5 ms·

This is a very big problem in the games industry right now, because all controlled platforms have committed to not selling adult only games. The consequences o

This is a very big problem in the games industry right now, because all controlled platforms have committed to not selling adult only games. The consequences of which have filtered all the way down the chain, and the chilling effect is seen almost every single day in the games industry. The problem is that if you get an ESRB AO rating, no one will publish it, because everyone believes that Adults Only means porn or gratuitous sex. And maybe it does. But it can also mean violence, or mature content, or things which are simply not appropriate for non-adults. I don't think the distinction should actually exist, honestly, but that's a separate discussion. But the problem is if you consider a game of some sort that has extensive use of graphic violence, then you put yourself directly in line for a bit censorship banhammer. NC-17 films can still be made. But effectively, AO games cannot, as the market space for it is artificially shrunk through censorship. So any time you are working on a game, and the violence or sex or maturity of content starts reaching a potential AO level, it gets cut, or toned down. There are game ideas right now which can never be made, thanks to platform censorship. It holds the industry back.

hugh3 16y ago
There are game ideas right now which can never be made, thanks to platform censorship. It holds the industry back. Uhhh huh. And do you think we're really missing out on some great works of art which can't fit under the sex-and-violence low bar set by the Grand Theft Auto series? "Adult-themed" games have existed in the past, from Custer's Last Stand to Soft Porn Adventure. As far as I know none has actually been good, and despite the "adults only" label have appealed only to sniggering twelve-year-old boys.
- mrcharles 16y ago
  This kind of argument is exactly the kind which leads to the problems. First, you assume that AO means sex. Second, you assume that if it's AO, it can't be subjectively of high quality. The easiest way to shoot down your arguments is to google lists of movies rated NC-17, which is the rating which disallows anyone under 18 from watching a movie, and which is the functional equivalent of ESRB's AO. Among that list you will see movies like Requiem for a Dream, and documentaries like This Film is Not Yet Rated, which is actually very relevant to this whole discussion. (The film actually chose to be unrated, as being rated would have earned the documentary NC-17).
  - MrRage 16y ago
    Censorship does happen. Stanley Kubrick's last film, Eyes Wide Shut, was censored to avoid an NC-17 rating. You're correct NC-17 movies do get made, but how often can you go to your local cinema and see an NC-17 movie?
    - hugh3 16y ago
      Only in the US release -- extra bodies were added in to the orgy scene to hide certain things. I saw it when it came out in the uncensored version and, frankly, the less said about the whole movie the better. Stanley Kubrick made some of the greatest films of all time... and then he made Eyes Wide Shut as an old man because it gave him an excuse to look at boobs for six months.
      - MrRage 16y ago
        True it was in the US release. I guess I assumed that since we're talking about censoring nudity we were talking primarily about the US market. This is getting off topic, but I don't think it was a bad movie, although certainly not his best. Despite the nudity, the film is strangely un-erotic. I think you are unfair about Kubrick's motives in making the movie. I also think there's much that can be said about the movie, For example: http://www.collativelearning.com/EYES%20WIDE%20SHUT%20analysis.html http://www.collativelearning.com/EYES%20WIDE%20SHUT%20analys... Edited: Terrible grammar.
    - mrcharles 16y ago
      I've seen a lot of NC-17 equivalent movies here in Canada, in theatres, but that's likely because our ratings system is significantly more permissive than the MPAA's. It does involve going to smaller theatres a lot of the time, but that doesn't bother me at all. But the cinema argument is also a bit of a red herring -- your DVD player doesn't refuse to play a DVD of an NC-17 film. Movies have two (or three, if you count TV) vectors for delivery, games do not (in that making different platform versions is often the equivalent to making different movies).
      - 16y ago
mrcharles 16y ago
Also worse is the reason the platform companies do this -- because it is in their best monetary interests to keep the market images of the consoles as "kid friendly." They want that parents can randomly pick a game off a shelf without ever looking at it without fear of putting something inappropriate for a child in the console. They don't want that a child could ever acquire something inappropriate for the console at all, in any channel, for fear that the reputation of the console would hurt sales in the sub-16 range. The irony is that they want this so that they can continue selling M rated games to 13 year olds, as that's the most lucrative section of sales for M rated games, as they stand on gaming platforms. Because really, if you sit back and look at it, the level of 'mature' content that ends up in actual M rated games is the exact kind that appeals to young teens, and everyone knows it.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Why is that inherently bad? The companies release a product with a target market; some content for the platform would be a deal-breaker for their positioning, so they disallow it. It's a free market and companies are allowed to make those kinds of decisions. If there was huge pent-up demand for adult-themed games, wouldn't it stand to reason that some console manufacturer would buck the trend to collect the profits? Incidentally, if the most lucrative part of the market is 13 year olds buying M-rated games, doesn't that sort of imply either that there isn't much money to be made from making AO games, or that the eventual audience for those games would be 13 year olds?
  - yock 16y ago
    Absolutely. The idea that this vacuum of hyper-violent or graphically-sexual video games is somehow a "problem" is more a treatise on what some people believe the market should be more than what the market actually is. It's absurd for precisely the reasons you state. If there was a market for it, however seedy or unorthodox, it would exist to service that market for a tidy profit. It doesn't exist, therefore no one believes it would be profitable.
    - mrcharles 16y ago
amalcon 16y ago
This is one instance of censorship I just can't get riled up about. Probably because I remember the Atari 2600.

