Aller au contenu

Photo

DA2 not "mature" ;)


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
182 réponses à ce sujet

#176
Seena

Seena
  • Members
  • 510 messages

elearon1 wrote...

Seena wrote...
I will maintain that I am without misconception. : )  My profession is involved with such demographics. : )

But we will agree to disagree. : )


Considering, if you know anything about history, how often new information changes the "facts" as we accept them - particularly in reference to ancient history (I think most people would be shocked to realize how little we actually know about the Roman empire, dispite how certain we seem when depicting it in the media) - I don't see how we can, in good conscience, do anything but agree to disagree.

While the modern historians I am familiar with support my assertion, one doesn't have to look very far for support of yours either, so who is right really depends on which scholars you are going to listen to.  (which is, mostly, the case for the vast majority of historical scholasticism; it is, in fact, quite the interesting experience discussing women's history with an associate of mine who studied the subject less than a decade previously ... the changes in attitude and "accepted facts" in so short a period are almost mind boggling)



Average age of death is determined very scientifically, and is very easy to do, especially within a time frame of several hundreds of years.  It is not history - it's science. : )

Again, we shall agree to disagree.

Modifié par Seena, 20 avril 2011 - 01:06 .


#177
elearon1

elearon1
  • Members
  • 1 769 messages

Seena wrote...

 It is not history - it's science. : ) 


Okay, now you're getting personal; history, despite its limitations, is still a science.  :)

I was trying to be graceful, not sure what your last little stab was meant to be.

But we do agree that we will disagree; that seems obvious. 

#178
Seena

Seena
  • Members
  • 510 messages

elearon1 wrote...

Seena wrote...

 It is not history - it's science. : ) 


Okay, now you're getting personal; history, despite its limitations, is still a science.  :)

I was trying to be graceful, not sure what your last little stab was meant to be.

But we do agree that we will disagree; that seems obvious. 



No, it wasn't personal at all.  It was not meant to be a "stab" and I apologize if you took it as such.

Historians use scientific tools, but they are not scientists. That however,  is another argument entirely; one that has been argued for ages. : )

#179
elearon1

elearon1
  • Members
  • 1 769 messages

Seena wrote...
Historians use scientific tools, but they are not scientists. That however,  is another argument entirely; one that has been argued for ages. : ) 


And is still argued, and will continue to be argued.  Historians, and for that matter all social scientists, are prone to saying "yes we are", whereas members of the "hard sciences" such as chemistry are prone to claiming we are not.  It is a huge argument, which ... I actually had to check myself on just now so as not to get into. (social sciences being my area of study, I've got into this with my pharmicist friend more times than I can count)

And we are really off topic, here ... I was just pulling out my books to start offering evidence to support my side of this argument when I realized ... this really isn't the place for it. (and if you get me started, I will never stop ... almost have to physically restrain myself from doing it, too ... I like to argue a bit too much; which is probably why I'm a social scientist) 

At any rate, it doesn't matter so far as Thedas is concerned anyway ... being a fictional setting, it needn't rely overmuch on reality to inform these decisions. (especially when you start throwing magics and the like into the mix)

As to whether or not DA2 is mature ... can a hobby be labeled mature or immature by the kind of people it attracts to it?  If the majority of people who liked DA2 were mature individuals, would that not - by default - suggest the medium they enjoyed and defend is mature as well?  (not at all - if you use the media as a measuring stick to what people like ... I mean, have you seen the majority of television programming? - but tossing that out as a point of discussion nonetheless)

#180
Tokalla

Tokalla
  • Members
  • 109 messages

Seena wrote...

I seriously doubt either game would have earned this an "R" rating if done (exactly as is) as a movie. And filmmakers/editors have as much to say (if not more) about a film's rating by editing the film to "earn" the rating that will reach their target audience.

If it DID earn an R rating most definitely wouldn't be because of nudity or language.   If they chose to render some scenes like Fenris ripping out the heart of that guys chest in very lurid deatil - maybe. But otherwise this could have just as easily earned a PG13 rating.


