungie-Activision-deal] went through the 24-page contract to lay out all the details in layman-speak. Most of it is business talk: Bungie is entitled to more royalties depending on the game's Metacritic score and how well it sells, for one. Bungie also has full control over the "Destiny" IP and retains publishing rights if Activision backs out, (smart move). But there are some genuinely odd stipulations in the contract as well.
See that bolded part right there? Lemme ask a question: What god-forsaken purpose does Metacritic really serve? Nothing to the consumer, I can almost guarantee you that. Metacritic should have absolutely no bearing on ANYTHING games related, especially when money is involved. It should just be that - criticism, and nothing more. The more influence I see Metacritic having in this industry, the worse it will get. And it's already pretty shitty as it is.

The weirdest part of the contract, though, is that Activision specifically bars Valve Software, Epic Games, and Gearbox Software from developing any "Destiny" or "Comet" "conversions or adaptations." I have no idea why anyone at Activision would think to specify this. Is this a rampant problem in the industry, with Gabe Newell and Cliff Bleszinski sneering at The Man as they make unauthorized expansions to hit FPS titles?
Fear of others making your games better than you do. That's what copyright essentially does. It sucks, too, because the industry could really benefit from someone going, "You know, that idea was alright...but check this out". All to protect...money. Do you want to know how many ideas I have for a Breath of Fire game, or stories for Zelda or maybe MMO ideas for the Mana series? Plenty. Wanna know how many of them will see the light of day? None. Partially because I'm not affiliated with the industry and, more importantly, partially because gaming corporations nowadays will sacrifice creativity, innovation and ingenuity to bend to the will of things like Metacritic so they can make a few more dollars. More mediocrity for more money, gotta love that. I'm convinced that the ones that make the major decisions will cut any corner they can, shit on the consumer as much as inhumanly possible, keep pushing crap so long as it's relatively playable, and pander to groups outside of their consumer base just to feed their greed. Proof?

...and must patch any critical bugs in the game within a month of release.
They expect shit - LITERALLY - to be made. It never used to be like this. *looks at Secret of Evermore game cartridge* It never should have come to this, either. *shakes head in utter disgust*
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Awexsome said:
Treblaine said:
Interesting idea. HAWX and the X-series have consistently garnered only T-ratings but while I think it is a safe bet that Bungie's new game will be heavily focused on flying and/or space simulation, I think they'll give up their guns when you pry them from their cold dead hands. First Person Shooting is in bungie's blood, it's in their DNA, they have never made a game without FPS-ing (they did not make Halo Wars).
One is quick to forget a Bungie before they released Halo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oni_(video_game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_(series)

I'd love a star-wars/flyfly-esque space shooter where you are dogfighting then land to duke it out toe to toe with guns and grenades. It could add great pace and variety to the games, like how GTA interrupts gunplay with street chases, or RDR interspersed old-west shootouts with horse riding and caravan trails. But that's going to be very hard to square with a T-rating.

Actually, if they ARE REALLY aiming for this T-Rating, that may be evidence they are focusing entirely on a Space sim! Hmm, it definitely is a possibility I'd be open to consider but not something I'd consider a huge likelihood.
It is only my most wishful thinking, but my best case scenario would be the Battlefront 3 there never was, or the next Rogue Squadron in a completely new universe. If there is more traditional infantry combat on foot then it is possible to tone down the blood or other factors and still have lethal gun on gun combat. Battlefront 2 got a teen rating so I think something similar to it still could.
Ah, I forgot between Marathon and Halo. But Oni was still very shooty. Somehow I completely missed the Myth series. I'll look into it.

Hmm, not only was Battlefront 2 T-rated but so was battleFIELD 2 T-rated. But Battlefield 3 that was similarly bloodless but more realistic, that got an M-rating. It may simply be that the more lifelike the animations and recoil are the more the censors will say it's too visceral for 13-16 year olds to buy even if blood isn't shown. Halo Reach got an M-rating though it doesn't seem to have any blood at all, just shields and ragdoll physics.
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
Treblaine said:
Hmm, not only was Battlefront 2 T-rated but so was battleFIELD 2 T-rated. But Battlefield 3 that was similarly bloodless but more realistic, that got an M-rating. It may simply be that the more lifelike the animations and recoil are the more the censors will say it's too visceral for 13-16 year olds to buy even if blood isn't shown. Halo Reach got an M-rating though it doesn't seem to have any blood at all, just shields and ragdoll physics.
Yeah I agree that the animations themselves have increased in quality and gotten more visceral themselves without showing the blood/gore that usually is associated with that 'M' rating.

