510 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

If you prefer your version of reality and try hard enough you can pretend there's no blood on the ground in that screenshot, sure.

But you know, it won't really make it go away.

 

 

Uhm...where is the blood exactly? I can't see it.

[Il Divo]

Uhm...where is the blood exactly? I can't see it.

 

The bodies on the left side. 

[tmp7704]

Under the freshly killed Wardens, left side of the screen.

[Rawgrim]

Hard to spot. Had to actually search for it.

[tmp7704]

Besides, how do you know that's blood? Apart from being red (which it wouldn't be after being on the ground for more than a few seconds) it doesn't react to anything, you can step in it and nothing happens, you never saw how it appeared or where it came from.

lol, this excuse again. Last time you used it, the complaint was the blood wasn't red. Now when it's inconvenient, it's that it is.

As for how it appeared? Just before it you see cutscene which clearly implies these Wardens were killed shortly beforehand. You even get to see one actually getting killed, iirc.
 

Oh that Mature! No that's fricking PG-13

Nope, turns out this is enough for M rating. Deal with it.

[atlantico]

Under the freshly killed Wardens, left side of the screen.

 

Wait, how do you know they're freshly killed?

 

lol, this excuse again. Last time you used it, the complaint was the blood wasn't red. Now when it's inconvenient, it's that it is.

As for how it appeared? Just before it you see cutscene which clearly implies these Wardens were killed shortly beforehand. You even get to see one actually getting killed, iirc.
 
Nope, turns out this is enough for M rating. Deal with it.

 

See "blood remains on the ground" does not mean "unidentified red-ish liquid of unknown origin found in near obscure backgrounds", especially when it is the sentence that immediately follows "large blood-splatter effects", unless the fine people at ESRB are completely inept at writing their thoughts into English.

 

Which they very well may be, I have no reason to assume otherwise.

 

So implied blood followed by an implied killing in a non-interactive cutscene. This is all so PG-13

 

The rating itself is neither here nor there for me, the point is that the rating itself doesn't magically make the game mature.

[tmp7704]

Wait, how do you know they're freshly killed?

... I dunno, maybe from a cut scene you see right before, where one Warden is killing another to bind a demon? Which I mentioned in another post, on this very page?
 

See "blood remains on the ground" does not mean "unidentified red-ish liquid of unknown origin found in near obscure backgrounds"

Please, just stop. Whether you're merely playing dense to be argumentative or genuinely suddenly can't tell a connection between liquid under bodies of people stabbed to death being blood, it's painful to watch and absolutely unconvincing just the same.
 

So implied blood followed by an implied killing in a non-interactive cutscene. This is all so PG-13

Nope, pretty clearly it is not because if it was then guess what? The game would be rated PG-13.
 

the point is that the rating itself doesn't magically make the game mature.

The point is your personal ideas on what counts as PG-13 and what counts as M when it comes to game ratings are way off.

[Zatche]

For some reason, I feel compelled to present Dragon Age: Inquisition - The Slitting of Throats and Outpouring of Blood

 

https://www.youtube....vut9ZHva0#t=300

 

https://www.youtube....faTbBAtHU#t=400

[Rawgrim]

I honestly didn't see the blood on the floor.

[atlantico]

... I dunno, maybe from a cut scene you see right before, where one Warden is killing another to bind a demon? Which I mentioned in another post, on this very page?
 
Please, just stop. Whether you're merely playing dense to be argumentative or genuinely suddenly can't tell a connection between liquid under bodies of people stabbed to death being blood, it's painful to watch and absolutely unconvincing just the same.
 
Nope, pretty clearly it is not because if it was then guess what? The game would be rated PG-13.
 
The point is your personal ideas on what counts as PG-13 and what counts as M when it comes to game ratings are way off.

 

No, games are not rated PG-13, you're thinking of movies. I never said the game was supposed to be rated PG-13. It literally can't. It could be rated Teen. Sort of similar.

 

But nobody really cares about videogame ratings except for Steam and AO, my point is that the violence/sex/nonsense in this game is perfectly suited for PG-13 audience. 

 

First the cutscene just implies that these are maybe the same people, but who knows. It's all implications, insinuations and innuendos. Boring, sterilized and without any gravity or consequence.. in some ways far worse than actual graphic violence, because it is insulting to the player.

 

As for the blood, yeah I was aware of the occasional background blood, but the ESRB rating implies the player causes blood to splatter and to remain on the ground after fights. Which does not happen. Which is where I naturally ask myself: did they play the same game.

 

For some reason, I feel compelled to present Dragon Age: Inquisition - The Slitting of Throats and Outpouring of Blood

 

https://www.youtube....vut9ZHva0#t=300

 

https://www.youtube....faTbBAtHU#t=400

 

Look, the blood that remains on... oh wait, it's gone. Santized. No blood splatters that are persistent. Did you even play DA:O?

 

The second video was especially funny. How utterly sanitized and the blood effect looked so little like blood the game's producers could have defended that to be her "life essence" or some such nonsense.

