ESRB Ratings changing due to modders.

[edyzmedieval]

Reminds me of the Hot Coffee mod for GTA San Andreas. 

 

[Ilex]

Besides, someone (was it fisheye? can't remember) has done a topless mod for M&B. Big whoop.

That's just sick! This is a medieval fighting game, not some titty-game for horny teenagers. sheesh!

 

[Lost-Lamb]

Besides, someone (was it fisheye? can't remember) has done a topless mod for M&B. Big whoop.

That's just sick! This is a medieval fighting game, not some titty-game for horny teenagers. sheesh!

 

[Volkier]

Whats wrong with nude? Everyone has pretty much the same thing under their clothes, even the kids.. I can and never will understand why people say "oh children shouldn't see it because they are too young".. My mom told me how I was made pretty much as soon as I could speak, and I was never fed that bull**** about cabbage kids.. Why do people get so stressed out / excited about something as simple and common as nude? In my oppinion, the sooner your kids learn about this sort of stuff, the earlier they mature (temperamentally wise) and the less chance there is of them getting raped.. (how many cases do you hear about every year, where the abuser is found to have molested 20 kids only AFTER he is caught, because they didn't know what was happening and where bluffed thats its a special "present on turning a grown-up" ?)

Lastly, seriously though, why do people get so taboo / stressed / paranoid about it? Its just a naked human body.. You see it all the time in morgues, mirrors, windows, EVERYWHERE basically...

 

[calandale]

The thing is, there's no point to a topless mod, other than to titillate. So, the reason for making one is to turn it into a titty game for horny teens. Not that I would mind, per say, but it does seem silly.

 

[ArabArcher35]

I tend to agree with Volkier. What is so disgusting about a naked human body? Unless it's fat. Or, if it's like, diseased or something... Joke. But, still, censorship is just a way to please the christian right who tend to think "Naked bad, bible good, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve", so, in the interest of pissing off the christian right, I say we all sign a petition removing ALL censorship from EVERYTHING.

 

[Jerky]

=^.^=
http://www.egscomics.com/d/20051012.html

 

[Andrei]

Certainly on Morrowind, there was a reason to have a topless mod.

One of the great things about Morrowind was that you could mod in almost anything you wanted.  As well as houses, quests, and companions, people made whole suites of dresses, armours and other clothes.

However, all of the default (female) models had bras on.  That meant that if you made a low-cut or backless dress, then you got an ugly bra (literally, it looked like it was made of leather or moss or something) in the way, just ruining the aesthetics.

So, you needed a topless mod.  I assume the same goes for Oblivion.

 

[Silverfox]

NEVER.  ESRB set a terrable prescedent by changing the rating like this.  That should never happen again.  What we do after-market is nobody's buisness but our own.    I'm 23 and I can do whatever I damn well please, and this *still* burns my butt. 

I agree.

The BBFC provides a good example of why organised, legislated control can be a good thing. Not only do they have strict guidelines on what does and doesn't affect the rating (for example, explicit gratuitous sex qualifies for an 18 certificate, while non explicit and non gratuitous can go down as low as a 12 rating) but the owner of the submitted material has recourse for appeal if they believe the certification is too strict (which usually involves a rescreening by a completely different group). It also allows the organisation to have legal backing - rather than relying on the parents to educate themselves about the rating system, it makes it illegal to sell a rated product to someone below that age (or in England, if the storeperson believes the material will find its way into the hands of those too young to purchase it, they can refuse the sale). The advantage for the publisher in these situations is that blame is removed from them completely - if little Johnny gets his hands on an 18 game, then either the shop or the person who bought it for him are to blame (and if its the store, not only will they be hit with a huge fine, but they can lose the licence to trade. Suffice it to say many shopowners are unwilling to run the risk).

The final problem for the politicians is that at the moment games are only just moving away from their image as a kid's toy. Most gamers are now in the 25 - 35 bracket and starting families of their own. At the moment, the scare mongering works simply because the large percentage of parents just missed out on video games and as a result haven't got a clue about them. In a few years time though, that will have changed to the generation who grew up in front of their NES and know more about gaming than the politicians.
Its not like its the first time this sort of thing happened. Radio met the same kind of thing, as did cinema, as did TV, as did video. Look at where they ended up - imagine politicians attempting to whip up a frenzy around the content of the average radio station

Again, I agree.

No need for me to say anythingmore.

 

[Othello]

For what it's worth, Oblivion should have been M right out of the gates. Mutilated corpses crucified and set on fire? M.

 

[Rabid Potatoe]

They want to start censoring games, but they havent said a thing about books that generally provide far more graphic content than any game or film. Of course the stupid bastards will start burning the libraries next, it's only a matter of time before they need a new scapegoat.

 

[phbbbt107]

They want to start censoring games, but they havent said a thing about books that generally provide far more graphic content than any game or film. Of course the stupid bastards will start burning the libraries next, it's only a matter of time before they need a new scapegoat.

But in books you have to imagine it. It could be fairly clean, or extremely hardcore, depending on the reader's imagination.

 

[calandale]

Yes you have to imagine, but there's no way that some of the pure pornographic writing could be called anything but hardcore. It's just like film: you can imagine what you like, if there's a kiss and a fade to falling on bed. There's not much left to imagine in a prono.

 

[Merentha]

Books also have the saving grace of being, well, literary.  They are seen as higher, and less designed for the masses.  As such, there are fewer restrictions on them.

Edit:  Guess I'm wrong, then. 