Although the Halo series has always gotten one of the softest 'M' ratings out there. One thing that may push games like BF3 or the Halo series to the 'M' rating is more story and cutscene content. Language, themes, and content of the story can get that push.

I bet Halo would be 'Teen' to this day if it wasn't for the flood.
 

CD-R

New member
Mar 1, 2009
1,355
0
0
Treblaine said:
Awexsome said:
Treblaine said:
Interesting idea. HAWX and the X-series have consistently garnered only T-ratings but while I think it is a safe bet that Bungie's new game will be heavily focused on flying and/or space simulation, I think they'll give up their guns when you pry them from their cold dead hands. First Person Shooting is in bungie's blood, it's in their DNA, they have never made a game without FPS-ing (they did not make Halo Wars).
One is quick to forget a Bungie before they released Halo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oni_(video_game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_(series)

I'd love a star-wars/flyfly-esque space shooter where you are dogfighting then land to duke it out toe to toe with guns and grenades. It could add great pace and variety to the games, like how GTA interrupts gunplay with street chases, or RDR interspersed old-west shootouts with horse riding and caravan trails. But that's going to be very hard to square with a T-rating.

Actually, if they ARE REALLY aiming for this T-Rating, that may be evidence they are focusing entirely on a Space sim! Hmm, it definitely is a possibility I'd be open to consider but not something I'd consider a huge likelihood.
It is only my most wishful thinking, but my best case scenario would be the Battlefront 3 there never was, or the next Rogue Squadron in a completely new universe. If there is more traditional infantry combat on foot then it is possible to tone down the blood or other factors and still have lethal gun on gun combat. Battlefront 2 got a teen rating so I think something similar to it still could.
Ah, I forgot between Marathon and Halo. But Oni was still very shooty. Somehow I completely missed the Myth series. I'll look into it.

Hmm, not only was Battlefront 2 T-rated but so was battleFIELD 2 T-rated. But Battlefield 3 that was similarly bloodless but more realistic, that got an M-rating. It may simply be that the more lifelike the animations and recoil are the more the censors will say it's too visceral for 13-16 year olds to buy even if blood isn't shown. Halo Reach got an M-rating though it doesn't seem to have any blood at all, just shields and ragdoll physics.
The later Battlefield games namely Bad Company 2 had a ton of swearing in them. That's why.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
Lets see

Valve - Half-Life/Portal/Counter-strike/Team Fortress 2/Left 4 Dead
Gearbox - Halo 1 PC/Half-Life 1 Expansions/Brothers in Arms/Borderlands
Epic - Gear of War/Unreal

Looks like, as people above me have said, Acivison is letting bungie keep the IP, but trying to make it to where they cant work with other popular shooter makers.
 

The Critic

New member
Apr 3, 2010
263
0
0
Treblaine said:
Awexsome said:
Treblaine said:
Interesting idea. HAWX and the X-series have consistently garnered only T-ratings but while I think it is a safe bet that Bungie's new game will be heavily focused on flying and/or space simulation, I think they'll give up their guns when you pry them from their cold dead hands. First Person Shooting is in bungie's blood, it's in their DNA, they have never made a game without FPS-ing (they did not make Halo Wars).
One is quick to forget a Bungie before they released Halo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oni_(video_game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_(series)

I'd love a star-wars/flyfly-esque space shooter where you are dogfighting then land to duke it out toe to toe with guns and grenades. It could add great pace and variety to the games, like how GTA interrupts gunplay with street chases, or RDR interspersed old-west shootouts with horse riding and caravan trails. But that's going to be very hard to square with a T-rating.

