Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Reach vs Cod --Age Appropriatness
  • Subject: Reach vs Cod --Age Appropriatness
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Reach vs Cod --Age Appropriatness

Old School Gamer and Proud Member of the Seventh Column

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.

  • 07.12.2012 5:11 PM PDT

"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.

  • 07.13.2012 6:25 AM PDT

Posted by: Tom T
Prolonged exposure to this forum is bad for your health.


Posted by: aBIueBooksheIf
because I like pen­is.

source

Should of fraction of the parents doing they homework about gaming, we wouldn't see as much children online in these games.

The rating isn't there to look pretty.

If I remember correctly, some movie ratings will block access to a child unless he is accompanied there by an adult.
Gaming should be more or less the same.
The parent should know what they are buying for their child and should then decide if it's appropriate for him/her.

  • 07.13.2012 8:12 AM PDT

Old School Gamer and Proud Member of the Seventh Column

Agreed.


Posted by: Kira Onime
Should of fraction of the parents doing they homework about gaming, we wouldn't see as much children online in these games.

The rating isn't there to look pretty.

If I remember correctly, some movie ratings will block access to a child unless he is accompanied there by an adult.
Gaming should be more or less the same.
The parent should know what they are buying for their child and should then decide if it's appropriate for him/her.

  • 07.13.2012 8:55 AM PDT

Digging Foxholes by Profession
Accept No Substitutes

I personally thought "wargasm" was clever. There's a lot of things there that are obviously them catering to what people want because they sell more copies. It's the same reason they have the game-per-year approach. Less quality, more money.

  • 07.13.2012 11:02 AM PDT

Digging Foxholes by Profession
Accept No Substitutes

Posted by: Kira Onime
Should of fraction of the parents doing they homework about gaming, we wouldn't see as much children online in these games.

The rating isn't there to look pretty.

If I remember correctly, some movie ratings will block access to a child unless he is accompanied there by an adult.
Gaming should be more or less the same.
The parent should know what they are buying for their child and should then decide if it's appropriate for him/her.

Movie ratings aren't enforced, except by the theatre's own policy. It's why, being 16, I couldn't get into an R rated movie without an adult.

The same goes for videogame ratings. They're guidelines, only enforced by the companies that sell them - it's why I technically can't buy an M rated game, either. Or at least, companies won't sell me one.

They're guidelines that parents need to consider. There are some games who simply lack the maturity to play a game like that, and there are those who have the maturity to play the game. I think that's a bit more important of a concept than whether or not the kid is of the correct ages - and god forbid an argument like "I don't want them exposed to that sort of thing" because you're sheltering the kid, and turning him into a bit of an introvert.

  • 07.13.2012 11:05 AM PDT

"What are we holding on to, Sam?"
"That there's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."

Really, the ESRB should just have a 16+ rating (for games like Halo or Batman: Arkham City) and an 18+ rating (for games like The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings or Heavy Rain), just like the PEGI system does. I think it shows you exactly HOW objectionable the content is. With the ESRB, it's more like "Oh, crap! Blood sticks to walls! Automatic M rating!" A game like Batman: Arkahm City (sorry I keep harping on it, I just still can't believe it somehow got a T) or StarCraft II displays just as much violence or gore as plenty of M rated games, but they recive a T because the blood doesn't stay there. Go figure.

  • 07.13.2012 11:06 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3