Edit: In retrospect, Bioware sends very mixed messages about their target audience. And I think that is the frustration for many here.  One thing I do know - if they made a film as is,  shot for an "R" rating, and showed sex scenes with people's underwear on - they'd likely never get film financing again,


Both would likely earn an R due to excessive violence and "gore" alone (no matter how comical exploding people may seem due to absurdity, it remains objectively stronger than the mere blood spatter required to earn a mention of "blood and/or gore").  Simply by the "on screen" death count alone the film would be likely to earn an R.  Were any doubt present on an R rating based solely on violence, then either the language or sexual content alone would tip the scale.  You must remember that content is not considered individually, but combined.  As ridiculous as you may feel the language and sexual content are, I can promise that things you would likely not consider sexual content or language are also factors (religious exclamations,  kissing, scantily clad people in a bed together, sexual innuendo, references to unseen sexual activity, etc all are often noted as contributing to such content).  Sex with underwear on (or more commonly sex that is implied off screen) is not that uncommon in movies containing significant violence and some language content, as their is a very real concern with being given an NC-17 rating).  Even drinking and smoking can contribute to what rating a movie or game is given.

I never said editing a film wasn't used to achieve a desired rating (Robocop was rated X 11 times before the final theatrical edit managed to earn an R, though having seen both versions myself I would hard pressed to say the extra minute of footage and a few close up shots honestly push the violence far enough to earn a higher rating).  Often, swearing or nudity may actually be added to a film if those in charge are concerned they might earn too low a rating (two uses of the f word are a virtual guarantee of an R rating).  Please do recall that these rating system's primary purpose is to provide a guide for the minimum age that would be required to likely handle the content with minimal risk of adverse effects.

I will agree about the mixed signals, though I feel that may be a result of Bioware not wanting to be the first game company to push the boundary too far and earn an AO.  I get the feeling they want to push further into certain themes and content, but are holding back.  They may simply be choosing to remain on the conservative side to be certain they don't end up wasting resources on content that would have to be cut to reduce the rating.  While I would certainly like to see them push the boundary, I do appreciate them opting to not lose more content by creating something that may never be released.

Let me give some examples.  The Killer, The Frighteners, Equilibrium, The Last Samurai, The Patriot, The Matrix, The Matrix Revolutions, and The 13th Warrior all have R ratings almost exclusively due to the amount of violence.  The Rock and Rob Roy both have no actual nudity during sex scenes, and have R ratings.  Clerks initally earned an NC-17 based on "extensive use of extremely explicit sex-related dialogue", but the rating was successfully appealed to be re-rated R.

I seem to recall seeing a Bioware (David Gaider possibly) post on the forum commenting about wanting the post sex scene with Fenris to have him without armor on his chest, but he was forced to relent due to being asked "well what do you want to cut then?" by those who would be creating an entirely new model of Fenris' chest for a single scene that won't be shown to every player on every play through.  As much as I would have preferred those minor touches, I understand such details being among the first on the chopping block when deciding on what content takes priority.

#181
Statulos

Statulos
  • Members
  • 2 967 messages
R should be something ment to be disturbing (Von Trier´s Antichrist I mentioned before) or plots and narratives that build upon the "dark corners of the human psyche". That is NOT the case of DA2.

Industry standards are industry standards, I guess.

#182
Seena

Seena
  • Members
  • 510 messages

Tokalla wrote...



Both would likely earn an R due to excessive violence and "gore" alone (no matter how comical exploding people may seem due to absurdity, it remains objectively stronger than the mere blood spatter required to earn a mention of "blood and/or gore").  Simply by the "on screen" death count alone the film would be likely to earn an R.  Were any doubt present on an R rating based solely on violence, then either the language or sexual content alone would tip the scale.  You must remember that content is not considered individually, but combined.  As ridiculous as you may feel the language and sexual content are, I can promise that things you would likely not consider sexual content or language are also factors (religious exclamations,  kissing, scantily clad people in a bed together, sexual innuendo, references to unseen sexual activity, etc all are often noted as contributing to such content).  Sex with underwear on (or more commonly sex that is implied off screen) is not that uncommon in movies containing significant violence and some language content, as their is a very real concern with being given an NC-17 rating).  Even drinking and smoking can contribute to what rating a movie or game is given.

I never said editing a film wasn't used to achieve a desired rating (Robocop was rated X 11 times before the final theatrical edit managed to earn an R, though having seen both versions myself I would hard pressed to say the extra minute of footage and a few close up shots honestly push the violence far enough to earn a higher rating).  Often, swearing or nudity may actually be added to a film if those in charge are concerned they might earn too low a rating (two uses of the f word are a virtual guarantee of an R rating).  Please do recall that these rating system's primary purpose is to provide a guide for the minimum age that would be required to likely handle the content with minimal risk of adverse effects.

