|
When I think of the good old fashioned ultraviolent shooters of my youth, I think of killing lots of people who can't fight back and just scream for mercy a lot. This looks less like a game and more like some sort of corpse-based drawing program.
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
Ddraig posted:I'm sure he was truly looking for world news stories, which is why he decided to associate himself with a group that has been patrolling Polish nightclubs to stop Muslim men talking to Women. Well I guess that explains his love of oldschool shooters because that's obviously loosely adapted from the plot of Duke Nukem 3D.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
It's nice to see that the main character of The Darkness got some more work by the way.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
THE PENETRATOR posted:it's actually alright to play this game, similar to how it is alright to watch trash movies "Saw" and "Hostel" in theaters So punishable by horsewhipping for crimes against having taste in movies?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Nazis=Jews, things I have learned from games forums.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
I could make the argument that the distinction between this game and a slasher film is that, owing to the nature of games, the person you play as is always portrayed sympathetically, as they are necessarily a self-insert for the player into the game. So making this game would be most comparable to making a movie about a wanton mass murderer, explicitly for the purpose of sympathizing with the mass murderer over their victims, in contrast to most violent films where the sympathetic character does actually have at least some sound reasons for being sympathetic. Or I could say it looks like a a pretty lovely game because it does.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
You know with the trenchcoats and the darkness and the long hair and the stabbing this would make a great vampire isometric shooter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
am0kgonzo posted:Maybe you should boycott steam and encourage others to do the same. Vote with your wallet! But cheap games...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
The Taint Reaper posted:I still do see the problem with this game because everything they're describing you could do in Skyrim, except you used swords magic and axes instead of guns and explosives. So your review would be Like Skyrim With Guns?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Ehh, I agree that the people making it sound gross as hell and I don't buy the whole 'think about it' bollocks they're using to justify making it. I also don't think it's much like fallout or any other dark setting games because when I play those, I've never really wanted to use them to just murder everyone I meet. It's like people who make rape mods for fallout, or complain ceaselessly that they need to be able to kill children for their immersion. You sound like a gross person if that's your sticking point on the game.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
The Taint Reaper posted:Yeah well you still could. Yeah you can, but that's not the point of the game, Fallout has plot, and quests, and exploration, and a shitload of stuff to do other than see how big of a dick you can be. I like fallout, whereas this looks boring as hell. Selling on edginess and I don't really get why anyone would really like it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
The Taint Reaper posted:You know the previews for fallout 1 only showed how bad rear end and hosed up the future would be, Hatred isn't even out. I would put that down to it being the 90's, we did a lot of stuff in the 90's that we probably shouldn't do nowadays.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
The Taint Reaper posted:Well yeah if you want to live in a bland as hell future you could think that. Keep everything from saturday morning cartoons, grunge, and hip hop, throw the rest out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
The Taint Reaper posted:So you want to live in a world where Jurassic park, Aliens and Terminator 2 never happened? Ok films also can stay. But maybe we can do without some of the things we thought were awesome back then. As you say it bears a depressing resemblance to teenage angst.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
CrashCat posted:definitely, that pic just keeps on giving Holocauster Tycoon? Build railways to carry the undersirables to the extermination camps! Be sure to strike the correct balance between dehumanisation, efficiency, and popular support, or your department might get purged by the glorious leader! OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Jan 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:AO is still a large part self-censorship because there is no possible way to sell your game. No major distribution network will carry it, no stores will stock it and no digital retailers will sell it. The rating for all intents and purposes doesn't really exist and should not still be around. If your rating effectively eliminates a product from the market, it is no longer a rating. Though if the rating didn't exist, what would you use instead? Unrated? That presents the problem of games which aren't big enough to get ESRB ratings not being sold either. AO functions similarly to "refused classification" or whatever your local equivalent is, what would you prefer to be used instead?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Except the AO rating isn't designed to bar it from sale, it's a function of the content that elicits that rating. The content causes outcry, it earns the rating appropriate for that content, retailers refuse to sell it as a result, if you change the name of the rating, that will simply become the taboo rating. There's nothing wrong with the rating system in that respect, it's functioning exactly as intended, trying to categorise a very varied set of content into something approaching a simple metric so that people can make quick decisions. A retailer necessarily isn't going to playtest every game to make their own decision, that's what the rating board is for. Similarly most parents probably aren't either. Unless your argument is to just not bother making a distinction beyond a certain point so that extreme content and less extreme content both get the same rating, you're not going to change the AO effect, and if you do suggest that, that's quite contrary to the function of the rating system. The ratings board exists to make decisions about how much is too much for each given ratings category. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
AO doesn't mean porn, it means stuff which isn't judged as suitable for the previous rating band, which includes porn by default because porn is already legally not sellable to minors, and it also includes things which are judged as being unsuitable on a more precise level. It is rare to find things that contain sufficiently extreme content to merit an AO rating without them also including porn in them, that says rather more about the people who make extreme content than it does about the rating system, however. Further, once again, the decision to not sell AO games is not an enforcement from the ESRB It is an elective policy by the retailers. You're trying to blame the rating system for what people use it for, and for the laws which govern what content can be sold to who.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
Congratulations, you have established that trying to create an objective metric of a subjective medium is impossible. Now you just need to establish that there isn't a need for something which approximates one and you will have debunked the ratings system. Yes, your individual interpretation of what does and doesn't fit into each category will be different for every person. There is precisely gently caress all you can do about that and it does not negate the utility of the ratings system, which is quite necessary for the good functioning of retailers. As they will not want to sell all kinds of content and will have difficulty selling any content without consumers having the ability to pre-screen them first. That is why the ratings system exists. If you create a new content category specifically for games which would fit into the AO category for violence, do you think retailers will stock that? One of the three games total that have earned that rating did so because it created enormous amounts of controversy, this one also has managed to create plenty of fuss. Do you seriously expect that retailers will stock the proposed AO: Violence rating? Unless you are arguing that violence should be ignored and folded down consistently into the M rating, which is not a criticism of the ratings system and should not be framed as such, your point doesn't stand.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 06:52
|
|