Killer 7 AO?

[fpstream]

Jack Thompson is at it again, he now wants Killer 7 to become AO, http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25227, I myself haven't played the game. Does it deserve it the rating? I'm sure njiska will have had some experience with the game.

[davepesc]

from the esrb
MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.

ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

Sounds like the difference depends on the definition of "prolonged."
I haven't played Killer 7 yet, but it looks like there is "intense violence" in there all right, but I don't know if the violence is "prolonged," though I would say ALL shooters contain "prolonged" violence, since that's the whole frickin' game.

[Gamereviewgod]

Thompson is bithing about a sex scene in the game. He's basing his "facts" on a review. There's no nudity. It's a lap dance with some moaning. Even if there was nudity, would you even be able to tell with the graphical style?

So no, no AO.

[Cmosfm]

This is really getting a bit silly. :/

[fpstream]

And we all know how trustworthy IGN is. Basing something on a review is absurd. He hasn't even played the game, and he's trying to get the rating changed. At least he played some GTA:SA.

[njiska]

Jack Thompson is at it again, he now wants Killer 7 to become AO, http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25227, I myself haven't played the game. Does it deserve it the rating? I'm sure njiska will have had some experience with the game.


Haha of course I do. The avatar kind of gives it away. No, Killer 7 does not deserve to be AO but it certainly is an M game. But don't take my word for it. IGN published a clarification of the scene in question on there site on the 5th (http://cube.ign.com/articles/639/639809p1.html) I'd say they agree with me.

I've been trying to find a vid-cap of the scene in question and since the comp with a capture card is dead i can't do it myself. If anyone out there has Killer 7 and can record the video i'd apperciate it. Nothing will put this disscussion to bed faster then seeing it for yourself.


Thompson is bithing about a sex scene in the game. He's basing his "facts" on a review. There's no nudity. It's a lap dance with some moaning. Even if there was nudity, would you even be able to tell with the graphical style?

So no, no AO.

I think she was actually fucking him (forgive my bluntness). The moaning to orgasm kind of implies that. But all the same we don't see any of the actually contact so we don't know. The only part of harman that we actually see is his hat.

But trust just me. Here's what a more reliable source then IGNorant had to say:


Despite the critical ambivalence toward this title, I bought it and played through the game, and you know what? I only found one sex sequence, and it was between two clothed people (granted, one had a plaid skirt, but that’s nothing) and the girl was basically sitting in the guys lap moaning - you never see anything from the waist down. It was tastefully done (much to my dismay - just kidding).

Related Link (http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000370053344/)

And now since i can't find the sex scene clip, here's another mature (17+) Killer 7 moment for you to enjoy. One that's apparently ok in Jack's books since he's said nothing about it.

Link (http://www2.ltlowe.com/~suprnova/DP/ulmeyda_qtlow.mov)

It's voice-acted by the amazing voice actor Cam Clarke (Leonardo, Rocksteady, Liquid Snake, etc.).

P.S. the sex scene happens immediately after this cut scene.

[robotriot]

I voted "Yes" for the fact that it's rated 18+ over here anyway. While the violence is relatively abstract, the whole story has a rather adult subject matter to it somehow. It's not that 16 year olds wouldn't understand it, but I feel they made the right decision. On the other hand, I don't care for ratings anymore since the day I turned 18 ;) I still don't get why there's a rating that differentiates between a 17 and a 18 year old person in the US, instead of 16 and 18.

[njiska]

I voted "Yes" for the fact that it's rated 18+ over here anyway. While the violence is relatively abstract, the whole story has a rather adult subject matter to it somehow. It's not that 16 year olds wouldn't understand it, but I feel they made the right decision. On the other hand, I don't care for ratings anymore since the day I turned 18 ;) I still don't get why there's a rating that differentiates between a 17 and a 18 year old person in the US, instead of 16 and 18.

Neither do it, but really that's what the problem is. Maybe we should just abolish the AO, raise M to 18+ and then have an "Adult sexual content" warning to stick on porn games.

[robotriot]

Maybe that's an American attitude, but if something is 18+, it shouldn't matter what kind of content is in there (violence or sex). I doubt adults would be shocked after buying an 18+ game because they saw a topless girl in it when they expected guts sprayed onto the wall ;)

[Leroy]

The real question is: who cares? But maybe that's just me.

[hezeuschrist]

The real question is: who cares? But maybe that's just me.

I care because everytime a game that so obviously does NOT deserve an AO rating gets one, it's going to do nothing but injure the industry.