hugh3 16y ago

There are game ideas right now which can never be made, thanks to platform censorship. It holds the industry back. Uhhh huh. And do you think we're really missing out on some great works of art which can't fit under the sex-and-violence low bar set by the Grand Theft Auto series? "Adult-themed" games have existed in the past, from Custer's Last Stand to Soft Porn Adventure. As far as I know none has actually been good, and despite the "adults only" label have appealed only to sniggering twelve-year-old boys.

mrcharles 16y ago
This kind of argument is exactly the kind which leads to the problems. First, you assume that AO means sex. Second, you assume that if it's AO, it can't be subjectively of high quality. The easiest way to shoot down your arguments is to google lists of movies rated NC-17, which is the rating which disallows anyone under 18 from watching a movie, and which is the functional equivalent of ESRB's AO. Among that list you will see movies like Requiem for a Dream, and documentaries like This Film is Not Yet Rated, which is actually very relevant to this whole discussion. (The film actually chose to be unrated, as being rated would have earned the documentary NC-17).
- MrRage 16y ago
  Censorship does happen. Stanley Kubrick's last film, Eyes Wide Shut, was censored to avoid an NC-17 rating. You're correct NC-17 movies do get made, but how often can you go to your local cinema and see an NC-17 movie?
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Only in the US release -- extra bodies were added in to the orgy scene to hide certain things. I saw it when it came out in the uncensored version and, frankly, the less said about the whole movie the better. Stanley Kubrick made some of the greatest films of all time... and then he made Eyes Wide Shut as an old man because it gave him an excuse to look at boobs for six months.
    - MrRage 16y ago
      True it was in the US release. I guess I assumed that since we're talking about censoring nudity we were talking primarily about the US market. This is getting off topic, but I don't think it was a bad movie, although certainly not his best. Despite the nudity, the film is strangely un-erotic. I think you are unfair about Kubrick's motives in making the movie. I also think there's much that can be said about the movie, For example: http://www.collativelearning.com/EYES%20WIDE%20SHUT%20analysis.html http://www.collativelearning.com/EYES%20WIDE%20SHUT%20analys... Edited: Terrible grammar.
  - mrcharles 16y ago
    I've seen a lot of NC-17 equivalent movies here in Canada, in theatres, but that's likely because our ratings system is significantly more permissive than the MPAA's. It does involve going to smaller theatres a lot of the time, but that doesn't bother me at all. But the cinema argument is also a bit of a red herring -- your DVD player doesn't refuse to play a DVD of an NC-17 film. Movies have two (or three, if you count TV) vectors for delivery, games do not (in that making different platform versions is often the equivalent to making different movies).
    - 16y ago

mrcharles 16y ago

Also worse is the reason the platform companies do this -- because it is in their best monetary interests to keep the market images of the consoles as "kid friendly." They want that parents can randomly pick a game off a shelf without ever looking at it without fear of putting something inappropriate for a child in the console. They don't want that a child could ever acquire something inappropriate for the console at all, in any channel, for fear that the reputation of the console would hurt sales in the sub-16 range. The irony is that they want this so that they can continue selling M rated games to 13 year olds, as that's the most lucrative section of sales for M rated games, as they stand on gaming platforms. Because really, if you sit back and look at it, the level of 'mature' content that ends up in actual M rated games is the exact kind that appeals to young teens, and everyone knows it.

tptacek 16y ago
Why is that inherently bad? The companies release a product with a target market; some content for the platform would be a deal-breaker for their positioning, so they disallow it. It's a free market and companies are allowed to make those kinds of decisions. If there was huge pent-up demand for adult-themed games, wouldn't it stand to reason that some console manufacturer would buck the trend to collect the profits? Incidentally, if the most lucrative part of the market is 13 year olds buying M-rated games, doesn't that sort of imply either that there isn't much money to be made from making AO games, or that the eventual audience for those games would be 13 year olds?
- yock 16y ago
  Absolutely. The idea that this vacuum of hyper-violent or graphically-sexual video games is somehow a "problem" is more a treatise on what some people believe the market should be more than what the market actually is. It's absurd for precisely the reasons you state. If there was a market for it, however seedy or unorthodox, it would exist to service that market for a tidy profit. It doesn't exist, therefore no one believes it would be profitable.
  - mrcharles 16y ago

amalcon 16y ago

This is one instance of censorship I just can't get riled up about. Probably because I remember the Atari 2600.