Actually, if they ARE REALLY aiming for this T-Rating, that may be evidence they are focusing entirely on a Space sim! Hmm, it definitely is a possibility I'd be open to consider but not something I'd consider a huge likelihood.
It is only my most wishful thinking, but my best case scenario would be the Battlefront 3 there never was, or the next Rogue Squadron in a completely new universe. If there is more traditional infantry combat on foot then it is possible to tone down the blood or other factors and still have lethal gun on gun combat. Battlefront 2 got a teen rating so I think something similar to it still could.
Ah, I forgot between Marathon and Halo. But Oni was still very shooty. Somehow I completely missed the Myth series. I'll look into it.

Hmm, not only was Battlefront 2 T-rated but so was battleFIELD 2 T-rated. But Battlefield 3 that was similarly bloodless but more realistic, that got an M-rating. It may simply be that the more lifelike the animations and recoil are the more the censors will say it's too visceral for 13-16 year olds to buy even if blood isn't shown. Halo Reach got an M-rating though it doesn't seem to have any blood at all, just shields and ragdoll physics.
There are plenty of shooters that get (or, should I say, "got") T ratings (every Battlefield installment up until BC2, every CoD up until 4, every MoH installment up until the reboot, etc.), but what's starting to set games apart now isn't just the gore (which you can seemingly get away with a surprising amount of in a T-rated game), but rather the language. Seriously, play BF2, or even BFBC, and listen to how they talk; now compare that to BC2 and BF3, where the script writers have seen a few Generation Kill marathons, and listen. Notice the difference? The rather copious amounts of swearing in the new games goes a long way to earning the M-rating, almost just as much as blood and gore do, I'd say.

Blood still helps determine ratings, no doubt. That's why earlier games just had smoke puffs instead of blood spurts when enemies got hit. Halo (every Halo game, from CE to Reach, heck, even Wars had blood) still has blood in it, even if most of it is alien blood (thers stil quite a bit of it, though), but human blood still shows up in some amounts (when you or friendlies take a hit without shields, when Marines get hit, when any human character dies, etc.). By contrast, older BF and MOH entries would never actually show blood from being hit at all, there'd just bee a bit of a puff of smoke or dust, then the person would die. No spills, no spurts, no mess. The killing itself, even with ragdoll physics, was pretty tame. I suppose that we ought to establish some sort of rule of thumb about the amount of blood a game shows before recieving an "M" rating, but I feel that the ESRB doesn't have rules set in stone about this itself (I'm sure they have guidlines, though). Seems like they do things on a case-by-case basis.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Awexsome said:
Treblaine said:
"Bungie must shoot for a "Teen" ESRB rating" "

NOT GOOD!

To get that rating there essentially can't be any lethal force fused against humans. Even depicted. Every Halo game got an M-rating to spite how it was mainly shooting inhuman aliens. I don't see how they can go for a T-rating unless they are making a non-lethal game (like Arkham City) or that the ESRB ratings be completely overhauled.
I really am trying not to get my hopes up but you saying that makes me lean even more towards Bungie making what I dream they'll make... shooting other humans is a easy 'M' rating... so what if they're shooting each other's SHIPS! Sci-fantasy shooter still leaves the door wide open for a space combat game! Think about it... Bungie could've been testing those waters with the Reach mission Long Night of Solace with the short space section.

Therumancer said:
Your entitled to your opinion man but for the sake of the industry... it would be a much better place if you kept your mean, insulting, entitled, and ignorant opinions to yourself.
I'm going to be blunt about a couple of things. No matter how you might try and dress it up a flame is a flame. I'm pretty even tempered, and while I have come pretty close in the past I have yet to actually report someone. I've been in a rather pissy mood recently, which I will own, but when you start dismissing people as "igorant" because you don't like what your hearing, that's getting ridiculous. This isn't entirely aimed just at you, but at a lot of people I've been talking to recently. If you can't handle hearing things you don't like, and insist on dismissing anyone with an extremely contrary viewpoint, then you probably don't belong on message forums to begin with.

