How can we get MORE M rated Wii video games?

[JedExodus]

Originally Posted by Lena_P

To say that publishers will dismiss a "family system" as only suitable for "software toys" is not only a gross oversimplification of the video game industry, but is also a rationalization that supports the lower quality "family" entertainment available nowadays. There is no reason a film, book or game can not tackle serious and complicated issues and at the same time be appropriate viewing for people over the age of 13.

I think it just seems to be that outside of Nintendo titles no one title sells particularly strongly on the Wii, I saw games like Broken Sword and Another Code R trailing the bottom of the charts, as well as offerings like the high-budget Conduit and Madworld selling weakly. There just doesn't seem to be a big audience for it, as a Wii owner I hate to admit it, but at least there's some good games coming out this year. No More Heroes 2, Red Steel 2 (actually this one could be cack) Metroid: Other M, Mario Galaxy 2 and fingers crossed, that new Zelda game. So it's not all doom and gloom on the Wii. Chin up folks

[Lena_P]

At least you got Another Code R! *sob*

[Nintendo Boy1]

They do have: Grand Theft Auto: Mii City, heh heh, just kidding. I'm sure there are plenty of other M Rated wii games out there though. however any M rated game on the Wii is 3rd party. Correct me iif i'm wrong but, I can't even recall a single M rated game pubilised by Nintendo.

[JedExodus]

Originally Posted by Nintendo Boy1

They do have: Grand Theft Auto: Mii City, heh heh, just kidding. I'm sure there are plenty of other M Rated wii games out there though. however any M rated game on the Wii is 3rd party. Correct me iif i'm wrong but, I can't even recall a single M rated game pubilised by Nintendo.

Eternal Darkness & Geist. Booya!

[Everlast]

This is a topic im very passionate about because baack in the good old days Nintendo ruled the gaming industry. The 90's was the golden era of Nintendo delivering video games to kids with mature content and kiddy content.

But every since Nintendo switched it's content to focus on kids game it has turned into its demise. PS1 killed em with their graphics and was able to acquire most of the old fanbase that now where teens or in their late teens. With games like FF7 and Metal Gear the fans fell in love with the outstanding graphics and awesome and extensive gameplay. I consider ff7 as one of the greatest games ever, simply because i can't stop replaying it.

PS1 and PS2 where the bomb and nearly took out of business Nintendo. Nintendo 64 was weak but due to their great franchise games like OoT and Mario and Star Fox 64 was able to hold ground. But who can say that bought a gamecube? I went out and bought my PS2 since i wanted to play all those great games that no longer werent coming to the Wii. It was frustrating seeing that some franchises moved to the Sony console and Nintendo didnt do nothing to hold em.

The wii console was successfull because it revolutionized the gaming industry making it more inmersive, and interactive. The price range also helped and Sony and Microsoft got overconfident on their price range. Who was willing to pay 700 bucks or 600 in a bad economy like this. Nintendo called it out for good, and recovered some of the franchises it lost. But still today they are the #1 most bought console and still they got a bad rep for releasing the crappiest games.

I got: M. Galaxy, Smash brothers, CoD1, Ghostbusters, FFCC (avg game), all the zelda games, and super mario bros wii. But still i envy those who owns PS3 console and can play CoD2, Squaresoft or enix games, and some others i envy. Let's admit it, for every good game the wii has released 10 games come out with crappy gameplay.

[Avistew]

Originally Posted by Everlast

This is a topic im very passionate about because baack in the good old days Nintendo ruled the gaming industry. The 90's was the golden era of Nintendo delivering video games to kids with mature content and kiddy content.

Although I agree with "the Wii releases crappy games and not enough good games" I disagree with pretty much everything else in your post.

For one thing, I loved the N64. Had lots of games on it. The Banjo ones, DK64, Paper mario (and of course the games you named as well).