I will agree about the mixed signals, though I feel that may be a result of Bioware not wanting to be the first game company to push the boundary too far and earn an AO.  I get the feeling they want to push further into certain themes and content, but are holding back.  They may simply be choosing to remain on the conservative side to be certain they don't end up wasting resources on content that would have to be cut to reduce the rating.  While I would certainly like to see them push the boundary, I do appreciate them opting to not lose more content by creating something that may never be released.

Let me give some examples.  The Killer, The Frighteners, Equilibrium, The Last Samurai, The Patriot, The Matrix, The Matrix Revolutions, and The 13th Warrior all have R ratings almost exclusively due to the amount of violence.  The Rock and Rob Roy both have no actual nudity during sex scenes, and have R ratings.  Clerks initally earned an NC-17 based on "extensive use of extremely explicit sex-related dialogue", but the rating was successfully appealed to be re-rated R.

I seem to recall seeing a Bioware (David Gaider possibly) post on the forum commenting about wanting the post sex scene with Fenris to have him without armor on his chest, but he was forced to relent due to being asked "well what do you want to cut then?" by those who would be creating an entirely new model of Fenris' chest for a single scene that won't be shown to every player on every play through.  As much as I would have preferred those minor touches, I understand such details being among the first on the chopping block when deciding on what content takes priority.





While you list some good examples, The Lord Of the Ring Triology reminds me more of DA  and these were rated PG 13.   It would depend on how graphic they chose to show the scenes.

The language and dumbed down sex scenes -  that you can see in any PG13 movie.  Or non cable TV for that matter....  (was there one f bomb in DA2?  - that of course wouldn't be on non cable tv )

It would I guess all boil down to which rating they wanted it to have - it could go either way.


EDIT:  To be fair,  I had limited party time with Isabela due to my party make up - then she ran off so they may have been more risque dialog than I was privy to.  That may be an issue with this entire argument - it's unlikely that the game experience was uniform for everyone.

Modifié par Seena, 20 avril 2011 - 12:39 .


#183
Tokalla

Tokalla
  • Members
  • 109 messages

Seena wrote...

While you list some good examples, The Lord Of the Ring Triology reminds me more of DA  and these were rated PG 13.   It would depend on how graphic they chose to show the scenes.

The language and dumbed down sex scenes -  that you can see in any PG13 movie.


I will grant if the choice was made to eliminate mook killing, focus almost entirely on inhuman foes, and change any blood spatter/gore a film version might swing a PG-13 for DAO.  DA 2 would also require the omission of the several character dialogues from Isabela, the removal of same subplots, a removal or reworking of how critical the brothel was to a few plots, and people becoming abominations seemingly unintentionally (it happens at least two times that I recall off hand) to even come close (since retaining plot critical elements places some highly questionable actions on an unexpected source late in the game).

To clarify, I am assuming that no alteration would be made in the number of deaths (down to every random thug killed) or the manner in which they are shown.  The intent was to show that the game as it is presented would meet the film criteria (as the rating systems are quite similar from what I have seen of the ESRB thus far, though they are prone to more amusing remarks when explaining why a rating was assigned).  Once we start discussing editing elements out and altering how many on screen deaths are shown (and how they are shown) this becomes an altogether new topic with no true relevance to the point being made.

Having not bothered to count how much profanity was used in either game, I'm reluctant to judge either way.  The sexual content I recall from DAO could likely be found in PG-13 films, but I'm not sure about the innuendo in DA2 (in my experience, my tolerance for sexual content in these areas tends to be much greater than the average American parent).  Of course that is only considering them as seperate elements, as I have said previously these elements are cumulative for the final assignment of a rating.

Also, Lord of the Rings was very likely given additional leeway for being a classic (much like the Bond series tends get away with pushing the rating threshold). 

Edit:  Very good point, I had forgotten about how companion dialogue could alter swearing and sexual content.  Yes, Isabela does indeed have a decent bit of sexual content to bring to the game by merely being in the party (I had to keep her in party due to the thumbs up bug, as did my wife on her game).  If you add Aveline with Isabela you can even add some new mild to mid language too.

Modifié par Tokalla, 20 avril 2011 - 12:59 .