THAT said, since we're discussing ignorance, and what kind of invoked my ire to draw the line in your direction (when it's actually pretty general of late) is that your saying things like "killing other human beings is an M rating easy". Seriously? The very fact that someone would even consider thinking that kind of proves my general trend of going off on the industry. You don't even know what an "M" rating is, or what is generally accepted for teenagers. To put it into perspective, your basically claiming that human beings haven't been killed within a PG or PG-13 movie, or even in T-rating games. Now granted you might have a personal principle in saying that it should be that way, but it's in no way fact or an "easy" rating. I normally just let crap like that go, even when I correct it, but to have someone call ME ignorant in the same post, that's a little overboard.


I'll also be blunt, how nice am I supposed to be to the gaming industry? It's rare when a day goes by when there isn't some discussion about some cash grab, crazy DRM scheme, or company going under because it basically put a turd on the market and expected to make billions. Right now the news of the moment is 38 studios going down under it's own weight because after a single moderate success it decided it wanted to try and make huge amounts of money off of a poorly conceived MMO rather than being content to develop decent single player games and refine them which had less profits. This isn't even a singular situation, we've got companies like THQ which was a more established label going on, and that's really just the tip of the iceberg right now, and if you look at the whole sweep of the industry as opposed to what's been going on just right at this moment on a number of levels, yeah... it's not a pretty picture. Sorry if that's insulting, but it's what's going on. It's not ignorant because it's right there. Honestly what the gaming industry needs is to be insulted,
people coddling them is half the bloody problem, and why we see exactly the same cycles of cash grabs, rot, and collapsing franchises and companies, where only a few super publishers seem to do well (and partially because they basically cannibalize the fallen, and buy out anything remotely successful so they can suck the life out of it, and then cast the carcass away... look at Bioware recently for example).


No, I'm not going to keep it to myself, and the reasons why is that I care about games. Rather I'm going to encourage people to do exactly what I'm doing, which includes getting on the case of devs as much as the publishers. If people continue to focus on each issue individually, or defending specific IPS and creators because of fond memories, or whatever else, nothing is going to change. People have to look at the industry as a whole, and criticize it as a whole, and not discriminate on getting on it's case out of love for, or nostolgia over, some favored IP. Consider it tough love, sometimes people need to hear what idiots they are, they will deny it, but sometimes it will get them to take a long look in the mirror and change. I've done it a number of times, and that's kind of how I've gotten to the point I'm at now (ie while unrelated to this, I no longer stress myself out trying to make everyone happy, or being politically correct even when it conflicts with what's going on around me. I no longer play the game, and instead deal with the issues as they are.)

Sure, maybe this is harsh on you, but I am really bloody tired of being the only one on these forums who tries to remain constantly polite, and who tolerates 10 tons of crap every time he explains something or provides an alternative view point, especially when 90% of the crap comes from people argueing a principle and who don't even have any idea of the reality of what their talking about or have even looked beyond what people who already agree with them have told them. Really, it's getting to the point where I'm starting to think that if everyone else gets away with this, maybe I should stop being nice and get rude and personal back. I mean nobody else bothers, and you just demonstrated that.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
CrazyCapnMorgan said:
John Funk said:
Develop Online [http://www.develop-online.net/features/1644/Revealed-The-huge-promises-and-secret-stipulations-behind-the-Bungie-Activision-deal] went through the 24-page contract to lay out all the details in layman-speak. Most of it is business talk: Bungie is entitled to more royalties depending on the game's Metacritic score and how well it sells, for one. Bungie also has full control over the "Destiny" IP and retains publishing rights if Activision backs out, (smart move). But there are some genuinely odd stipulations in the contract as well.
See that bolded part right there? Lemme ask a question: What god-forsaken purpose does Metacritic really serve? Nothing to the consumer, I can almost guarantee you that. Metacritic should have absolutely no bearing on ANYTHING games related, especially when money is involved. It should just be that - criticism, and nothing more. The more influence I see Metacritic having in this industry, the worse it will get. And it's already pretty shitty as it is.
Well here is the thing: what if the developers actually made a good game but it didn't sell well because the publishers totally screwed up? Like released it at a dumb time or with insufficient or misleading advertising.