For another thing, I loved the FF series... Until I played FF7, which I hated so uch that it turned me off the Final Fantasy series until FF12 came out. Since then I have played some of the previous ones, and although I loved FF9, I still really, really dislike FF7. How you could think it had good graphics is beyond me, but I've met enough people who love FF7 to know that it's pretty common. Right after the gem that FF6 was though, well it really didn't measure up as far as I was concerned.
(I know have a theory that every 3rd game in the series is good. 3, 6, 9, 12. But it's a matter of taste of course.)
Still, it feels that every time they master the console they're on, they switch to a new one, when they could finally start making great games on the previous one. Kinda like the job paradox, do you know about it? Whenever you start being good at a job, you get a promotion so you can be bad at a higher job instead? Something like that.

Anyways, I liked the gamecube and bought it. Three of it actually. I think it was a bit slow in releasing good games, the first few ones I thought were meh (luigi's story, pikmin... didn't do it for me). But it had some great games, too. The Zeldas (once again, as soon as the gamecube starts exploring its potential, the wii comes out -_-'), Paper Mario 2, I can say I spent more hours playing the gamecube than I did the N64.
Now I would say that it didn't compare to the PS2 in many ways, but I still really liked it.

I do think the Wii is too... I wouldn't say family-oriented, because I feel the previous Nintendo consoles were family-oriented already, I always played them with my family, and I found it a lot harder to find PS2 games that I could play with other people (unless they were fight games but I never play fight games).
But the Wii seems to release a lot of stuff that are more tiny mini-games than actual games. Stuff I generally wouldn't pay for. It's like the facebook games, except you buy them.
I would definitely like more games and less "mini-games". I think what saves the Wii is the virtual console, there are so many good old Nintendo games, and this way you don't have to keep plugging and unplugging your various consoles (or re-buy some if you have sold them).

Now, the PS2... For years I only played nintendo games. I actually can't say much about the first PS because I only started playing when the PS2 was already out. But I know that its reputation was "fight and car games, and the annoying kind of RPG". By "annoying kind", I mean the "per turn" kind. I hate these, much prefer the real time ones like Zelda games or Secret of mana games. Or even the way they did it with FF12. Otherwise it's much too slow for me.
Also, these games tend to have level grinding, which I feel takes the fun out of a game. I don't want to ever have to say "oh, I know what to do next but I can't right away because I'm not high level enough". Seriously, with some of these games 90% of the time is spent smashing buttons and hoping the boring part will be over soon.

Anyways, that was my impression of the Playstation. After playing it, I can say it has some great games, but still, I prefer it Nintendo-style.
Can't talk about the PS3 because everybody told me "don't buy it, it sucks".

And the Xbox, well it really isn't big in France, but the way it's seen is the console for bachelors and horny teenagers. So, not really my think either. (I assume it means lots of violent games, first-person shooters, car games, fight games, and adult games).
However, I can say the graphics are much better. Too bad I don't care.

Anyway, I got a bit lost there... My point is, I think Nintendo is just releasing stuff that aren't really games. They do the same for the DS, it's apps, to learn a language, or improve your vocabulary, or a recipe book, which would be nice if most of these weren't terrible for the little I've tried them.
But they do have great games as well, I'd say moreso on the DS than the Wii.

Anyways, just my two cents here. But I hope they work more on the Wii and the DS rather than releasing a new console. It always feel like they release a new one when the previous one is starting to be used properly.

Oh, and I don't care about the rating at all. I care about the content, and I don't want it to be censored just so it can be lower than M, but I wouldn't like the opposite to happen, either.

[Everlast]

@ avistew: Seems like you didnt jumped on Sony when N64 came out. I had N64 and wasnt to big of a fan on games like Dk64 or Banjo games. Although i rented one, it never got me so jumpy to buy it. I liked playing the wrestling game of WCW vs NWO. The truth is that Nintendo has survived by not relying on one strong franchise like (Sonic). But that they where very aggresive in their marketing going for Nintendo DS, and Zelda games, Star Fox, Fzero, Donkey Kong, Mario. Those games kept it alive. Sales went down when PS1 came and it was an uttersuccess to follow it up with PS2 and then PS3.