[Zatche]

The qualification that blood be persistent for it to be considered M-rated content is absurd, but if you really need to see some blood sticking around, skip to 12:25.

 

It's pretty clear that in most scenes that blood isn't persistent, has to do with the technical problems around the cutscenes (I'll admit that it does not look that well rendered), not an intent by Bioware to dial down the violence.

 

And we see persistent blood during the actual combat. Blood splatters and it sticks on your clothes, just like it did in Origins.

[Abyss108]

I'm pretty sure most people here are old enough to buy the game no matter what it is rated. So why do people care what number is on the back of the box?

 

It nots like the rating actually means anything in terms of actual maturity. 

[atlantico]

 

And we see persistent blood during the actual combat. Blood splatters and it sticks on your clothes, just like it did in Origins.

 

We see blood during the combat, but it disappears 1.2 seconds after hitting the ground. It is persistent on character clothing and weapons, yes. 

 

The idea that blood had to be persistent to get an M rating is neither here nor there. It probably helps, but no one claimed it was the reason for it. It's just one thing mentioned in the ESRB blurb about the game. It also mentions that it's an RPG, but I don't think that entered into the M rating either. 

 

It's just that blood isn't persistent after fights in DA:I except on clothes and weapons, while the ESRB rating blurb made it sound like the blood persisted on the environment after a fight, which does not happen, which just makes on wonder what version of the game they played. 

 

But disappearing blood, well that's a PG-13 feature! You say it's technical problems, I can only assume that's either because you are a designer and developer of DA:I and are posting here to share your thoughts and experience on technical issues and challenges while making the game ... alternatively, you're just making claims out of thin air. 

 

Now who would do that?

 

 

It nots like the rating actually means anything in terms of actual maturity. 

 

 

Very true. Which is why we've been having this discussion of dumb ratings, because people who don't agree with people like moi, point to the rating and say: HA! it's rated mature, therefore... mature content!

[Zatche]

Eh, I'm not a developer, I'm making inferences based on what I've seen. Why would they have the blood pouring out and then not stay there? "Oh, we can have blood flowing from necks, but if it spills on the ground and stays there for a while, that's too violent?" That they ran into some limitation, be it a time or technical challenge, seems to be the most reasonable answer I can think of.

 

And I agree that mature content or an M-rating doesn't make the actual game "mature." I just find it odd that someone would claim that DAI doesn't warrant an M-rating, according to the ESRB standards.

[Saphiron123]

For some reason, I feel compelled to present Dragon Age: Inquisition - The Slitting of Throats and Outpouring of Blood

 

https://www.youtube....vut9ZHva0#t=300

 

https://www.youtube....faTbBAtHU#t=400

Two throats in 100 hours does not a body count make. I enjoyed DAI (at least the story, not the fetch quests and empty maps, god of secrets anyone... stupid despair demon with extra hp) but it's pretty freaking PC compared to origins and 2. It needs to remain somewhat mature.

That said, I'm kind of amazed over 300 people responded to this. Kind of cool, actually.

I miss blood splatter though, DA2 was a lot more visceral, DAO was as well... this one is very "sanitary". You get a bit on your armor, but it's nowhere near the bloodfest it used to be. Having a conversation with a face splattered in blood in a dragon age staple and they should have three gore options -  Persistent gore on, persistent gore off, and persistent gore: dragon age.

Damn inquisitor is too fancy to be hit by blood after he mowed down 30 men.

[Abyss108]

Ugh please don't bring the gore back. It looked ridiculous and made it impossible to take anything seriously.

 

If they want to have realistic gore, fine, just don't make it like the earlier games. Hardly makes the game mature anyway.

[papercut_ninja]

Ugh please don't bring the gore back. It looked ridiculous and made it impossible to take anything seriously.

 

If they want to have realistic gore, fine, just don't make it like the earlier games. Hardly makes the game mature anyway.

 

...yaayyy, exploding blood sacks...this is so mature...

[eyezonlyii]

It seems that for you imagining things that are clearly not written takes precedent over what is actually written. So this will probably be a futile attempt.The analogy was about using 'equality' as an argument; it had nothing to do with production or consumption. But if it makes it easier for you, let's take something you can consume. A bakery wants to start producing cookies with a chocolate topping. After a survey it turns out that 9 out of 10 costumers want a white chocolate (WS) topping and 1 out of 10 costumers want a dark chocolate (DS) topping. So which chocolate combination should the baker take as topping, provided each cookie has to have the same topping? Some options are
- Half WS and the other half DS -> equal amount of S per preference group
- 9 times more WA than DS -> percentage of WS (DS) is equal to the percentage of people who prefer WS (DS)
- Only WS -> each costumer gets an equal vote and the winner takes it all.
 
As above, you can use the word 'equal' objectively when you compare quantities. However, objectivity is lost whenever you make statements like "treating the costumers equal means that ...". Depending on his own standard, the baker can decide what it means for him to treat his costumers equally and choose the topping accordingly.
 
