"Nintendo no longer "family friendly"" UGH! [Archive]

View Full Version : "Nintendo no longer "family friendly"" UGH!

Atari 5200

03-12-2009, 02:02 AM

Sonicwolf

03-12-2009, 02:42 AM

This is the way things are. If you make kiddy games, everyone older than 12 bitches. If you make adult games, the super-religous and soccermommish people bitch too. The good thing is that making kiddy games puts you in the financial toilet. Luckily Nintendo figured that out with the Gamecube and tough luck to these morons who whine and complain about the loss of family friendlyness.
ITS NOT 1986 PEOPLE!
Nintendo has the right to become a diverse company. How would they feel if there so-called "Family Friendly" platform dissappeard due to lack of sales in the teen-and-up market.
I apologise if any offence was taken from this post.

Gameguy

03-12-2009, 03:18 AM

So they'll finally have adult content in their games, instead of wholesome stuff like Mario using mushrooms to get super powers. Cool.

People would actually have to rely on the ratings that are listed on every game to know if the game is appropriate or not, rather than just assuming it's ok because it's a Nintendo system. This really isn't a big deal, Nintendo is just doing what everybody else did years ago.

Superman

03-12-2009, 03:31 AM

So where do fighting games on the various Nintendo systems fit in over the years? I know there is no blood, decapitations or extreme violence in (most of) those games, but what would you call it, "family-friendly fighting action?"

I don't think they are necessarily moving away from their image, just out. And just a little. Most of their titles are still geared for a younger crowd. Who knows, that could be part of the plan.

j_factor

03-12-2009, 04:54 AM

Nintendo isn't Leap Frog.

Oobgarm

03-12-2009, 06:20 AM

How dare someone bag on Nintendo. They are untouchable and undeserving of any and all criticism!

I can see how people could be upset by a pretty violent game on a system that is generally regarded to be the best bet for families and kids. Don't personally agree with the viewpoint, but I understand it.

And it's just like 1986. Nintendo is having quite the renaissance, and I think it's quite similar to what happened back in the 80's with the NES.

kaedesdisciple

03-12-2009, 08:45 AM

Slightly OT but one part of the article brought it to my mind:

Who watches the Watchmen-I mean-ESRB? Think about it for a second, all they need to do is put the AO on a game and it's essentially banned. Is anyone auditing the ESRB to make sure that they are doing their job properly and not unjustly burdening some companies more than others? I would certainly hope that a reputable auditing firm is there on a regular basis to spot-check their processes and product if they have this much control over an entire form of media.

TheDomesticInstitution

03-12-2009, 08:54 AM

Awesome! How long before the M-rated Mario titles?

Icarus Moonsight

03-12-2009, 09:09 AM

So, it took Sega to pop the cherry and dirty Nintendo up some huh? That is just dripping with irony... Whoever wrote that article has the memory of a goldfish. Yahoo! huh? That explains everything.

Half Japanese

03-12-2009, 12:14 PM

Somebody nudge me when Nintendo returns to being "gamer-friendly".

Sonicwolf

03-12-2009, 01:48 PM

Awesome! How long before the M-rated Mario titles?

Super Mario Bros. 5 - Sex In The Mushroom Kingdom

john_soper

03-12-2009, 02:52 PM

Anyone remember BMXXX for the Gamecube?

Sniderman

03-12-2009, 02:55 PM

Bah. I hate it when I hear some douchebag whining that a videogame/comic book/animated cartoon is too violent/sex-ridden for their little snowflake because everyone knows "videogames/comic books/animated cartoons are for children!"

I actually heard a co-worker bitching yesterday that she was mortified when she took her kids (ages 8 and 10) to Watchmen over the weekend. Never mind the movie is rated R and based on one of the most sex/violence-laden comics ever produced. She was mad that this was supposed to be a "superhero" movie and - you know - superheroes appeal to kids.

Wake me when the Nintendo Wii releases the first home edition of Boong-Ga Boong-Ga.

Bah again.

TonyTheTiger

03-12-2009, 04:17 PM

Slightly OT but one part of the article brought it to my mind:

Who watches the Watchmen-I mean-ESRB?