Graphics didnt improved alot from N64 to Gamecube because they felt rushed to compete techwise with the PS1, and when they released Gamecube Sony took out one last card, which was PS2. I don't think Nintendo wont go easily because it has a strong fan base. But i do think they have the right philosophy on expanding their fanbase to all age group. But they must include mature content. Because the majority of the guys dont watch pokemon, but sports. Dont appeal to much Mario, but games like Metalgear and it keeps going.

Wii was a success but their games are letting peoples hope down, and people are leaving their Wii console take dust. And it doesnt help either with the whole security system debacle (homebrew).

[Avistew]

Originally Posted by Everlast

@ avistew: Seems like you didnt jumped on Sony when N64 came out.

Indeed, and that's why I can't compare PS1 and N64, since I only played one of the two. Although I have played PS1 games since using a PS2.

I do think Nintendo has lots of series that have devoted fans. And now that FF isn't Playstation-only anymore, like it was between 7 and 12, I can see Sony losing fans to the Xbox.

I do think it would be good for the Wii to have more range. With different consoles aiming at different targets, you end up needing to buy more than ones if you like a variety of games. If the Wii had a bigger range I think it would serve it. And it's more family-friendly if it has games for the whole family :P

I've always been more of a nintendo person in spirit. That is, nintendo games talk to me more than Sony or Xbox games. But I am frustrated with the Wii having so few games that I feel are worth it. It felt like such a promising system, and now it's becoming a "train your brain and your body" kind of thing, or a trivia machine, or successions of mini-games without a story. Or ports from other systems.
Truth be told, I don't even have a Wii anymore. I'll get one when I have 5 games I really want to buy that would justify getting it. 5. That's not a lot, and still we're not there yet. (Games I can play elsewhere than on the Wii obviously don't count towards "I need to buy the Wii so I can play that game". Which lowers the amount of course).

At least I still think the DS has some awesome games. Hidden among tons of "learn a new chinese word a day" apps (that sincerely would be awesome if only you DID learn a chinese word a day, rather than turn it on and be confused as to why you're being tested right away, on things they don't teach you, and then you realise it's just constant testing without any lessons in between. What the heck?), but still, they do exist.
I don't think Nintendo's really threatened, but I wouldn't be too surprised, if they keep this way, if they faded towards portable console-only or something.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Lena_P

Considering "The Night of the Iguana" uncut warrants an American TV-14 rating, and "Black Narcissus" uncut is currently rated PG in the UK, I think it is very much possible to tackle sophisticated and "adult" subjects without watering or dumbing down its content or needing to be rated M for Mature.

To say that publishers will dismiss a "family system" as only suitable for "software toys" is not only a gross oversimplification of the video game industry, but is also a rationalization that supports the lower quality "family" entertainment available nowadays. There is no reason a film, book or game can not tackle serious and complicated issues and at the same time be appropriate viewing for people over the age of 13.

Okay, first of all, you have an excellent taste in cinema.

I think I may have badly phrased what I was trying to communicate. My problem is with this idea that Mature content is inherently unnecessary in the medium, specifically from the Nintendo fanbase that almost seems to treat the idea of this content's depiction to be a repulsing subject. It comes off as denial, or the rantings of a particularly sheltered person.

Yes, there are ways you can address Mature subjects without a M For Mature square on the box. But I think it's foolish to think that you can do everything with E-T, and that M or even AO is just for titillation and pandering. Quantic Dreams' Farenheit, I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream, the Shin Megami Tensei games, the Silent Hill series, and yeah even the Grand Theft Auto series require otherwise restricted content not only for their trademark atmospheres, but also to tell the messages they are trying to convey.