Until the no-prick douchebag guzzling shitheads realize that the gaming medium is no longer directed solely at children, there's no need for an AO rating. It's certainly alright to publish movies like Faces of Death but getting a lapdance or clothed humping in a videogame warrants a ban.

It's fucking absurd.

[njiska]

Maybe that's an American attitude, but if something is 18+, it shouldn't matter what kind of content is in there (violence or sex). I doubt adults would be shocked after buying an 18+ game because they saw a topless girl in it when they expected guts sprayed onto the wall ;)

You calling me a Yank? Or just saying that it's the yanks who need to be warned about sexual content.

I mean the ESRB largely exists to appease the puritian founded USA and it's because of there cultural mind set of sex = bad, Killing = meh that's i offered it in my suggestion. Although i don't think you should over look the value of content descriptors. They please parents when buying the game for someone who isn't old enough and some people like to know if a game contains something that they don't like. It's not like conent descriptors hurt anyone.

[njiska]

You people who have posted yes, have any of you actually seen the scene? or are you taking the Thompsons stance that IGN is infallible?

[Leroy]

Until the no-prick douchebag guzzling shitheads realize that the gaming medium is no longer directed solely at children
Oh the sweet, sweet irony in this statement. LOL

[njiska]

Until the no-prick douchebag guzzling shitheads realize that the gaming medium is no longer directed solely at children
Oh the sweet, sweet irony in this statement. LOL

I don't think i could've said it better myself. LOL. Nice shot Leroy

[davepesc]

I voted yes without even knowing about the scene!

I was thinking about the violence. I figure most games where you kill other people should be AO.

[njiska]

I voted yes without even knowing about the scene!

I was thinking about the violence. I figure most games where you kill other people should be AO.

Why?

[davepesc]

I voted yes without even knowing about the scene!

I was thinking about the violence. I figure most games where you kill other people should be AO.

Why?

I was referring mostly to FPS, but I think any game that focuses on killing, especially killing people, qualifies as containing "prolonged violence."
Therefore, it should receive the AO rating.

Where do I draw the line, you were going to ask? It's like pornography, I know it when I see it.

The whole bugger is over that word, "prolonged." I'm having trouble thinking of a game that would fall on the "M" side of the fence, a game with only one or a few instances of "intense violence" in an otherwise non-graphic game. Maybe like a Metal Gear Solid or something where you occasionally have to shoot someone, but that's not really the whole idea.

[njiska]

I voted yes without even knowing about the scene!

I was thinking about the violence. I figure most games where you kill other people should be AO.

Why?

I was referring mostly to FPS, but I think any game that focuses on killing, especially killing people, qualifies as containing "prolonged violence."
Therefore, it should receive the AO rating.

Where do I draw the line, you were going to ask? It's like pornography, I know it when I see it.

The whole bugger is over that word, "prolonged." I'm having trouble thinking of a game that would fall on the "M" side of the fence, a game with only one or a few instances of "intense violence" in an otherwise non-graphic game. Maybe like a Metal Gear Solid or something where you occasionally have to shoot someone, but that's not really the whole idea.

So you're playing the technicallity card not the morality card right? I mean you don't seriously think something like Half-life 2 is too intense for 17 year olds, do you?

That little word is the only big gray area in the ESRB ratings system. It does need to be fixed.

[Slimedog]

I voted yes without even knowing about the scene!

I was thinking about the violence. I figure most games where you kill other people should be AO.

The AO rating isn't about who will be buying the game as much as who will be selling it. Games that get the AO rating don't sell in most stores and thus don't get made. Are you advocating an end to games where you kill other people?

EDIT: Sorry, didn't get the above post. NVM, as you explained your comment already.

[davepesc]

I guess you could say I'm playing the "technicallity card," but I say I'm trying to apply the "law" as it is written, which is what we are supposed to do. If you want to change the "law," well, that's another thread.
And no, from what I've seen of the Half Life series, it doesn't look too intense for a 17 year old. You could make the argument that the difference between 17 and 18 is too narrow and should be like 14 (for Mature) and 18. I'd be for that. This way adolescent teens can play Half-Life and MGS while adults play GTA.

And the ratings are not about who will sell what games. That's up to the retailers and their own codes of ethics. There were a lot of places saying they wouldn't sell AO games, but I've been reading on this very site about places selling the AO labeled GTA in plain sight.
As I predicted, morals last until they effect the bottom line. The more "popular" AO titles there are, the more stores (who want the sales $$$) will sell them.

It's capitalism at the core.