The free market.

Think about it for a second, all they need to do is put the AO on a game and it's essentially banned. Is anyone auditing the ESRB to make sure that they are doing their job properly and not unjustly burdening some companies more than others? I would certainly hope that a reputable auditing firm is there on a regular basis to spot-check their processes and product if they have this much control over an entire form of media.

If we assume that the ESRB goes rogue and starts dishing out the AOs left and right then console manufacturers and retailers are going to start taking a more critical look at their policies. Right now, because the AO rating is so rare, it's easy for Nintendo/Sony/MS to not allow AO games on their consoles. It's equally easy for Best Buy, Gamestop, and other retailers to not sell those games. There's no downside. They get to wave the "We're a responsible company" flag while not sacrificing anything.

But if all of a sudden major game releases are getting hit with the AO then those corporate policies will start to become mighty expensive. The incentive to defect will be extremely high. Sony might think "Now's the chance to get an advantage over the competition. Hey, we'll let you publish your game on our console if MS and Nintendo won't!" It'll be the Sega vs. Nintendo Mortal Kombat debacle all over again. It didn't take a genius to figure out that after Sega whooped Nintendo's ass in MK sales Nintendo would then allow Mortal Kombat II in its unaltered form.

The same goes for retailers. Imagine the benefit to Best Buy if it decides to start selling the AO rated GTA V or DOOM IV while Gamestop and Wal-Mart refuse to. Then when that happens, Gamestop and Wal-Mart will find themselves playing catch up when those once easy decisions not to sell AO games are now a liability rather than an asset.

Eventually, if it happens enough, the AO rating will just become another standard because no company will shoot itself in the foot in the name of the status quo. And if the ESRB goes rogue and stays that way long enough we'll eventually see another independent ratings board formed to compete for control.

Things are the way they are today because it's convenient. No blood, no foul.

Cryomancer

03-12-2009, 04:23 PM

No More Heroes? Onechanbara? Madworld is far from the first.

...seconding the Boong-Ga Boong-Ga comment.

kaedesdisciple

03-12-2009, 05:01 PM

The free market.

If we assume that the ESRB goes rogue and starts dishing out the AOs left and right then console manufacturers and retailers are going to start taking a more critical look at their policies. Right now, because the AO rating is so rare, it's easy for Nintendo/Sony/MS to not allow AO games on their consoles. It's equally easy for Best Buy, Gamestop, and other retailers to not sell those games. There's no downside. They get to wave the "We're a responsible company" flag while not sacrificing anything.

But if all of a sudden major game releases are getting hit with the AO then those corporate policies will start to become mighty expensive. The incentive to defect will be extremely high. Sony might think "Now's the chance to get an advantage over the competition. Hey, we'll let you publish your game on our console if MS and Nintendo won't!" It'll be the Sega vs. Nintendo Mortal Kombat debacle all over again. It didn't take a genius to figure out that after Sega whooped Nintendo's ass in MK sales Nintendo would then allow Mortal Kombat II in its unaltered form.

The same goes for retailers. Imagine the benefit to Best Buy if it decides to start selling the AO rated GTA V or DOOM IV while Gamestop and Wal-Mart refuse to. Then when that happens, Gamestop and Wal-Mart will find themselves playing catch up when those once easy decisions not to sell AO games are now a liability rather than an asset.

Eventually, if it happens enough, the AO rating will just become another standard because no company will shoot itself in the foot in the name of the status quo. And if the ESRB goes rogue and stays that way long enough we'll eventually see another independent ratings board formed to compete for control.

Things are the way they are today because it's convenient. No blood, no foul.

The free market is certainly no auditor or regulator; it's nothing but an armchair quarterback yelling at the TV after hearing the same public information broadcast worldwide while thinking that it was published solely for their personal consumption.

So, what you're saying is, they can do what they want, but as long as no one talks about it and they don't do it too much it's okay? I don't think they would start throwing out AO's all over the place either. However, what's to stop a company from buying a slightly "better" rating, or some other game company or third party organization from kicking money over to the ESRB to grade one company just a little bit harder than another one to fill their own political agenda?