But how do you judge if a game is actually good? Well why not ask all the industry critics and take an aggregate of their score by an independent body... which is precisely what Metacritic does.

Ultimately, game sales garner money to justify bonuses. But if the metascore is low and still sells well then it may be more down to the publishers saving the game with a slick advertising campaign.

Remember, the metascore doesn't mean YOU PERSONALLY will like the game, it just says what the industry professionals generally think of the game. Remember, the industry can be wrong.
Awexsome said:
Treblaine said:
Hmm, not only was Battlefront 2 T-rated but so was battleFIELD 2 T-rated. But Battlefield 3 that was similarly bloodless but more realistic, that got an M-rating. It may simply be that the more lifelike the animations and recoil are the more the censors will say it's too visceral for 13-16 year olds to buy even if blood isn't shown. Halo Reach got an M-rating though it doesn't seem to have any blood at all, just shields and ragdoll physics.
Yeah I agree that the animations themselves have increased in quality and gotten more visceral themselves without showing the blood/gore that usually is associated with that 'M' rating.

Although the Halo series has always gotten one of the softest 'M' ratings out there. One thing that may push games like BF3 or the Halo series to the 'M' rating is more story and cutscene content. Language, themes, and content of the story can get that push.

I bet Halo would be 'Teen' to this day if it wasn't for the flood.
Except even Halo ODST that didn't have any flood nor any swearing in cutscenes got an M-rating

The Critic said:
There are plenty of shooters that get (or, should I say, "got") T ratings (every Battlefield installment up until BC2, every CoD up until 4, every MoH installment up until the reboot, etc.), but what's starting to set games apart now isn't just the gore (which you can seemingly get away with a surprising amount of in a T-rated game), but rather the language. Seriously, play BF2, or even BFBC, and listen to how they talk; now compare that to BC2 and BF3, where the script writers have seen a few Generation Kill marathons, and listen. Notice the difference? The rather copious amounts of swearing in the new games goes a long way to earning the M-rating, almost just as much as blood and gore do, I'd say.
I wonder how much the swearing CAUSES the rating, and how much it is down to an M-rating being inevitable and the writers then allowing them to swear as much as they do. Remember, people do tend to swear a lot than on TV as adults know when children aren't listening yet on TV they do not.

Remember, Halo ODST doesn't have any severe swearing (to spite being swarthy soldiers) nor any body mutating Flood yet got an M-rating. Then again, Bad Company 1 got a Teen rating. So. I don't know. It's all over the place. Normally first person shooters jsut having people getting shot results in an ESRB T-rating.
 

The Critic

New member
Apr 3, 2010
263
0
0
Treblaine said:
CrazyCapnMorgan said:
John Funk said:
Develop Online [http://www.develop-online.net/features/1644/Revealed-The-huge-promises-and-secret-stipulations-behind-the-Bungie-Activision-deal] went through the 24-page contract to lay out all the details in layman-speak. Most of it is business talk: Bungie is entitled to more royalties depending on the game's Metacritic score and how well it sells, for one. Bungie also has full control over the "Destiny" IP and retains publishing rights if Activision backs out, (smart move). But there are some genuinely odd stipulations in the contract as well.
See that bolded part right there? Lemme ask a question: What god-forsaken purpose does Metacritic really serve? Nothing to the consumer, I can almost guarantee you that. Metacritic should have absolutely no bearing on ANYTHING games related, especially when money is involved. It should just be that - criticism, and nothing more. The more influence I see Metacritic having in this industry, the worse it will get. And it's already pretty shitty as it is.
Well here is the thing: what if the developers actually made a good game but it didn't sell well because the publishers totally screwed up? Like released it at a dumb time or with insufficient or misleading advertising.

But how do you judge if a game is actually good? Well why not ask all the industry critics and take an aggregate of their score by an independent body... which is precisely what Metacritic does.

Ultimately, game sales garner money to justify bonuses. But if the metascore is low and still sells well then it may be more down to the publishers saving the game with a slick advertising campaign.

