221 réponses à ce sujet

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

ErichHartmann wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Who cares? The medias corrupt as is, only idiots take them seriously anymore. God look at all the news organizations.

Fixed that for you.

Fixed again.  This is the no ideology zone unless it's within the world of Dragon Age.

For the Chantry!

Fair enough though considering Fox is the one news channel that doesn't have a completely liberal spin on things to begin with, it just gets old watching socialist progressives attack it constantly.

[Saibh]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Who cares? The medias corrupt as is, only idiots take them seriously anymore. God look at all the news organizations.

Fixed that for you.

Fixed again.  This is the no ideology zone unless it's within the world of Dragon Age.

For the Chantry!

Fair enough though considering Fox is the one news channel that doesn't have a completely liberal spin on things to begin with, it just gets old watching socialist progressives attack it constantly.

I thought all BioWare fans came with an inherent dislike of Fox News. Ah well.

[Herr Uhl]

slimgrin wrote...

But lets say Hawke had sworn revenge on someone because he had witnessed his sister's death as a child. Actually showing that take place, perhaps in a dramatic flashback, might be the best approach given the gravity of the event. Again, I'm not pushing for child gore here. I'm just not ruling out all the possible ways to tell a story.

Having a cut to his/her reaction would suffice, or cut to white/black.

slimgrin wrote...

Edit: why are we debating the veracity of various news outlets?

People from USA enjoy such things. It seems.

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 16 octobre 2010 - 04:43 .

[Lord_Valandil]

Saibh wrote...
I thought all BioWare fans came with an inherent dislike of Fox News. Ah well.

Hahaha...I HATE Fox.
F***ing hate Fox. Not just because of what happened with Mass Effect, but also because of the way they treat Alien and Predator, and the way they do business. They release three or four editions of the same movie, and...the best part is that many editions are the same, with a different box-art.
Fox sucks.

[upsettingshorts]

Sometimes the implication of violence is more effective than showing it. A perfect example of this would be Morrigan's description of what happened to the human armies at Ostagar versus the relatively pristine battlefield and 100% intact King Cailan you discover in Return to Ostagar.

The things I imagined the darkspawn did to Cailan's - and everyone else's - remains were far more disturbing than what could have possibly been shown in an M-rated game. We shouldn't have seen it. 

Sometimes showing violence is more effective. Sometimes implying it is more effective. It depends, there's no rule about it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 04:44 .

[Kilshrek]

David Gaider wrote...

The censorship in some countries regarding depicting violence done to minors can be pretty strict, particularly in places like Germany and Australia. We could create a separate edition of the game for sale there, one where such content is removed... but, quite frankly, there's no burning need on the design team to do this. As with Connor in the Redcliffe story, it's not that difficult to imply rather than explicitly show.

If someone actually finds that disappointing, well... I guess they'll have to meet their violence-to-children needs elsewhere.

This. In response to OP.

If you want to give Australia another neutered L4D2 style game, you'd better be ready to suffer endless hate from Australian gamers. Not that we'd particularly want to see a child killed in the first place, or I should just speak for myself, but I am a BIG hater of censoring games. 9 times out of 10 it's plain silly things that get censored, or cut. However after playing Manhunt for 15 mins I realised I wouldn't lose any sleep if I never even played it.

edit : Often if a violent scene absolutely has to be shown, silhouettes serve just as well don't they? There is no graphic depiction, the violent act is 'shown', and masochists get their fill.

Modifié par Kilshrek, 16 octobre 2010 - 04:53 .

[ChickenDownUnder]

I'm reminded of Fable II, out of all games. Which while does quite a few things "wrong", wasn't to me at least a completely **itty game.

Especially in recalling a certain quest involving becoming a member of an evil church, where you are tasked with slaughtering an entire village and defiling the good temple. Yet the kids mysteriously disappeared when it came time to do so. While that quest certainly was morally questionable, it would have definitely made me reconsider what I was about to do in the game if those villagers also included kids.

A lot of times in games the "evil" choices are little better than picking the sarcastic dialogue option. As well as it being difficult to feel any actual remorse over evil actions in a game if it is all-off screen.

[Marionetten]

Brockololly wrote...

So, I guess this means that hypothetically, we would never be able to have the Old God Baby involved in any combat or anything until he is older than 18, lest he get injured in combat and get banned in Germany or Australia?

Isn't he kind of a monster? Different rules apply there. You're allowed to slaughter monster babies. Poor grubs.

[upsettingshorts]

ChickenDownUnder wrote...
A lot of times in games the "evil" choices are little better than picking the sarcastic dialogue option. As well as it being difficult to feel any actual remorse over evil actions in a game if it is all-off screen.

Not always.



The presence of that act in the Fallout 3 game - that town contained at least two children - made questioning Bethesda's decision not to allow killin' kids in Little Lamplight completely legitimate.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 05:07 .