If the public believes that your outward purpose is ethical, I guess that's all that matters.

TonyTheTiger

03-12-2009, 05:02 PM

Did anybody see South Park last night? It was strangely relevant even though it was about Disney and not Nintendo.

It's true that Nintendo's main marketing campaign is about bringing the family together and all that. So it isn't totally absurd for some of these games to raise a few eyebrows. They do sort of fly in the face of how the Wii is being advertised. If the ad campaign were different than this might not even be an issue.

That being said, to assume that Nintendo consoles will have family friendly and only family friendly titles isn't all that logical. There was never a guarantee. Yet these people seem to have come to the irrational conclusion that just because Nintendo does put out a lot of family friendly titles, the company should be expected to always put out family friendly titles. Like a j_factor said above, Nintendo isn't Leap Frog.

The free market is certainly no auditor or regulator; it's nothing but an armchair quarterback yelling at the TV after hearing the same public information broadcast worldwide while thinking that it was published solely for their personal consumption.

So, what you're saying is, they can do what they want, but as long as no one talks about it and they don't do it too much it's okay? I don't think they would start throwing out AO's all over the place either. However, what's to stop a company from buying a slightly "better" rating, or some other game company or third party organization from kicking money over to the ESRB to grade one company just a little bit harder than another one to fill their own political agenda?

If the public believes that your outward purpose is ethical, I guess that's all that matters.

I'd argue that the free market is one of the best regulators but that's a complicated issue and well beyond the scope of this thread. But Mortal Kombat on the SNES vs. Genesis, and the SNES version of MKII shows just how powerful the free market really is.

The fact that the ESRB isn't a government entity is a good thing. If we're talking about government run ratings boards and regulators then the world looks very different.

If you're talking about wheeling and dealing behind closed doors you really are limited to just three ratings. T, M, and AO. There have been a couple of games I think got wonky ratings but that usually happened between either E and T or T and M. The E-10 rating was created specifically to deal with the former issue. I think that a T-15 should be created to deal with the latter and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened relatively soon.

But, really, the difference between and E and a T is more or less nil. Whether or not we agree with Smash Bros. getting a T rating, there are almost no consequences at all no matter what rating it gets.

That being the case, the only games that would "matter" are the ones that could swing between T and M or swing between M and AO. If a company tried to push for a lower rating or push for a competitor's game to get a higher one I honestly think that the only time we'd really not know something was up is in the really really fringe situation which is extremely rare.

The ESRB is actually pretty transparent. It's far more transparent than even the MPAA. We know pretty clearly what a game needs to have to be bumped to the next rating. We also know, from a game like Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe, that the ESRB is perfectly willing to work with a publisher to map out the lines between the ratings.

So if Capcom decided to grease somebody's palm to get a T rating for the next Resident Evil or push Konami's Silent Hill into the AO rating, we'd know pretty damn quickly whether or not something was up just by playing the game. We've been doing this long enough that I doubt things can easily "sneak by" so I don't think it's too much of an issue. If a game gets a particular rating there's probably a 99% chance it has the content to justify it.

And, yeah, if things started getting egregious where games that would normally sell millions are getting the AO rating, you better believe retailers will take a hard look at their no-AO policies. There'd be such a backlash against the ESRB that they might even change their rating standards.

I can think of two examples in film where the MPAA could have gone either way. The first is with The Lion King. Here you have an animated movie where a major character is a victim of a premeditated homicide. A fratricide, no less. That's pretty intense yet the movie got a G rating. I think it was because the MPAA was so used to handing out Gs to Disney films that they just let it go by. But did you notice that animated films released after The Lion King started getting PG ratings? The Prince of Egypt, for instance. The Lion King was a sort of "wake up call." These things happen. I don't think we should necessarily march into the MPAA with torches and pitchforks because they screwed up. What matters is that they took the proper steps to correct the problem and started taking closer looks at animated movies.

The second example is The Dark Knight. This is probably the perfect movie that walks that line between PG-13 and R. It probably could have gotten either rating. It's at this point that subjectivity inevitably comes into play. These are the only situations I can imagine that would really leave room for potential shenanigans leaving the audience none the wiser. Maybe it does happen but the system is set up in such a way so that the risk of harm is pretty low. I've had more bad teachers who had no business being in front of a class than I've seen movies/games that should have gotten a different rating. And you would think there would be strong protections against allowing bad teachers into schools.

