Treyarch Toned Down Black Ops' Grisly Animations

[internetzealot1]

Fitting, I guess. If any game is going to use facial expressions to make us subconsciously abhor killing, then it should be a game that's a little deeper than CoD

 

[HigherTomorrow]

socially disconnected to the point of autism.

woah there cowboy, are you implying that being under 15 is a bad thing? im 15 myself, so i dont mind you saying that, but being so close to the cutoff is worrying.

I really like that you are offended by being singled-out because you are 15, but not caring for the fact that a crack at autism was made.

OT, I see no problem in this. Everyone, as the video game community is known for, is complaining for the sake of complaining. If you're really considering not buying a game because the animated face on a model doesn't moan in pure agony as you snap his neck, you have problems.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

seriously? losing my faith in video game industry a little more every day

Seriously? losing my faith in the escapist community a little more every thread

 

[fulano]

Shyeah! Let's keep game violence clean-cut! Pardon the pun...

Seroiusly, how lame.

 

[Awexsome]

Good. I don't need to see the brutal realism of that.

One of the reasons I didn't care for District 9. I don't want, nor need to see all the gruesome details.

 

[Xan Krieger]

seriously? losing my faith in video game industry a little more every day

Seriously? losing my faith in the escapist community a little more every thread

Because we're dissapointed that a war game might shy away from looking like a war? Soldier of Fortune showed us violence is fun (in games), shooting a guy in the crotch and then looking at his face is funny (in games). At the very least give us an option in game to allow for realistic damage and facial expressions and quit being disturbed about war when you're making a game about war.

 

[Skuffyshootster]

I don't understand.

If parents don't want their 12 year old kids watching people die in gruesome, horrible ways, then they shouldn't be buying them games rated M. It's not the developer's obligation to make their products suitable for everyone, unless their game is rated E. For goddamn Everyone.

 

[moretimethansense]

Frankly I'm dissapointed,
Violence is an ugly, disturbing thing
It can be fun but if you want to make a fun unrealistic shooter make somthing like sereous sam, duke nukem or painkiller.
if you want a realistic shooter you make it fucking disturbing,
war is not glamorous, it's not pretty and killing somebody is a horrifiying experience for anyone that isn't a sociopath.
If gaming is to be taken sereously as an art form we can not shy away from unsettleing things If I could make a game that even one hardcore gamer felt physicaly ill for playing I would consider my job done.

Of course there's always room for something in the middle but when you made something that can make an impact you shoul make that impact.

 

[Mr. Fister]

Translation: "The ESRB were going to give it an AO rating so we toned it down to make more money."

Meh, I have no interest in Black Ops anyway but I wish developers would grow a pair from time to time.

Honestly, I can't blame them if they did that just to avoid an AO rating. When that happens, virtually no stores will carry the game except for maybe EB Games, and they'll turn down anyone who doesn't even look at least 18 years old (which they already do for M-rated games, but they'll definitely do for an AO-rated one). The only other option to get the game would be through an online route, but even then sales will be nowhere near as good as if they had just toned things down for the M-rating.

You kinda have to question why there's even an AO-rating to begin with if it's such a broken rating.

 

[mjc0961]

It was too nasty in terms of it looked unrealistic and weird? Or in that it was actually too realistic?

If it's the latter, even if it might be a bit disturbing, isn't that what this entire dick waving contest console hardware and game engine upgrade race has been about? Although I can understand if they didn't want the game to show up on FOX News or something.

 

[Eggsnham]

Meh, I'm a little disappoint.

But I'd rather have a game rather than a bundle of controversial controversy.

 

[XT inc]

Crank the violent stuff up, spread the word, and maybe just maybe the moms and dads will not buy it for timmy. Parents need to start giving a fuck about how annoying their children are. Which makes me sad that I'm using this as a stepping stone to cull the childrens out of my headset.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

Seriously? losing my faith in the escapist community a little more every thread

Because we're dissapointed that a war game might shy away from looking like a war? Soldier of Fortune showed us violence is fun (in games), shooting a guy in the crotch and then looking at his face is funny (in games). At the very least give us an option in game to allow for realistic damage and facial expressions and quit being disturbed about war when you're making a game about war.