You can only treat people equally according to your own standards and values and you should realize that there are other people who's standards and values are as valid as yours. It is not for you to decide what equal, in this context, means for someone else in the same way it is not for you to decide what someone else should find beautiful.
 
In my post I have said nothing about my point of view in this matter. That I have a problem with LGBT content (and implied by your tone, LGBT people in general) and that I think the majority should decide all is purely your imagination speaking.

Just saw this as I just got home from work. So now you've come up with a new splendid analogy that is more appropriate for th e discussion. And yes, the variences on the toppings make sense in the proportions given, but there is only on that has the toppings equal, and that is when they are in the same amount. I'm not saying that is what the baker should choose, but buy the definition of equality, it would be where white chocolate and dark chocolate are produced in similar amounts.

But the choice ultimately remains with the baker. If he feels that it's worth making more with dark chocolate for whatever reason, then he is free to do so. Just as bioware is free to add in as much content for whatever group they feel like. In this way everyone has a chance of getting what topping they want for their cookies.

[atlantico]

Ugh please don't bring the gore back. It looked ridiculous and made it impossible to take anything seriously.

 

If they want to have realistic gore, fine, just don't make it like the earlier games.

Sure, that would be great. 

[Abyss108]

Treating the consumer as equal would mean everyone got equal content, which would work very differently in the cookie analogy than in a game.

 

eg. 10 customer, 9 want white chocolate. The baker makes 9 white cookies, and one dark cookie. The 9 people each have their 1 white cookie each, the other gets their 1 dark cookie. Everyone gets the same amount of cookie they want.

 

eg. 10 customers, 9 want straight romances, 1 wants a gay romance. The writers write 9 straight romances, 1 gay romance. The 9 straight players now have a choice of 9 romances, but the one who wants a gay romance only has one option. Everyone does NOT get the same amount of content.

 

Sorry, it just really really really bugs me that this analogy does not work.... Besides nobody wants a dark cookie when they can have a white cookie. 

[atlantico]

Treating the consumer as equal would mean everyone got equal content, which would work very differently in the cookie analogy than in a game.

 

eg. 10 customer, 9 want white chocolate. The baker makes 9 white cookies, and one dark cookie. The 9 people each have their 1 white cookie each, the other gets their 1 dark cookie. Everyone gets the same amount of cookie they want.

 

eg. 10 customers, 9 want straight romances, 1 wants a gay romance. The writers write 9 straight romances, 1 gay romance. The 9 straight players now have a choice of 9 romances, but the one who wants a gay romance only has one option. Everyone does NOT get the same amount of content.

 

Sorry, it just really really really bugs me that this analogy does not work....

 

You're right. That analogy doesn't really work. On a tangent, have you ever heard an analogy that can't be torn to pieces, because when I think about it, I can't.

[hong]

You're right. That analogy doesn't really work. On a tangent, have you ever heard an analogy that can't be torn to pieces, because when I think about it, I can't.

See, it's like food. Sometimes you want to compare stuff to steak, but at other times you want to compare it to peanut butter. Now there's nothing wrong with comparing stuff to steak or peanut butter, but not both at the same time.

[Abyss108]

You're right. That analogy doesn't really work. On a tangent, have you ever heard an analogy that can't be torn to pieces, because when I think about it, I can't.

 

Most analogies can be torn to pieces if you try hard enough, I just feel that this one is not fundamentally similar enough to what it's being compared to. You're talking about people getting equal shares but that works very differently if those shares are being consumed. So the analogy works fundamentally differently to what it's being compared to. Hence, bad analogy. 

 

It's also making me crave cookies, so I'm classing it as a bad analogy because of that too.

[atlantico]

See, it's like food. Sometimes you want to compare stuff to steak, but at other times you want to compare it to peanut butter. Now there's nothing wrong with comparing stuff to steak or peanut butter, but not both at the same time.

 

Then you can just combine peanut butter and steak and call the whole thing off!

 

 

Mmmmm peanutbutter steak... 

 

 

Most analogies can be torn to pieces if you try hard enough, I just feel that this one is not fundamentally similar enough to what it's being compared to. You're talking about people getting equal shares but that works very differently if those shares are being consumed. So the analogy works fundamentally differently to what it's being compared to. Hence, bad analogy. 

 

It's also making me crave cookies, so I'm classing it as a bad analogy because of that too. 

 

Well it's not me, making that analogy. Another poster who has a nick starting with the letter "a". But cookies are good.

[papercut_ninja]

Most analogies can be torn to pieces if you try hard enough, I just feel that this one is not fundamentally similar enough to what it's being compared to. You're talking about people getting equal shares but that works very differently if those shares are being consumed. So the analogy works fundamentally differently to what it's being compared to. Hence, bad analogy. 

 

It's also making me crave cookies, so I'm classing it as a bad analogy because of that too.

 

I wish we could have cookies in DA...and cake, more cake!