Phyeir

03-12-2009, 07:04 PM

Somebody nudge me when Nintendo returns to being "gamer-friendly".

Couldn't agree more.

Gameguy

03-12-2009, 07:44 PM

No More Heroes? Onechanbara? Madworld is far from the first.

Isn't Splatterhouse coming out for the Wii? I doubt that would be family friendly with all the gore. Though it is cool it's on a Nintendo system.

Nebagram

03-12-2009, 08:26 PM

I saw the words 'Daily Mail' in that thread and just stopped reading. It's like saying DVD players are evil because you can get porn disks for them. Utterly retarded.

mnbren05

03-13-2009, 12:31 AM

If you do not want your child playing GTA on their DS then do not buy it for them. A system is in place to prevent them from obtaining the game if they are underage and it is enforced in my experience. If your child still plays the game without your knowledge then it is your responsibility to talk to them and it is your chance to be an actual parent to your child! If you lack the foresight to understand something before you buy it for a child then you are at fault. These parents/groups should educate themselves on the products they buy/expose their children to beforehand. I suppose that clueless individuals that complain about these "issues" should be subject to this ->:smash:

DigitalSpace

03-13-2009, 01:14 AM

I actually heard a co-worker bitching yesterday that she was mortified when she took her kids (ages 8 and 10) to Watchmen over the weekend. Never mind the movie is rated R and based on one of the most sex/violence-laden comics ever produced. She was mad that this was supposed to be a "superhero" movie and - you know - superheroes appeal to kids.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2ic17wy.jpg

Ed Oscuro

03-13-2009, 03:13 AM

Where were these shmucks when Killer7 was released for the GC? Or all the rest of Capcom's horror games, for that matter? If anything, they coulda said this years ago.

In any case, Nintendo is still going to advertise in the direction of the market. They ain't going for blood 'n' guts 'cuz that's not the market they think is growing fastest. And if a kid and their family doesn't see an ad for Madworld, they're probably less likely to pick it up in the store.

Sonicwolf

03-13-2009, 04:10 AM

They ain't going for blood 'n' guts 'cuz that's not the market they think is growing fastest.

A person is only a kid for a short time. A person is an adult for the majority of ones average lifespan. Nintendo isnt pushing for the kiddy and family friendly market penetration as they once did. As I said before, they realised this is the right way to go when they got creamed by the PlayStation and PlayStation 2 respectivley.

Singular marketing crashes companies. Diversify or Die.

j_factor

03-13-2009, 04:10 AM

Since we're talking about the ESRB... I think there have been a few cases when the ESRB really dropped the ball. Twice they have bumped a released game's rating up due to content that is only accessible via an unauthorized third-party product. Stupid. The BBFC doesn't do that.

I do think their rating system is flawed. The AO rating -- much like the MPAA's NC-17 -- is too prohibitive. It's more of a threat that is used to compel game companies to limit their content, than it is a serious rating. Is there really a big difference between "suitable for ages 17+" and "suitable for ages 18+"? Obviously not -- it's the perception of what the rating stands for, more than anything.

OldSchoolGamer

03-13-2009, 04:23 AM

http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/watchdog-group-nintendo-no-longer-quot-family-friendly-quot-/1295531

Really? And nobody cares that GTA is going to be on the DS which has freakin' 7 year olds playing pokemon on them? Rubbish. Ugh. Get a ******* life.

Uhm really what is the problem? You want kiddy games then buy them, you don't want younf kids playing more mature games then it's simple, FREAKIN PARENT YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!! Choice and options are a GOOD THING, the addition of mature games on nintendo platforms only broadens the audience and appeal, it's about time!

Icarus Moonsight

03-13-2009, 08:31 AM

...FREAKIN PARENT YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!...