[Johnson45]

I wouldn't want to take the OP to a nearby nursery ::|

Modifié par Johnson45, 16 octobre 2010 - 05:00 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Marionetten wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

So, I guess this means that hypothetically, we would never be able to have the Old God Baby involved in any combat or anything until he is older than 18, lest he get injured in combat and get banned in Germany or Australia?

Isn't he kind of a monster? Different rules apply there. You're allowed to slaughter monster babies. Poor grubs.

Perhaps the OGB has super aging powers like the creepy spawn in the franchise from hell, Twilight. But I doubt if it shows up it would be a party member. Could be a nice looming presence to lead into a DA:3, or some kind of ominous NPC.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Kilshrek wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

The censorship in some countries regarding depicting violence done to minors can be pretty strict, particularly in places like Germany and Australia. We could create a separate edition of the game for sale there, one where such content is removed... but, quite frankly, there's no burning need on the design team to do this. As with Connor in the Redcliffe story, it's not that difficult to imply rather than explicitly show.

If someone actually finds that disappointing, well... I guess they'll have to meet their violence-to-children needs elsewhere.

This. In response to OP.

If you want to give Australia another neutered L4D2 style game, you'd better be ready to suffer endless hate from Australian gamers. Not that we'd particularly want to see a child killed in the first place, or I should just speak for myself, but I am a BIG hater of censoring games. 9 times out of 10 it's plain silly things that get censored, or cut. However after playing Manhunt for 15 mins I realised I wouldn't lose any sleep if I never even played it.

edit : Often if a violent scene absolutely has to be shown, silhouettes serve just as well don't they? There is no graphic depiction, the violent act is 'shown', and masochists get their fill.

I think BIoware's the wrong people to take that argument up with. take it up with your politicians that seem to think they need to censor everything for your protection.

[ChickenDownUnder]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ChickenDownUnder wrote...
A lot of times in games the "evil" choices are little better than picking the sarcastic dialogue option. As well as it being difficult to feel any actual remorse over evil actions in a game if it is all-off screen.

Not always.

The presence of that act in the Fallout 3 game - that town contained at least two children - made questioning Bethesda's decision not to allow killin' kids in Little Lamplight legitimately questionable.

Oh, indeed. That is why I said a lot of times instead of always. With the blood drinking, cannibalism, selling kids into slavory, and even being able to decorate your character's house with corpses, blowing up a town pretty much off screen is the least of a character's capable evils.

[RubiconI7]

Shadow_broker wrote...

i got pretty pissed when they didn't show my sword plunging into connor causing his guts to explode

Slightly disturbing...
There are countless children's rights groups out there who are just watiing for something like this to happen so they can rise up and flame...Not saying they are doing the wrong thing..

Remember what Fox did to ME1?

[FellowerOfOdin]

David Gaider is correct. Further note that even offering a censored version will not mean that nobody in this country gets to play exactly this version. And just image a over-zealous politician showing the public a scene from a game where you can see someone stabbing a child to death...not recommendable.

** CAREFUL! THE FOLLOWING PART CONTAINS A STORY SPOILER FOR DRAGON AGE: ORIGINS! **

And as I stated before, what does seeing a child actually bleed to death add to the game? I was terrified by the Connor scene, by the crying mother who might have to kill her own son and is so incredibly desperate, begging for mercy knowing that there is none...

No thanks, we don't need graphic violence against children, not even in video games.

Modifié par FellowerOfOdin, 16 octobre 2010 - 05:11 .

[DanaScu]

GodWood wrote...

Lady light doorbell wrote...

GodWood wrote..
Adults can be innoccent too yet they are allowed to be shown being killed.
Whats the difference?

One cannot make a well thought of choice while the other knows the full consequence of there actions.

This is irrelevent. (and not entirely true)
I can kill an innoccent adult yet not a child, why?

:shrugs: The devs said so.

http://social.biowar...ex/4770843&lf=8

[AllThatJazz]

DanaScu wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Lady light doorbell wrote...

GodWood wrote..
Adults can be innoccent too yet they are allowed to be shown being killed.
Whats the difference?

One cannot make a well thought of choice while the other knows the full consequence of there actions.

This is irrelevent. (and not entirely true)
I can kill an innoccent adult yet not a child, why?

:shrugs: The devs said so.

http://social.biowar...ex/4770843&lf=8

Eh, rightly or wrongly, showing the death of a child (even a computer-generated one) evokes - and provokes -much more emotion for a lot of people than that of an adult. As perhaps suggested by the fact that we're on page 9 of this debate after only 11 hours? IRL, it's generally pictures of kids in, eg, famine situations, that really get people worked up enough to start giving to charity etc. In gaming terms it's the depiction more likely to result in accusations of gratuitousness and 'evil computer games' type of nonsense.

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 16 octobre 2010 - 05:36 .

[Bullets McDeath]

So he wants more baby murder and more dreadlocks? If only there was a Metalocalypse RPG....

[Chris Priestly]

David has answered the question.


LOCKDOWN!