Yeah I get disappointed everytime a ww2 game doesn't involve at least an hour of death camp play, or a vietnam game doesn't have a bayonnet baby mini-game. Everytime I play a war game that doesn't have atleast 1/2 of it following the lives of the families of soldiers that die I get really disappointed. Hate it when a war game shys away from looking like a war. Some things don't contribute to the fun of a game and people remove it or don't put it in before it gets sold. Is not seeing a graphic neck break game breaking for you? Was the real neck break released and its substitution shown? People are raising a shit storm because of 1 thing, original quote lost more faith in the grame industry because they replaced a neck break animation. Read the comments and tell me they are appropriate responses to something they havn't even seen.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Translation: "The ESRB were going to give it an AO rating so we toned it down to make more money."

Meh, I have no interest in Black Ops anyway but I wish developers would grow a pair from time to time.

Honestly, I can't blame them if they did that just to avoid an AO rating. When that happens, virtually no stores will carry the game except for maybe EB Games, and they'll turn down anyone who doesn't even look at least 18 years old (which they already do for M-rated games, but they'll definitely do for an AO-rated one). The only other option to get the game would be through an online route, but even then sales will be nowhere near as good as if they had just toned things down for the M-rating.

You kinda have to question why there's even an AO-rating to begin with if it's such a broken rating.

Also, all of the major console companies have a blanket order on the US market that they will not licence a game with an AO-rating.

I fall into the "it should be as real as possible, especially if it makes you uncomfortable" crowd with moretimethansense.

 

[bob1052]

I take it that Treyarch wasn't a big fan of Tanya's fatality in Mortal Kombat 4?

Spoiler: Obviously, NSFW!

While I can understand that a neck snap might come off as really gruesome, it is also a lot more graphically "clean" compared to a slit of a throat. So I have to question whether this change was really necessary.

That said, I don't really play FPS games for gruesome violence. As long as the consenquences of actions are not too detached from reality, I don't mind.

Some people really need to read more than one line in the center of the OP.

The neck-snapping wasn't too gruesome and isn't being changed, the facial animation that occurs as the neck is snapped is the issue. Comparing neck-snapping to throat-slitting is unrelated to the issue here.

 

[Capt. Crankypants]

You know...for 'Black Ops', those chaps in the picture couldn't get much whiter...

Yeah, I don't really have anything to add on topic, 's all been said before.

 

[lacktheknack]

To everyone saying they now hate Treyarch:

YOU WON'T NOTICE IT IN-GAME. SERIOUSLY.

Thank you.

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

Hrmm. I would have liked to play the more realistic version, unpleasantness and all. not all of us play a game just for the carnage and lulz. I want to see the shock, the horror, and whatever else they have to offer in the latest COD. I never expected them to tone down things in movies like Saving Private Ryan. I expected them to show the horror of war, down to the smallest detail.

A story can be entertaining and be unpleasant, with out either distracting from the other.

They should have made an option to allow the more realistic facial expression, and whatever else.

I'm tired of us gamers being treated like children when we're buying a product that was designed with adults in mind. They wouldn't have to do this to a movie, or a book, or a graphic novel in order for the Concerned Mothers of the world getting their knickers in a twist, and they shouldn't have to with our games either.

I like your idea on an optional setting for the realist gruesome effects and animations. Count me in concurrence regarding this separate "video game audience" where everyone suddenly is treated as an impressionable 7 year old.

I honestly find this rather inexcusable because video games will never be on equal footing with anything else in the entertainment world if the limit is always set to "PG." Books, music, and movies all feature graphic adult content and are not restricted generally. How is a movie like Saw not going "too far" but a video game with "realistic" neck snapping is obscene? The way that I see it, for every "crossing the line" claim against video games, I will gladly point to a violent movie with real people.

 

[Tom Phoenix]

I take it that Treyarch wasn't a big fan of Tanya's fatality in Mortal Kombat 4?

Spoiler: Obviously, NSFW!

While I can understand that a neck snap might come off as really gruesome, it is also a lot more graphically "clean" compared to a slit of a throat. So I have to question whether this change was really necessary.

That said, I don't really play FPS games for gruesome violence. As long as the consenquences of actions are not too detached from reality, I don't mind.

Some people really need to read more than one line in the center of the OP.

The neck-snapping wasn't too gruesome and isn't being changed, the facial animation that occurs as the neck is snapped is the issue. Comparing neck-snapping to throat-slitting is unrelated to the issue here.

Ok...so what difference is a different facial animation going to make? The most gruesome part of a neck-snap is the sound of bones crunching, not the expression on the person's face. If they don't change the sound, they are, quite frankly, not changing anything.