Remember, the metascore doesn't mean YOU PERSONALLY will like the game, it just says what the industry professionals generally think of the game. Remember, the industry can be wrong.
Awexsome said:
Treblaine said:
Hmm, not only was Battlefront 2 T-rated but so was battleFIELD 2 T-rated. But Battlefield 3 that was similarly bloodless but more realistic, that got an M-rating. It may simply be that the more lifelike the animations and recoil are the more the censors will say it's too visceral for 13-16 year olds to buy even if blood isn't shown. Halo Reach got an M-rating though it doesn't seem to have any blood at all, just shields and ragdoll physics.
Yeah I agree that the animations themselves have increased in quality and gotten more visceral themselves without showing the blood/gore that usually is associated with that 'M' rating.

Although the Halo series has always gotten one of the softest 'M' ratings out there. One thing that may push games like BF3 or the Halo series to the 'M' rating is more story and cutscene content. Language, themes, and content of the story can get that push.

I bet Halo would be 'Teen' to this day if it wasn't for the flood.
Except even Halo ODST that didn't have any flood nor any swearing in cutscenes got an M-rating

The Critic said:
There are plenty of shooters that get (or, should I say, "got") T ratings (every Battlefield installment up until BC2, every CoD up until 4, every MoH installment up until the reboot, etc.), but what's starting to set games apart now isn't just the gore (which you can seemingly get away with a surprising amount of in a T-rated game), but rather the language. Seriously, play BF2, or even BFBC, and listen to how they talk; now compare that to BC2 and BF3, where the script writers have seen a few Generation Kill marathons, and listen. Notice the difference? The rather copious amounts of swearing in the new games goes a long way to earning the M-rating, almost just as much as blood and gore do, I'd say.
I wonder how much the swearing CAUSES the rating, and how much it is down to an M-rating being inevitable and the writers then allowing them to swear as much as they do. Remember, people do tend to swear a lot than on TV as adults know when children aren't listening yet on TV they do not.

Remember, Halo ODST doesn't have any severe swearing (to spite being swarthy soldiers) nor any body mutating Flood yet got an M-rating. Then again, Bad Company 1 got a Teen rating. So. I don't know. It's all over the place. Normally first person shooters jsut having people getting shot results in an ESRB T-rating.
There were no swearing in the cutscenes, but there was some in regular gameplay (mainly provided by the squad when you play as them, in either Firefight or Campaign). There was still blood in it though, even if the Flood wasn't involved. Soldiers bled when hit, as did aliens. It wasn't up to Gears levels of blood, but it was definitely there.

I'd have to say that, like television, writers in games try and control themselves when the T-rating/M-rating barrier is fast approaching. But, you're probably right, when a developer knows that they'll get the M rating, they just seem to go overboard and throw the swears freely around.

All that said, ODST probably earned it's M rating for 3 main reasons:
1. The Blood, even if a lot of it was alien, everyone bled, even humans, and there could be a lot of blood in some areas, depending on how you played things.
2. The Language, even though nearly all of it was (no pun intended) "color dialogue" from squadmates, player characters, and NPC Allies and Enemies. A lot of it was clean, but there were swears, as well as suggestive references.
3. Franchise Legacy, what with the past Halo games all having been rated M (excluding Wars, which gets a pass because of genre differences), that may have influenced the rating of the next Halo game.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
The Critic said:
Treblaine said:
The Critic said:
There are plenty of shooters that get (or, should I say, "got") T ratings (every Battlefield installment up until BC2, every CoD up until 4, every MoH installment up until the reboot, etc.), but what's starting to set games apart now isn't just the gore (which you can seemingly get away with a surprising amount of in a T-rated game), but rather the language. Seriously, play BF2, or even BFBC, and listen to how they talk; now compare that to BC2 and BF3, where the script writers have seen a few Generation Kill marathons, and listen. Notice the difference? The rather copious amounts of swearing in the new games goes a long way to earning the M-rating, almost just as much as blood and gore do, I'd say.
I wonder how much the swearing CAUSES the rating, and how much it is down to an M-rating being inevitable and the writers then allowing them to swear as much as they do. Remember, people do tend to swear a lot than on TV as adults know when children aren't listening yet on TV they do not.

