...Quote:
Originally Posted by JaytodaP
I think you need to go like learn the law, or common sense, or something.
Printable View
...Quote:
Originally Posted by JaytodaP
I think you need to go like learn the law, or common sense, or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MecaKane
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rengori
While it censorship it isn't against the law at all since it is not governement related that the companies not sell the game. Correct me if I mis-worded that.
ed is right, amazingly enough. Censorship is only really really wrong if the government does it. If companies choose not to sell a particular product, then that's their choice to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
Argument is fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rengori
I don't really think it unreasonable to claim GTA:SA is an AO game. I've played it plenty, and it's coarse and violent when you're listening to the radio.
I do think it is unreasonable to condemn the game because of hard-to-access content which isn't actually part of the game itself, and which requires concious effort on the part of the gamer to access. I mean, to open up the console versions you need entirely seperate hardware, whilst the PC version requires you to go and download the mod, as well as having to subject the game to some difficult conditions and risk losing your save file. It's not something you just come across accidentally. It's almost akin to calling for a book's sales to be restricted because of a yaoi fanfic someone wrote about it. Or like trying to take down Bethesda because of Morrowind's Better Bodies mod.
So you are quite happy to disregard all of the issues involved in a decision like this, and all the worries and objections, and the potential ramifications for the industry as a whole, simply because you don't like the particular game it happened to? Bravo.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarikTheYuke
--
Private companies can choose to stock whatever they like. I can think it's retarded of them, but I can't take any action about it.
I don't understand the "it's too violent for me so no one should be allowed to play it" philosophy. It doesn't matter if you like the game or not - the company had the right to make and distribute the game.
Also, it's important to note that ESRB is a private organization that companies voluntarily submit to. Rockstar is under no legal obligation to do a damn thing, unless they have some sort of contract with ESRB(which I doubt).
EDIT: Also, for ESRB ratings, they only view very short clips of the game, to give the raters a "general idea" of the game. Such a minute part of the game that would take such effort and third-party programs to "unlock" wouldn't have been given any thought - and shouldn't.
Movies: passive experience. You watch what is happening.
Games: Active. You take control of actions, and make the characters perform the activities you choose.
Big difference, which would explain differences in classification. Watching a documentary about gangland violence would be upsetting to a young person, but it'd be quite different to playing a game where those same crimes are presented as consequence-free fun.
That would make sense, if it was rated AO for the violence, where you can explode everything but children, and not the sex that enforces the good messages of "Failure to please a woman is a crime" or "Nice guys finish last."
whatever I still have the M version which means that version is still M...
It's not going to magically change the letter on the front of the game.
You could have a promo one with NR on it, but if no changes were made it'd be rated M after the original release, and now rated AO. You own an Adults Only game. Gasp.
Clearly, the rating is a result of all of those elements, not just one or the other. It had a pretty stiff rating already; the 'new' minigame just pushed it over the boundary into the strongest category.Quote:
Originally Posted by MecaKane
The only thing i have to say is, ratings should be defined by a wide group of people in ESRB playing it. NOT by the government who doesnt even play them.
In my country, ratings are set by a government branch which has a significant staff who review films, DVDs, magazines, books and video games, where appropriate. They actually review what's in there, though - not just a superficial inquiry.
To prevent abuse of power, there's a strictly-defined set of criteria that govern the classification of publications, and if the censors go outside these criteria then the classification can be challenged in the courts.
Consequence-free? You call being shot to pieces right at the end of the biggest heist in San Andreas history isn't a consequence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D