100% yes, this. However, the harsh reality is we now live in a society where the majority will dictates that third parties and government handle these responsibilities. Yes, even when it comes to the grown-ups too. I suppose the reason is that it is easier that way and if shit goes wrong then you have someone to blame other than yourself. It's a win/win in their fucked up world. Children are just a bit hotter of a button in the 'nanny me please' dept. That's all.

TonyTheTiger

03-13-2009, 12:41 PM

I do think their rating system is flawed. The AO rating -- much like the MPAA's NC-17 -- is too prohibitive. It's more of a threat that is used to compel game companies to limit their content, than it is a serious rating. Is there really a big difference between "suitable for ages 17+" and "suitable for ages 18+"? Obviously not -- it's the perception of what the rating stands for, more than anything.

That's why I think what they should do is create a T-15 or T-16 rating and get rid of the AO rating altogether. Then bump up the M rating from 17+ to 18+. Then you have all your bases covered. And they can keep doing the little breakdown of content "mature language/realistic violence/etc." to paint a clearer picture than the single rating normally would allow.

The ESRB's biggest problem was that they tried to mimic the MPAA. But the MPAA is a completely different beast with its own problems. I'd say the ESRB is superior at what they do than the MPAA. Yet they're only gradually distancing themselves from the G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17 rating system. I guess they feel uncomfortable adding too many new ratings because they don't want to confuse people. But how confusing is a T-13 and a T-15 or T-16 rating? You already have an E-10. Go the distance.

punkoffgirl

03-13-2009, 01:16 PM

Gonna move this one over to Modern Gaming..

heybtbm

03-13-2009, 01:33 PM

If you do not want your child playing GTA on their DS then do not buy it for them.

Thread over. Concise and wise...I like it.

Thankfully, most parents understand this and don't buy "M" rated games for their kids. There are exceptions (of course), but the majority of parents "get it".

j_factor

03-13-2009, 02:35 PM

That's why I think what they should do is create a T-15 or T-16 rating and get rid of the AO rating altogether. Then bump up the M rating from 17+ to 18+. Then you have all your bases covered. And they can keep doing the little breakdown of content "mature language/realistic violence/etc." to paint a clearer picture than the single rating normally would allow.

The ESRB's biggest problem was that they tried to mimic the MPAA. But the MPAA is a completely different beast with its own problems. I'd say the ESRB is superior at what they do than the MPAA. Yet they're only gradually distancing themselves from the G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17 rating system. I guess they feel uncomfortable adding too many new ratings because they don't want to confuse people. But how confusing is a T-13 and a T-15 or T-16 rating? You already have an E-10. Go the distance.

I'm not really a fan of E10. I would prefer something like a PG, which tells you it's one step up in terms of content, but doesn't specify an age. I would like something similar to the way the BBFC rates:

U - Universal; appropriate for all ages
PG - Parental Guidance; parents advised that some content may be unsuitable for younger children
12 - Suitable for ages 12 and up
15 - Suitable for ages 15 and up
18 - Suitable for ages 18 and up
18R - "18 Restricted", for porn

I think it's useful to have something like an AO if it signifies pornography. Not that many porn games come out here, but I think a separate classification is useful. I do think the ESRB has done a good job with the content descriptors, with a few exceptions ("realistic violence" in FF7? wtf?).

TonyTheTiger

03-13-2009, 04:13 PM

The problem I have with the AO rating is that it has bizarre rules. Or at least has bizarre results when those rules are applied. Just look at Hot Coffee vs. many other situations in games that are far more flagrant yet still get an M.

The ESRB has said where the line is drawn between M and AO and it's surprising how far the M rating actually extends. You can show pubic hair and still be within the boundaries of the M rating. You can sort of show sex and still be within the M rating. It really does sort of mimic the R rating rather well. The easiest and most common way to cross the line is to graphically depict sexual acts. If that's the case, why make a distinction at all? There are so few AO games specifically because you more or less have to try to get the rating. Most of the time, it doesn't happen by accident where you're like "oops, we didn't expect to get the AO." It's just so limited in scope that it doesn't serve much of a purpose. Then you get something like Hot Coffee, which is far sillier than it is offensive, and yet because it satisfies the technical specifications, that justifies the AO. This is why I think the MPAA has some problems with the R/NC-17 thing and why I don't think the ESRB should really try to jack that system.

