Yeah yeah, it's not about Oblivion as such so it's off-topic

Check this:

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=12604

Basically, they changed the rating to M because of THIRD-PARTY mods depicting nudity. I mean, wtf?!! Jack Thompson may be an insane excuse for a lawyer, but his hot coffee ventures have clearly created a precedent.

I just don't get it. If I take a kids' game, say "My Little Pony goes to school" and mod in boobs, should the rating be changed to M? I mean, that's the kind of reasoning we're talking about here. Cos mind you, this isn't even San Andreas where the content was "merely" unlocked, there simply ISN'T any nudity in Oblivion without actually modding it in.


And the worst thing about it all is that Bethesda is wussing out and not standing against it or anything -they seem to even support it. I don't entirely blame them as they produce their own titles and are quite literally making the game with their own money (as opposed to developers working for a producer), but dude! Am I the only one who even sees the idiocy of this?

I propose we ban all women from getting out of the house because they have the potential capacity of showing our children a boob or two.

Fucking censorship.

btw....

hot coffee....the content was in the game, but it required a mod to unlock it.
oblivion nudity ... it's in the game. It requires a mod to expose it.

heh...expose.

Anyway, basically the guy exported the character models and realized the the "bra" mesh was covering up tits. With nipples, no less. These really were in the game, just covered up by a bra.

So it's the same thing in both cases...hidden content that couldn't be unlocked without a third party modification.

It's still bullshit. The game was shipped without tits. And besides, it's freakin' video game. If video game tits get you going, you probably need to spend more time downloading real porn.

lol @ that last sentence. I agree wholeheartedly.

And ok, I didn't realize that. Excuse my getting carried away. But yeah, it's still ridiculous. Like I said, it's like saying all (real-life) women are potentially naked when their clothes are removed. And therefore require a ban.

I swear, this turn-to-prudishness in (mainly American) society is the suck of the suck. There used to be a time and ages (70-80's) where nudity was almost a requirement to make a game or a movie. Not that I think it should be, but we're heading completely the other direction as it is now...and that's pretty stupid.

Who cares. Its a shit game anyway.

Dude, don't say that...it fills me with rage!

haha. You know its true.

they changed it like... 6 weeks ago I was still playing it when they changed it.

yea, it doesn't matter. It just boosts the sales. Most gamers nowadays aren't kids. The only way I could possibly see this doing what Jack I'macocksucker Thomson wants is if he started having this done to lots of little, no name games...which then wouldn't get store exposure and might fail to make sales. No store that's got a brain is going to unshelf Oblivion or Grand Theft Auto...they sell too good. That's a freakin' cash cow, you'd be a moron to fuck yourself out of cash regardless of what the rating is. Maybe keep it behind the counter or something. :p

Anyway, I think all this crap is the last dying gasp of the generation that preceded me. They're all approaching retirement age, they're slowly getting killed off, and it's only a matter of time until my generation owns the country.

And then World War III starts.

Yay. We might have a new Fallout then.

Well, the problem with the ratings is exactly that the small games get pwnd. Why is the pc gaming industry so succesful, even with piracy and compatibility issues that aren't there on consoles? Because of it's flexibility and originality...the true original classics are mostly PC games.

The market is built on the small developers and their creativity. You know what all these debacles do to the market? They make companies (and in this case producers as the small firms can't usually finance their own games) not want to take any risks. Not taking any risks means in general less space for new ideas. They'd rather sell FIFA 52084 or FF XXXX than take a risk with a game that breaks new ground.

On a lesser note, the PC gamer market is also the adults' market. Well, more than other platforms anyway. Another reason why these things are effectively hurting the industry. I'm sure there are a lot of dudes that get horny over virtual boobs or are freaked out by virtual blood, but I'm convinced the majority of the gaming public can place those things in a context. And shit man, kids these days see a LOT worse things on the net than they could ever see in a game. REAL things. I don't think I need to explain how to find all sorts of weird porn online; and just this week i happened to see security cam clips of an old lady getting mugged by a junk for a little change and a 18-yr old kid getting stabbed in the heart for a cellphone. I'm just saying...you don't need to be 18 to be able navigate the internet.