 

[Archonsod]

Actually books are covered by most laws - the UK's Obscene Publications act was originally intended for books (hence the furore over Lady Chatterly's Lover)

I think the main reason for lack of censorship in books is entirely down to imagination though - I would interpret a book differently to you. As a result, its a lot harder to apply the same kind of rules, unless the writer obviously oversteps the bound. With film and similar there isn't that same undefined quality.

 

[phbbbt107]

For what it's worth, Oblivion should have been M right out of the gates. Mutilated corpses crucified and set on fire? M.

Yeah, but you're mutilating, crucifying, and burning the corpses in the name of all that is good!

 

[Silverfox]

For what it's worth, Oblivion should have been M right out of the gates. Mutilated corpses crucified and set on fire? M.

I agree.

 

[leprechaun]

M for Mature? That's, what, a 15 rating in the UK? So? Call of Duty, CoD UO, CoD 2, FarCry, RtCW, Almost all shooters are 15s. People still buy them under 15. I've had CoD 1 and 2 since long before I was 15.

The point of this is: The politicians are mainly trying to ban the games because they misguidedly think that the small children that play the games will be influenced by these games because they think they're real.
Remember playing games like Cowboys and Indians, or Cops and Robbers? (Please don't be facetious) Finger-pistols, children mock-shooting each other. Need I continue? To the children it's not real. It's just a game, and the politicians are insulting people by assuming that we can't distinguish between reality and fantasy. No-one's ever told me that fighting the Sith in KotOR isn't real. It never even crossed my mind that it was real.
We don't need telling what's reality and what's not. We are ferpec'ly capable of working that out for ourselves, thank you very much. Videogames are not a cause of violence, because we know instinctively that what's acceptable in a game is not always therefore acceptable in real life. It's poor education, upbringing and guidance that leads people to thikn that mindless violence is all fine and dandy, not Call of Duty, Manhunt, FEAR, Half Life or any other games (I will note here that I think Manhunt is in the poorest possible taste and should be banned anyway, because it's simply mind-rotting, psychotic and, well, crap. However, quality games are great  ) that we might play.

QED.

 

[Archonsod]

M for Mature? That's, what, a 15 rating in the UK? So? Call of Duty, CoD UO, CoD 2, FarCry, RtCW, Almost all shooters are 15s. People still buy them under 15. I've had CoD 1 and 2 since long before I was 15.

I think M is 17+, though as far as retailer and general perception go it would correlate with an 18 rating. AO (next one up) would correlate with the 18R rating (the kind of products only licensed premises can sell).
A great deal of the problem imo is that people can still buy the games below age. If legal enforcement of the ratings systems was in force, then it would likely prevent a lot of the complaints. It wouldn't stop the kids from getting their hands on them, but the parents wouldn't be able to blame anyone (indeed, if they provided the kid with the game they could technically be prosecuted).

The point of this is: The politicians are mainly trying to ban the games because they misguidedly think that the small children that play the games will be influenced by these games because they think they're real.

I think its more to do with the fact that politicians misguidedly think that only small children play games

Videogames are not a cause of violence, because we know instinctively that what's acceptable in a game is not always therefore acceptable in real life. It's poor education, upbringing and guidance that leads people to thikn that mindless violence is all fine and dandy, not Call of Duty, Manhunt, FEAR, Half Life or any other games

In fairness there hasn't been conclusive evidence one way or the other. There is a case for the more violent games influencing young players, but the point (in my mind) is that this is not the fault of the games, but as you say on the upbringing of the child. If the child is brought up to know that violence is not something that is accepted, then this should override any kind of influence from the game. I guess its down to the "not my responsibility" attitude of much of the world today.
Personally I think a lot of these issues could be avoided if you had to prove your suitability for parenthood in the same way you need to show your able to control a vehicle before they let you use one, but thats a whole other issue

(I will note here that I think Manhunt is in the poorest possible taste and should be banned anyway, because it's simply mind-rotting, psychotic and, well, crap. However, quality games are great  ) that we might play.

I'm surprised it sold at all. Given the huge install problem it had with XP (which was a total nightmare for us, especially since Take 2 refused to even look into the problem) I'm sure a lot of copies were returned. I wouldn't be surprised if even more copies were returned once the problem was fixed Perfect example of how not to make a game.

 

[calandale]

Videogames are not a cause of violence, because we know instinctively that what's acceptable in a game is not always therefore acceptable in real life. It's poor education, upbringing and guidance that leads people to thikn that mindless violence is all fine and dandy, not Call of Duty, Manhunt, FEAR, Half Life or any other games

In fairness there hasn't been conclusive evidence one way or the other. There is a case for the more violent games influencing young players, but the point (in my mind) is that this is not the fault of the games, but as you say on the upbringing of the child. If the child is brought up to know that violence is not something that is accepted, then this should override any kind of influence from the game. I guess its down to the "not my responsibility" attitude of much of the world today.
Personally I think a lot of these issues could be avoided if you had to prove your suitability for parenthood in the same way you need to show your able to control a vehicle before they let you use one, but thats a whole other issue

I know that I am influnced by playing exceedingly violent games. Playing GTA III, I could definitely feel a certain callous disregard for life. Then again, I often take on the persona of characters from fiction that I enjoy, to some extent (boy was I a joy when I was reading the Thomas Covenant series). So, I may not be a normal example, but it does seem reasonable to assume that our social patterns would be effected by regular exposure to violent behavior, even fantasy violence.