Rob2600

03-14-2009, 11:25 AM

Didn't Resident Evil 4 come out on the GameCube *and* the Wii? What about Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles? The House of the Dead: Overkill? The Godfather: Blackhand Edition? Manhunt 2?

What about games like Contra, Jackal, Commando, Metal Gear, Golgo 13, Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden, and Double Dragon on the NES?

What about games like Final Fight, Mortal Kombat II, Killer Instinct, Super Castlevania IV, Doom, and Wolfenstein 3D on the SNES?

What about games like Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Bio FREAKS, Mortal Kombat 4, Rainbow Six, Carmaggedon, Shadow Man, Resident Evil II, and Quake II on the N64?

All of those were family-friendly/child-appropriate games?? I don't think so. What's so new and different about MadWorld all of a sudden?

EDIT: By the way, this isn't the first time I've had a problem with one of Ben Silverman's video game "articles." He's like the Fox News of the video game industry, always twisting and slanting the facts to try to create some sort of reaction or outrage. He's a joke.

HYB

03-14-2009, 05:43 PM

I hate douchebags who complain and make others not get something they want just because they're too lazy to parent their kids. It's totally useless to blame developers and such. Also, I think the rating should stop at the 18+, if I can go out and get piss drunk I can damn well play any game I want. The porn in games thing is absolutely absurd as well, I could just go out and buy some porn, let alone have sex so my gaming shouldn't suffer just because the raters decide the content is unsuitable. It's like, I should be able to do what I want just because I'm not hurting anyone else in the process and I know what I'm doing, yet they're going to say that I can't and decide what's "best" for me. I really takes my piss to a boil.

Also, I think stores should ask for id when selling the games. Usually when traveling they try to sell me a 15 year old's ticket yet I got Dead Space on thursday without showing any id. It isn't the first time I got a 18+ game from the same store either, and that was years ago.

Also, I can't speak for ESRB, but europe suffered to because of Germany (Castlevania: TNG anyone?). Also, they're trying to install some kind of buttons in games so parents can stop their kids playing games with unsuitable content in here, which is absolute bullshit. I tought modern consoles had the parent control settings anyway.

I'm just really angry about this, I'm just saying the same things as everone basically. Also, sorry if I offended any germans.

TonyTheTiger

03-14-2009, 06:03 PM

Graham Mitchell

03-15-2009, 02:53 AM

A person is only a kid for a short time. A person is an adult for the majority of ones average lifespan. Nintendo isnt pushing for the kiddy and family friendly market penetration as they once did. As I said before, they realised this is the right way to go when they got creamed by the PlayStation and PlayStation 2 respectivley.

Singular marketing crashes companies. Diversify or Die.

Nintendo lifted their intense censorship during the SNES era. The SNES version of Mortal Kombat II has all the blood and gore of the arcade version. MK Trilogy on the N64 does as well. This is decades old news.

Sonicwolf

03-15-2009, 04:07 AM

Nintendo lifted their intense censorship during the SNES era. The SNES version of Mortal Kombat II has all the blood and gore of the arcade version. MK Trilogy on the N64 does as well. This is decades old news.

They may have lifted the major censorship but the damage was done with their popular image as seen by developers and consumers. Nintendo was still considered the maker of kiddy/family friendly consoles a decade after MK2. Some pretty good evidence would be the GameCube.

j_factor

03-15-2009, 06:08 AM

HYB

03-15-2009, 08:21 AM

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Sb_V33EyX4U/STs1LRZVLvI/AAAAAAAABcs/XmbWvIoLSiQ/s320/cartman-1.jpg

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.ROFL

Best_reply_ever. You sir have my respect, this made my day :D.

Graham Mitchell

03-15-2009, 11:43 AM

Except they still censored some games on the N64. Duke Nukem for example.

Was it the stripper girls in Duke Nukem that they axed? I haven't played the N64 version. Sex is much scarier in America than violence for some reason, so I totally believe Nintendo would be more selective in that regard.

