I think the problem is that it's the immature stuff you want to keep away from immature people and not the mature stuff.
Don't feed the trolls, right?
Don't feed the trolls, right?
Appropriately, that game is one of the only well-known games released in recent years to never get an ESRB rating because it is only sold online.debossman21 said:Yahtzee has a point. I think this illustrates it very well.
http://satwcomic.com/anything-but-that
And while America isn't the only one, we certainly make the biggest deal out of it.
My favourite part, made me chuckle a lot.Not that I'm saying that being able to ogle Sub-Zero's fat juicy combat boner would significantly improve the quality and tone of the game, but it is indicative of the attitudes involved that you can have all the unflichingly realistic gore in the world but the moment you want to extend that realism to full sexual anatomy then all the little boys shy away with red-faced titters. What are you, gay?
Yeah, your wrong. But keep thinking misrepresenting the whole thread if you want. Whatever lets you sleep at night.Kahunaburger said:That's kind of silly - unless the sex you have is with bizarrely-proportioned people who don't use birth control and lasts 30 seconds, I don't think you could call God of War sex "realistic" with a straight face. In other words, the whole "unrealistic/stylized violence against imaginary creature = okay, unrealistic/stylized sex between imaginary people = WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!1!!" argument doesn't hold water.bombadilillo said:What does stylized have anything to do with it, thats a filter that is a different thing entirely to the content. I can put a black and white filter over a porn and stylize it and its still a porn. The violence is ripping horns of a ogre, the sex is having sex with a woman.Kahunaburger said:Sex and violence, in the real world, don't work the way they do in God of War. Neither does architecture. (Because everything is stylized in that game.) So no, there isn't a huge difference.bombadilillo said:No, MK fatalities are literally impossible for the most part, A manly man could do what Kratos does.
One is possible one is impossible. Perfect difference. (I guess you cant really bone a Goddess)
Clearly you have some idea or argument that you aren't communicating clearly to the rest of us. So please explain what you want to say clearly - otherwise it won't be possible to have a discussion. Also, don't get angry at people for failure to read your mindbombadilillo said:Yeah, your wrong. But keep thinking misrepresenting the whole thread if you want. Whatever lets you sleep at night.Kahunaburger said:That's kind of silly - unless the sex you have is with bizarrely-proportioned people who don't use birth control and lasts 30 seconds, I don't think you could call God of War sex "realistic" with a straight face. In other words, the whole "unrealistic/stylized violence against imaginary creature = okay, unrealistic/stylized sex between imaginary people = WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!1!!" argument doesn't hold water.bombadilillo said:What does stylized have anything to do with it, thats a filter that is a different thing entirely to the content. I can put a black and white filter over a porn and stylize it and its still a porn. The violence is ripping horns of a ogre, the sex is having sex with a woman.Kahunaburger said:Sex and violence, in the real world, don't work the way they do in God of War. Neither does architecture. (Because everything is stylized in that game.) So no, there isn't a huge difference.bombadilillo said:No, MK fatalities are literally impossible for the most part, A manly man could do what Kratos does.
One is possible one is impossible. Perfect difference. (I guess you cant really bone a Goddess)
Preach it brother.Yahtzee Croshaw said:Now, admittedly this is a policy that ultimately leads to children suffering emotional scarring or even death, but there comes a time when you have to stop letting that sort of thing bother you, generally when you're riding the bus home at around the time the schools close.
thats not the argument im making at all. i was merely pointing out the whole "sex = ban" thing.Steve the Pocket said:Appropriately, that game is one of the only well-known games released in recent years to never get an ESRB rating because it is only sold online.debossman21 said:Yahtzee has a point. I think this illustrates it very well.
http://satwcomic.com/anything-but-that
And while America isn't the only one, we certainly make the biggest deal out of it.
Which I think is what ought to start happening. Now that there's no fear of our government stepping in and imposing some sort of rating system on the industry, game companies are free to release their games without a rating. Publishers probably still won't bite, since there are potential lost sales at stake, but at least the whole "if we don't rate our games, the big bad gummint will!" argument is dead.
I have to fully agree with this. The letter on the box is almost meaningless and the single phrase descriptors of the reasons for the ratings are only slightly informative. I do, however, appreciate the short rating explanations that you can find on the website for newer games. We could probably get away without a rating system that the government can use to regulate, but I do advocate parents having some control over what their children play. whattheyplay.com has some decent information, but it is generally behind the release schedule. The ESRB information is detailed and available a month before the release date; you just have to do your own homework to find it.CyricZ said:I do have to give some credit to the ESRB in that they are including content descriptors and actual paragraphs that describe fully the content in the game. Of course, that can only work so far when you realize that the masses need to go to the website and actually look this stuff up in order to get this info.
Ah well, I've been telling myself lately that we're gradually getting better at this, that nothing noticeably changes even in one generation. So we set the precedent and let history sort us.
Character investment increases tragedy and pain, not so much horror. I'd be just as horrified by a car crash sawing a stranger in half in front of me as I would if it did so to, say, my sister. It's equally nauseating and visceral either way; one just causes more emotional pain than the other.Dak_N_Jaxter said:I would disagree personally on the grounds that character investment was more intense for Toy Story.Shjade said:Definitely the chick getting cut up.Dak_N_Jaxter said:What was more horrific? That one chick getting cut up by Alien hordes, or Woody and his friends being thrown into furnace?
Does that make it more mature? No.
Probably sad that instead of laughing at this... my first thought was "Silly Yahtzee... if you actually played through The Witcher, you would know that Geralt is immune to disease"Yahtzee Croshaw said:Anyway, one of the iconic features of the first Witcher game was that there was a collectible sidequest based around notching your bedpost, wherein you acquired a nudey picture of a female character when Geralt successfully bones her (perhaps a close-up picture of Geralt's new venereal disease would have been more appropriate)