ESRB ratings are at least somewhat voluntary. Developers will aim for the rating they want, and they will and have made cuts to make sure they make that cut. An ESRB rating is generally an indicator of who you're aiming to, at least at the bottom end of the spectrum. Now, there are exceptions, yeah. Look at the E-rated Flower on the PS3, for example. But I don't think it's too hard to notice that any such exceptions in the Wii's current library are either ports or sequels to well-established franchises. A change in THAT would require a change in the entire market for Wii games. We will likely see a first-party dominated system that floats by on party games for a good while, with a few really nice third-party gems here and there. But I doubt these will tackle anything more complex than "hurting the environment is bad" or "Friendship is good".

I have re-written this post something like five times, shifting focus each time through. Probably wrote about 3-5 paragraphs for each idea before it got unwieldy and I started over. I probably lost 5 different point-by-point arguments against your assertions about film ratings, but I honestly ended up deciding that didn't matter.

It's 4:40 AM and I can't sleep because I feel sick.

[Lena_P]

I think, first off, the ratings system of the ESRB and film industry are marketing tools, nothing more. As you say, it shows what audience the product is aimed at, but just as stories are edited to fit into a Teen or PG-13 rating, they're also edited to get an R or M.

For example, "Shakespeare in Love" has an R rating, basically for one shot of Gwyneth Paltrow's breasts. Without that shot, I'm sure it would have gotten a PG-13 rating, but the production company wanted an R rating to convince people who didn't give tuppence about Shakespeare a reason to come see the film. (And it worked, since pretty much the only reason most girls in my freshman high school class wanted to go see the film was because Joseph Fiennes would be nekkid. Although he could have just been shirtless for all we see of him in the film anyway.) They could have easily shot the scene differently and still have had the same boring romantic comedy with nods to the Elizabethan theater that the film currently is. (I don't care that it won best picture; I still think it's a trite, trying-too-hard kind of film.) The film has an R rating not for its subject matter, but for a single scene.

"Stage Beauty" is another R rated film based on the English theater of a bygone era, the Restoration, and also takes (huge) liberties with historical fact. But it is a film that deserves its R rating for not just one scene, but the very subject matter of the film itself. It's portrayal of the English theater is raunchier, dirtier, close to the point of claustrophobia and vibrant. It explores issues of gender identity, sexuality and society's acceptance of these things as being transmutable and always in flux. It is a very, very flawed film, but I still prefer it over "Shakespeare in Love" any day, even though it has not been as critically successful as that film, or financially for that matter.

I totally agree that there are films (and possibly games) that are compelling narratives that are also deserving of their R or M rating, but there are also hundreds of films that are not compelling or worthy of their ratings at all. When a company makes an M rated game it does not necessarily mean they are respecting me as a gamer; it just means they wanted to show gore or nudity.

[GinnyN]

I always I have the idea the ratings were just something something to say that thing is so twisted you need to be a Mature Person to not get affected for that kind of stuff.

Any way, "M" Rating is just an Disguised "AO", with is pretty much reserved just for Porn and Snuff. M is not Quality Stuff per se. Normally, it's just perversed stuff make up for teenagers who are desesperate to demostrate they are adults. Or at least that what I think about this whole story.

By the way, technically M Rating published by Nintendo for the Wii: Zengeki no Reginleiv. When that comes to America (Our outside Japan) no idea, but hey, it's something.

[Avistew]

I think you also need to keep in mind that ratings differ from one place to another.
I'm not sure if it's the case so much with videogames (they seem more homogenous) but for movies that's definitely the case. Shakespeare in love was NOT rated R in France for instance (I'm pretty sure it was rated for all audiences, actually). I remember the South Park movie being rated 12+ there, but 18+ in the US (I remember because it seemed crazy at the time that it would get such a high rating in the US).

But yeah, sometimes ratings are stupid. I mean, just one word and it completely switches categories?
As I said, while I'm not in favour of censoring games so they can fit a lower category, I'm not in favour of "inflating" them either.
It reminds me of books by Grangé (French language author). Basically, they're full of violence for violence sake. Not because violence helps the story, but because apparently the guy likes violence, with very detailled description of horrible fights.
It really turned me off his books. I'm okay with violence and/or sex in a story, and I won't be shocked by language. But putting it in there for no reason, well it's just bad writing as far as I'm concerned.