Rob2600

03-15-2009, 01:59 PM

kedawa

03-15-2009, 01:59 PM

I still find it absurd that any game would be considered unsuitable for teenagers.
It's naive to think that teenagers aren't already desensitized to violence and sex in media.

tom

03-15-2009, 02:08 PM

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Sb_V33EyX4U/STs1LRZVLvI/AAAAAAAABcs/XmbWvIoLSiQ/s320/cartman-1.jpg

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.ROFL

Someone's visited 4chan again

And killing/kicking animals in Nintendo games was 'family friendly'?

poloplayr

03-15-2009, 02:23 PM

Not sure if someone has already mentioned this but this is the same organisation that claimed the gaming industry promoted cannibalism when Stubbs the Zombie came out a couple of years ago...

j_factor

03-15-2009, 04:51 PM

Was it the stripper girls in Duke Nukem that they axed? I haven't played the N64 version. Sex is much scarier in America than violence for some reason, so I totally believe Nintendo would be more selective in that regard.

The strippers were removed, and Duke's one-liners were modified. Also, Cruis'n USA was censored (http://ign64.ign.com/articles/060/060333p1.html), although that very article notes that MK Trilogy and KI Gold aren't. At best I think we can say that Nintendo's censorship policy in the N64 era was inconsistent. But I don't recall them censoring a single Gamecube game.

Sonicwolf

03-16-2009, 12:14 AM

The strippers were removed, and Duke's one-liners were modified. Also, Cruis'n USA was censored (http://ign64.ign.com/articles/060/060333p1.html), although that very article notes that MK Trilogy and KI Gold aren't. At best I think we can say that Nintendo's censorship policy in the N64 era was inconsistent. But I don't recall them censoring a single Gamecube game.

By the GameCube era, the censorship was dead but the view of Nintendo's new console was still family friendly and kiddy. This still prevented a deep penetration of more adult-oriented games due to developers and consumers preconceptions about the system and its apparent image.

Rob2600

03-16-2009, 01:27 AM

By the GameCube era, the censorship was dead but the view of Nintendo's new console was still family friendly and kiddy. This still prevented a deep penetration of more adult-oriented games due to developers and consumers preconceptions about the system and its apparent image.

Then why were Resident Evil (remake), Resident Evil 0, and - for a while - Resident Evil 4 GameCube exclusives?

TonyTheTiger

03-16-2009, 02:30 AM

What I don't understand is why the reverse is never true.

We can point to 100 "mature" games on Nintendo platforms and ask why Nintendo is still seen as a "kiddie" console. Yet why is it that when the 360 or PS3 gets a game based on the new Pixar movie nobody asks whether or not those platforms are shedding their "mature" image? Nobody seems to complain or celebrate when a Sony or MS console gets a "kiddie" game. Why not? Is Nintendo the only company that can have an image to secure or tarnish? It's almost like people see MS and Sony as generic companies that sell us video game consoles whereas they see Nintendo like the Disney of gaming. Whether that's good or bad, I find it interesting.

j_factor

03-16-2009, 03:44 AM

I think Nintendo's "kiddie" image was well-deserved up until towards the end of the N64's lifespan (when Perfect Dark and Conker came out and they seemed to discontinue censorship). I guess the Gamecube was viewed by some as "kiddie" by proxy -- although it definitely had its share of "mature" games.

As a publisher, Nintendo is still pretty family-oriented, and arguably is the Disney of gaming. But what Nintendo publishes and what is released on Nintendo systems are two separate things.

Push Upstairs

03-16-2009, 04:03 AM

The strippers were removed, and Duke's one-liners were modified. Also, Cruis'n USA was censored (http://ign64.ign.com/articles/060/060333p1.html), although that very article notes that MK Trilogy and KI Gold aren't. At best I think we can say that Nintendo's censorship policy in the N64 era was inconsistent. But I don't recall them censoring a single Gamecube game.

I'm just gonna say it: "Crus'n USA" on the N64 was total ass.

I love the arcade game, but that home port was a slap in the face to play.

tom

03-16-2009, 04:37 AM

Germans...once a Nazi, always a Nazi
Nintendo...Once a kiddie console, always a kiddie console
That's the way (stereotyping?) the world goes