- swvjdirector
- |
- Honorable Heroic Member
"What are we holding on to, Sam?"
"That there's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."
Posted by: IRISH 249
All valid points. Especially this. . . . "If the content benefits the game it should be there. If not, then it is pointless. . . .".
That is my argument. What is the point of having a "wargasm" title? If I get an "overkill" of "killtacular" in Reach I don't then get an achievement that has an inappropriate connotation.
Posted by: swvjdirector
I'm not really sure I see your point. Developers try to make the best games they can. Age appropriateness is oocasionally a factor, but generally so that they can either preserve and image (Batman: Arkham City, which could have EASILY been pushed to an M) or to increase sales (possibly Halo). In games like Heavy Rain, there's a ton of objectionable content, but it was all necessary to make the game immersive. If the content benefits the game, it should be there. If not, it's pointless and should not be. Developers really aren't in charge of watching the content they include; they're in charge of making the best game they can with whatever content they deem necessary. Is the content you mentioned in CoD "Necessary"? I don't think so, but they might, and that's what counts.
In that case, I agree that it's rather pointless, since it doesn't contribute to the overall effect or message of the game. However, I think that it's rather rare that unnecessary content is added for no particular reason. The occasions you mentioned, while accurate, are pretty infrequent.