I hope the "developer straight to user" new selling strategy will inspire a new generation of bedroom programmers though, that can overcome the shit the business is in terms of taking risks. With the newest technologies, companies can sell their games directly to the user, bypassing producer and store costs. It makes a HUGE difference. I don't know if anyone knows Savage? It was a fantasy-based battlefield style online game avant la letter. With a commander etc.

Anyhoo: the CEO recently said that they sold 20% of their game online and 80% in the stores. And that they made MORE (in absolute terms) on the 20% of games sold online than on the 80% in the stores...I don't think that needs explaining. Not only does it improve their income, it will also lower low-budget game prices because they want to reach an audience as wide as possible. To take Savage again: they announced Savage 2 will be completely free to play on LAN and will cost 30 bucks if you want to play it online. See what i mean? It's a new generation, one that differs from what for example Beth is doing.

Even Steam, for all its shortcomings, is a major factor in this. Original games like Darwinia were a failure before they got on steam. Steam saved the ass of the small-time developpers as it boosted the sales to success. Now they are out of debt and have funds to start a new concept. Another game on steam is ragdoll kungfu. Not a "game" as such, more of a timekiller. But the developer, Mark Healey, found the courage to leave Lionhead and start on his own because of the success (both financial and popular) of his creation.

Or to give you more examples: game legend Warren Spector is working on an adventure that'll feature the Looney Toons -not exactly the kind of project the big companies want to throw their money at- and will distribute it via steam. Another original but risky title is returning grace to online distribution: Little Big Adventure 3. Suddenly, by cutting out the middle men, a lot of original projects find their way to the drawing table again.

Interesting times, for sure. This is the danger of the Fuck Thompsons and the groups they represent: they're a danger to the smaller games that are now finally finding their way back to out pc's. If EA gets sued they smile and pay. If a small-time game company get sued, they're done for.

This is from Gamespot article user post section. It was so funny when i read it so i decided to share.




Its about oblivion PC vs EX BoX

They should also wear waterwings while eating soup.

And yeah, the whole dumbening of the gaming industry kinda ticks me off as well. No game wants to be 18+ ('Mature' that is, right?) anymore because it limits the market options. Pfff. I WANT games that aren't made for kiddies, stupid games industry! The average gamer's age is twenty freaking six, I think there's plenty of room for an adult-oriented market.

These days it seems that, once they're getting an M rating anyway, the designers go "ok, now we're passed that we might as well go overboard on the sex and violence". In some games that works fine - I'd like to see Fallout 3 gritty and rough like its predecessors- but in most it just doesn't make the game any better.

Maybe it's not so much the gaming industry to blame as the console-pc crossover era. Logically speaking, the PC gamer is a lot older than the console gamer as a pc is generally speaking more expensive (especially when you're planning to play recent games on it) and is a lot less straighforward to run software on than a console. (installation, patching, drivers...it's a lot easier than 10 years ago but still) So they probably make the games easier for the console masses. I say 'meh' to that.

Yeah but if any of them ever actually worked in a games shop, they'd realise 90% of pc gamers are just as fucking stupid as the console ones. Full grown adults who claim to play online in things like CS, or play MMO's don't even have a clue on specs. Or of course they do but don't realise some chipsets won't work, and bitch. Can't blame developers for going the console way; its easier to code for, more people will buy them (for the ease of no install/specs) and they hold their prices longer than pc games easily.

And its more difficult to run illegal copies on consoles.

Pev, I never said they weren't stupid. But they're (generally speaking) older so the developers don't have to take into account being 'age-friendly' as much as on a console, making them more inclined to make games that are rated 13 and over (or whatever the appropriate rating is). Which takes a little bit of the edge of some previously more 'mature' franchises, imho.

I don't blame developers for going console, but I don't support it either. And don't you know that I'm allowed to criticize other people for wanting to make more money? I took the hypocritic oath!