[GinnyN]

Originally Posted by avistew

I think you also need to keep in mind that ratings differ from one place to another.
I'm not sure if it's the case so much with videogames (they seem more homogenous) but for movies that's definitely the case. Shakespeare in love was NOT rated R in France for instance (I'm pretty sure it was rated for all audiences, actually). I remember the South Park movie being rated 12+ there, but 18+ in the US (I remember because it seemed crazy at the time that it would get such a high rating in the US).

You can talk with equivalents, but mostly depends of the country. Kingdom Hearts II in Japan obtained the equivalent to Everyone, but must be censored in America for obtain the E Rating. So, I guess is more for the culture than every thing else. If said culture is more open to certain stuff, that certain stuff is not going to be that shocking for them compared to other places, where they aren't that open.

But hey, there's some people who likes the extra violence and everything else. I guess some of those guys forget they aren't the norm.

[Avistew]

Originally Posted by GinnyN

So, I guess is more for the culture than every thing else. If said culture is more open to certain stuff, that certain stuff is not going to be that shocking for them compared to other places, where they aren't that open.

Yeah, definitely. If I remember correctly, French rating are much more tolerant of nudity and even sex, but less tolerant of violence (compared with American ratings I mean).
I personally think it's the way it should be (nudity's just a normal, neutral state, and sex is positive, while violence is negative) but then again I was raised that way so it's hard to say how much of it was conditioned.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Lena_P

I think, first off, the ratings system of the ESRB and film industry are marketing tools, nothing more. As you say, it shows what audience the product is aimed at, but just as stories are edited to fit into a Teen or PG-13 rating, they're also edited to get an R or M.

I'm not sure how that point doesn't actually help the argument, though. I actually made it in one of the versions of my post above, and I thought that's what I was more or less saying. If they are marketing tools, and if they are used to gauge the audience the product is meant for, then an overabundance of E titles and a far lower number of M titles can be generally taken as the publishers looking at the small white box and labeling it as a family toy, whether or not that designation is fair.

"Stage Beauty" is another R rated film based on the English theater of a bygone era, the Restoration, and also takes (huge) liberties with historical fact. But it is a film that deserves its R rating for not just one scene, but the very subject matter of the film itself. It's portrayal of the English theater is raunchier, dirtier, close to the point of claustrophobia and vibrant. It explores issues of gender identity, sexuality and society's acceptance of these things as being transmutable and always in flux. It is a very, very flawed film, but I still prefer it over "Shakespeare in Love" any day, even though it has not been as critically successful as that film, or financially for that matter.

I totally agree that there are films (and possibly games) that are compelling narratives that are also deserving of their R or M rating, but there are also hundreds of films that are not compelling or worthy of their ratings at all. When a company makes an M rated game it does not necessarily mean they are respecting me as a gamer; it just means they wanted to show gore or nudity.

I'm not ever going to argue that giant, multi-million dollar companies respect YOU PERSONALLY as a gamer, or even gamers as a whole. The proportion just says that they're willing to aim at an older audience with one box, and less willing to aim for that audience on another box. You're not going to see anything deep and mature on the first box, because for there to be a serious adult audience there first needs to actually be a perceived adult audience. Considering attempts to "reach out" to the hardcore gamer audience with original IPs have generally failed, why would someone aim for the even more elusive market of those that enjoy Fahrenheit? It might be possible to make something like that for Wiiware, with a far lower development cost, but I'm not seeing any unestablished franchises making huge steps in this area for market reasons.

Any way, "M" Rating is just an Disguised "AO", with is pretty much reserved just for Porn and Snuff. M is not Quality Stuff per se. Normally, it's just perversed stuff make up for teenagers who are desesperate to demostrate they are adults. Or at least that what I think about this whole story.