Remember, Halo ODST doesn't have any severe swearing (to spite being swarthy soldiers) nor any body mutating Flood yet got an M-rating. Then again, Bad Company 1 got a Teen rating. So. I don't know. It's all over the place. Normally first person shooters jsut having people getting shot results in an ESRB T-rating.
There were no swearing in the cutscenes, but there was some in regular gameplay (mainly provided by the squad when you play as them, in either Firefight or Campaign). There was still blood in it though, even if the Flood wasn't involved. Soldiers bled when hit, as did aliens. It wasn't up to Gears levels of blood, but it was definitely there.

I'd have to say that, like television, writers in games try and control themselves when the T-rating/M-rating barrier is fast approaching. But, you're probably right, when a developer knows that they'll get the M rating, they just seem to go overboard and throw the swears freely around.

All that said, ODST probably earned it's M rating for 3 main reasons:
1. The Blood, even if a lot of it was alien, everyone bled, even humans, and there could be a lot of blood in some areas, depending on how you played things.
2. The Language, even though nearly all of it was (no pun intended) "color dialogue" from squadmates, player characters, and NPC Allies and Enemies. A lot of it was clean, but there were swears, as well as suggestive references.
3. Franchise Legacy, what with the past Halo games all having been rated M (excluding Wars, which gets a pass because of genre differences), that may have influenced the rating of the next Halo game.
Hmm, it was pretty obscure use of language. More like the occasional "SHiiiiit" and not very excessive blood. Just really ANY amount of blood.

Maybe, just MAYBE, there is a way to make a dozen little changes to make a modern FPS game get a T-rating. I mean a modern game wouldn't be without ANY blood of ragdoll physics.
 

Dragonpit

New member
Nov 10, 2010
637
0
0
Jack and Calumon said:
John Funk said:
The weirdest part of the contract, though, is that Activision specifically bars Valve Software, Epic Games, and Gearbox Software from developing any Destiny or Comet "conversions or adaptations." I have no idea why anyone at Activision would think to specify this. Is this a rampant problem in the industry, with Gabe Newell and Cliff Bleszinski sneering at The Man as they make unauthorized expansions to hit FPS titles?
I think the reason might be is that they (Bungie, Valve, Epic) are on good terms, and so Activision doesn't want Bungie going out and talking to other studios about getting involved in the series, which could make the deal complicated. Also, since they are big studios free from publisher control that specialise in sci-fi shooter settings, they don't want Bungie taking the easy option and enlisting them to make the expansion while they work on the next game. I'm guessing that the reasoning behind that would along the lines of a feeling of control, where you know what your company is doing and when. Infinity Ward or another studio may have gone to another studio for help at some point.

The only real thing that bothers me is the "Easter Egg" list. Why does that really matter? Are people so paranoid in Activision that they think Bungie might be trying to say naughty things to Activision in hidden parts of the game.

Calumon: 1'000 games? Can we have some?
Okay, now that you've brought that up, I can't help but think about the articles I've read about this one developer studio that's been screwed over by every major company they worked with (that's...Infinity Ward...isn't it? -_-). With THAT in mind, I can't help but feel that if things go south for the game Activision and Bungie are co-making, then Activision wants a buffer between it and its financial losses, i.e. Bungie. Plus, keeping out companies like Valve or Epic will ensure that if the game succeeds, Activision stands to make that much more of a cut. Which puts Bungie in a rather tough position. Either they're that confident they'll pull the game off, or they haven't read the fine print (I'm betting on the first, since they elected to keep the IP in the terms if Activision backs out).
 

Dragonpit

New member
Nov 10, 2010
637
0
0
Aha! The reason for the Easter Egg thing hit me! Activision has its own ideas for Easter Eggs! They're planning on putting in Eggs for their own games so they can advertise them. It's been done before, so it makes sense.
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
Therumancer said:
I'm sorry, but you claim to be the one trying to be nice, when you wrote a small book trying to justify your view of how much you hate how lazy most developers are.
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
Treblaine said:
I think you have ODST by any other name and it would get a 'T' rating. But by that point I'm willing to bet Halo got the 'M' rating on reputation, history, and legacy more than the content being really deserving of the 'M' rating.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Awexsome said:
Therumancer said:
I'm sorry, but you claim to be the one trying to be nice, when you wrote a small book trying to justify your view of how much you hate how lazy most developers are.
I'm polite about it though, and I don't personally attack anyone. It's differant to criticize the industry broadly, than to sit there and tell someone they are ignorant, racist, etc... flat out.