No, the AO is a banhammer. It's not "reserved for porn and snuff" so much as it is used by the ESRB as a weapon to forbid certain content. You have an AO rating, a rating that by the way has a 1 year age difference from the M rating, and you cannot get sold at Wal-Mart, Gamestop, Blockbuster, and a vast majority of retail stores. Worse than that, NONE of the major console companies will let your game get published on your console.

The uncut version of Fahrenheit(Indigo Prophecy) was rated AO, and released only for the PC. If that content didn't completely ban an item for sale in both retail and console spaces, it wouldn't be a problem, and we wouldn't see the market of AO games being the one it is today.

AO is not a rating or designation. It is a threat and an effective ban.

Originally Posted by avistew

It reminds me of books by Grangé (French language author). Basically, they're full of violence for violence sake. Not because violence helps the story, but because apparently the guy likes violence, with very detailled description of horrible fights.
It really turned me off his books. I'm okay with violence and/or sex in a story, and I won't be shocked by language. But putting it in there for no reason, well it's just bad writing as far as I'm concerned.

It reminds me of games by Telltale(American video game company). Baiscally, they're full of pointless humor for humor's sake. Not because humor helps the story, but because apparently the guys like humor, with sometimes really horrible puns.

It never turns me off to their games, and I'm okay with violence and/or sex in a story, and I won't be shocked by language. Still, it's put in for no reason.

They aren't trying to convey anything deep or philosophical, they aren't making any meaningful observations about human nature, nor are we learning anything about humanity as a whole, ourselves, or others.

They're really just trying to make people laugh.

What's wrong with that?

[JedExodus]

Originally Posted by avistew

I personally think it's the way it should be (nudity's just a normal, neutral state, and sex is positive, while violence is negative) but then again I was raised that way so it's hard to say how much of it was conditioned.

For some reason this reminds me of when I was watching Titanic with my parents when I was nine years old, the room was overcome with awkward when Winslet decided the heart of the ocean just didn't go with anything in her wardrobe

[puzzlebox]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

AO is not a rating or designation. It is a threat and an effective ban.

Australia takes this even further. There is no R18+ rating for video games, so anything that doesn't fit the MA15+ category is refused classification and banned from sale.

From what you've said though, that may be a more honest approach than the US system.

[GinnyN]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

I'm not sure how that point doesn't actually help the argument, though. I actually made it in one of the versions of my post above, and I thought that's what I was more or less saying. If they are marketing tools, and if they are used to gauge the audience the product is meant for, then an overabundance of E titles and a far lower number of M titles can be generally taken as the publishers looking at the small white box and labeling it as a family toy, whether or not that designation is fair.

Well... far I'm concerned, M rating is not actually good marketing. At least outside of said teenagers. You can still do stuff for your demographic an still been rated E and that doesn't mean is kiddy, right?

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

No, the AO is a banhammer. It's not "reserved for porn and snuff" so much as it is used by the ESRB as a weapon to forbid certain content. You have an AO rating, a rating that by the way has a 1 year age difference from the M rating, and you cannot get sold at Wal-Mart, Gamestop, Blockbuster, and a vast majority of retail stores. Worse than that, NONE of the major console companies will let your game get published on your console.

The uncut version of Fahrenheit(Indigo Prophecy) was rated AO, and released only for the PC. If that content didn't completely ban an item for sale in both retail and console spaces, it wouldn't be a problem, and we wouldn't see the market of AO games being the one it is today.

AO is not a rating or designation. It is a threat and an effective ban.

That my point, in fact. Anything rated "Mature" in video games, with other rating probably will be rated Adult Only. While the AO is reserved for Ban worthy stuff like Porn and Snuff. PC has no problems because is an open platform, but propetary platforms like many Video Game Consoles will have troubles with the society if they accept that kind of stuff. Really.

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

It reminds me of games by Telltale(American video game company). Baiscally, they're full of pointless humor for humor's sake. Not because humor helps the story, but because apparently the guys like humor, with sometimes really horrible puns.

It never turns me off to their games, and I'm okay with violence and/or sex in a story, and I won't be shocked by language. Still, it's put in for no reason.

They aren't trying to convey anything deep or philosophical, they aren't making any meaningful observations about human nature, nor are we learning anything about humanity as a whole, ourselves, or others.

They're really just trying to make people laugh.

What's wrong with that?

Are you comparing violence with humor? You need to check out something in your mind. Violence turn many people off. Humor don't. Because laugh is good for the life.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by puzzlebox

Australia takes this even further. There is no R18+ rating for video games, so anything that doesn't fit the MA15+ category is refused classification and banned from sale.

From what you've said though, that may be a more honest approach than the US system.

Honest, yeah. But I think I'll take my system that is dishonest but in the end allows more stuff over yours that honestly takes away the ability to sell mature material. From a practical standpoint, honesty does not matter as much as the result we end up with. If the tyrant says he's a tyrant, there's no practical difference between him and a tyrant that hides behind a facade of democracy and freedom.

Originally Posted by GinnyN

Well... far I'm concerned, M rating is not actually good marketing. At least outside of said teenagers. You can still do stuff for your demographic an still been rated E and that doesn't mean is kiddy, right?

If a vast majority of the titles on a box are rated "E", the box is geared toward children by the marketing departments of various companies. When child security takes priority over online features, then the box is geared for children on the firmware level. Take that for what you will.

That my point, in fact. Anything rated "Mature" in video games, with other rating probably will be rated Adult Only. While the AO is reserved for Ban worthy stuff like Porn and Snuff. PC has no problems because is an open platform, but propetary platforms like many Video Game Consoles will have troubles with the society if they accept that kind of stuff. Really.

Except there are serious issues of sexuality, serious issues that deal with violence, that are heavily covered in R and N-17 films, subjects that dare not be broached if you want to sell your product in the US. You can't just run with the idea that porn and "snuff"(how the hell you can get snuff in a non-FMV video game is beyond me) is the only thing that is restricted. Even then, why argue that these things have no right to exist in their own right? You cut out a certain level of content from distribution, and you will inherently cut out something worthwhile. It may be smaller and smaller gains per level of acceptance, but I'll point you to what has happened in the Australian ratings system. The difference here is that we actually GET to see the content produced outside that ratings system's ceiling, because other nations aren't as uptight.

Notice Dead or Alive: Paradise. A pure sex game, restrained from AO simply by the fact that the girls are both portrayed as being "of age" and the absence of nipples. Decorum is not being preserved here, and honestly I don't see a reason it should be.

Are you comparing violence with humor? You need to check out something in your mind. Violence turn many people off. Humor don't. Because laugh is good for the life.

Yes I am, and I'm doing so quite directly, and it's perfectly valid and accurate., without any need for psychiatric counsel on my part. Your concern is noted and dismissed.

If someone is going to argue that their issue with violent content is due to issues of form, of the material not "adding up" to something incredibly important in the narrative of the work, then they better not appreciate comedies for the same reason.

"Mindless violence" has more to do with a person's own social and cultural qualms, their own level of acceptance, than with the pieces not contributing to the work itself as a cohesive whole. People, people who create art, make a lot of changes in content to create an atmosphere. Yes, there are people who are put off by puns. If you're too sheltered to realize that your definitions of "appropriate" content are not due to you being a better and more intellectual person than the rest of us, that is still not going to change the objective fact that there are subjects worthy of artistic interest in those M and AO ratings, and the presence of them shows who they expect to be using the box. If allowing certain content, and socially accepting certain content, gives me 500 carbon copies of the same vice for vice's sake, fine. If out of those 500 titles, even one of them is a masterpiece that explores their taboo subject with a level of artistry that is as of yet nearly unheard of in the industry, it will be more than worth it.

[puzzlebox]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

Honest, yeah. But I think I'll take my system that is dishonest but in the end allows more stuff over yours that honestly takes away the ability to sell mature material.

Oh I completely agree that it's a ridiculous system. There would be a public outcry against government censorship if it applied to any medium other than video games.