It might not seem like it to you, but there is a differance. I seem to be the only one who actually believes in, and tries to follow the "attack the message, not the poster" mandate.

That's actually not an evasion, and I stick by it in a lot of threads even when it leads to things not going my way. I simply feel that flame wars are counter productive, and that if you have to resort to attacking a poster you've pretty much lost whatever you were debating.

I also was fairly polite in absolute terms as well, I mean there are only so many ways you can say "the game industry as it is now sucks", and as far as that intent goes I wasn't especially offensive or rude.

I'm guessing your basic attitude is that nobody should have the right to express disliking something (or at least not things you approve of).

I'll be honest, if you get all upset to the point of personal attacks at what I am saying over this, The Escapist might not be the place for you. I'm not exactly the most popular poster, but I'm one of the nicer ones. With that attitude your going to get yourself into a flame war with people who aren't just going to try and talk back to you normally.
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
Therumancer said:
Awexsome said:
Therumancer said:
I'm sorry, but you claim to be the one trying to be nice, when you wrote a small book trying to justify your view of how much you hate how lazy most developers are.
You can tone down the snobbery too, that would be nice. Everyone can see through those paragraphs of really stuck up self-justification.

That still doesn't change how if you address the industry as a whole as the developers being lazy... that's just as insulting to those who work hard at it since it's just not true.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Awexsome said:
Therumancer said:
Awexsome said:
Therumancer said:
I'm sorry, but you claim to be the one trying to be nice, when you wrote a small book trying to justify your view of how much you hate how lazy most developers are.
You can tone down the snobbery too, that would be nice. Everyone can see through those paragraphs of really stuck up self-justification.

That still doesn't change how if you address the industry as a whole as the developers being lazy... that's just as insulting to those who work hard at it since it's just not true.
No snobbery involved, I'm not the one who started throwing personal attacks at people. In general there is nothing to "see through" in any of the posts I've made. Well except for the fact that some people can't tell when I'm joking (though many can, and I get some of the most amusing comments in e-mail or on other forums when I'm on a 20 message debate playing someone who leaped before they looked).

Still while I didn't strain it out, my favorite moment so far on that end was probably when Susan Arendt actually asked me to clarify whether I actually thought Microsoft was going to have Motorola executives assasinated. Being red guard I thought it was an actual inquiry-inquiry so didn't push, and explained the smiley faces, but on some levels I wish I had kept that going and crafted a chain of logic to try and justify a though process behind something like that which was a one off joke (with a smiley no less).

In the end, I disagree with you. I think what I've said *IS* true. It's fine that you disagree with me, but don't attack me over it. It is a serious statement, I do not care much for the games industry right now, even if I like games. I've made that clear on a number of occasions, accross a wide variety of topics. If you disagree with me, it's fine to say so, but disagreeing with me and saying I'm ignorant or whatever, that's something else entirely. In most topics like this we both have our opinions and will have to agree to disagree.

I'm not personally attacking anyone, but your correct that what I'm saying is negative about developers. As I explained, developers will pass the buck to publishers for the problems, publishers pass it right back. I do not think they are blameless int he problems afflicting the industry (which includes a lot of things). I hold developers and publishers equally responsible and think they both need to get their acts together.

As someone who came up at a time before patches and saw how games could be finished and released as is, without any problems, I see no real reason why that cannot happen. Devs turning around and saying "well it's because of publisher policies" is to me a cop out, you question a publisher about a problem and a lot of the time they same thing is said where they talk a good game about the devs and how it's their fault for not doing contracted work, meeting deadlines, or going over budget somewhere resulting in cuts leading to the loss of features, or whatever else. I get tired of the song and the dance, and I'm basically saying I don't care about the stories anymore, just about the final product that makes it to me and how it's handled.