[hezeuschrist]

Until the no-prick douchebag guzzling shitheads realize that the gaming medium is no longer directed solely at children
Oh the sweet, sweet irony in this statement. LOL

Indeed, but it's a serious bit of frustration to think that the game industry isn't thought of anywhere near as seriously as the movie industry, and their ratings are rock solid. Parents (and causehead politicians) realize what rated R means, but still hold the ignorant view that games are meant for children, regardless if the box says intense realistic violence and strong sexual content. This in turn retards the amount of mature content I can experience as a mature gamer for fear of situations like these.

As for something mentioned earlier, it's fairly sick how desensitized America is to violence yet you flash a boob on a Sunday afternoon and it's complete anarchy. Sexuality should not be taken as harshly serious as it is, and if anything the sex and the violence need to switch places. If you want to make certain games AO for the adult themes regarding violence and violent crimes, go for it, but since this will never happen I would hope to not see an AO rating on anything that's short of graphical intercourse, as it is with the movie industry.

[fpstream]

I guess you could say I'm playing the "technicallity card," but I say I'm trying to apply the "law" as it is written, which is what we are supposed to do. If you want to change the "law," well, that's another thread.
And no, from what I've seen of the Half Life series, it doesn't look too intense for a 17 year old. You could make the argument that the difference between 17 and 18 is too narrow and should be like 14 (for Mature) and 18. I'd be for that. This way adolescent teens can play Half-Life and MGS while adults play GTA.

And the ratings are not about who will sell what games. That's up to the retailers and their own codes of ethics. There were a lot of places saying they wouldn't sell AO games, but I've been reading on this very site about places selling the AO labeled GTA in plain sight.
As I predicted, morals last until they effect the bottom line. The more "popular" AO titles there are, the more stores (who want the sales $$$) will sell them.

It's capitalism at the core.

But the big 3, Best Buy, Circuit City and the king, Wal Mart, aren't selling them. That's a big indent into sales and it will discourage people from making overly violent and sexual games, injuring the industry.

[FantasiaWHT]

But the big 3, Best Buy, Circuit City and the king, Wal Mart, aren't selling them. That's a big indent into sales and it will discourage people from making overly violent and sexual games, injuring the industry.

But EB and Gamestop still are, and they sell more GAMES than any one of those 3.

[fpstream]

But the big 3, Best Buy, Circuit City and the king, Wal Mart, aren't selling them. That's a big indent into sales and it will discourage people from making overly violent and sexual games, injuring the industry.

But EB and Gamestop still are, and they sell more GAMES than any one of those 3.

No, Wal-Mart sells the most.

[davepesc]

But the big 3, Best Buy, Circuit City and the king, Wal Mart, aren't selling them. That's a big indent into sales and it will discourage people from making overly violent and sexual games, injuring the industry.

But EB and Gamestop still are, and they sell more GAMES than any one of those 3.

No, Wal-Mart sells the most.

I couldn't tell you who sells more, but the more sales lost to specialty shops, the more pressure will be put on big boxes to change their thinking.

Suppose there were like 40 AO games on the market right now. Store A doesn't have any of them, so customers keep complaining about the "poor selection" of games and going elsewhere.
Also, with so many AO games available in game stores, the "stigma" is faded until people talk about AO as the equivalent of an R movie.

[fpstream]

But the big 3, Best Buy, Circuit City and the king, Wal Mart, aren't selling them. That's a big indent into sales and it will discourage people from making overly violent and sexual games, injuring the industry.

But EB and Gamestop still are, and they sell more GAMES than any one of those 3.

No, Wal-Mart sells the most.

I couldn't tell you who sells more, but the more sales lost to specialty shops, the more pressure will be put on big boxes to change their thinking.

Suppose there were like 40 AO games on the market right now. Store A doesn't have any of them, so customers keep complaining about the "poor selection" of games and going elsewhere.
Also, with so many AO games available in game stores, the "stigma" is faded until people talk about AO as the equivalent of an R movie.

But Wal-Mart won't risk it because it wouldn't please the demographic they're aiming for, middle aged soccer moms. Mom's hate San Andreas because they saw something about it on the news, they hate Rockstar now. They wouldn't like it if their store supported the game. Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and Target won't risk it.

[FantasiaWHT]

It only looks like Walmart sells more because the numbers they (the industry officials that track that) only go by new games. EB's do, depending on the store, between 30-60% of their business in preplayed.

[Lord_Magus]

Well, about this whole AO issue with games thats popped up lately... Honestly, what's the big deal? How does rating a few games with violent or sexual content as AO actually "injure the gaming industry"? They've had AO movies around for a long time, and I don't really see the movie industry suffering that badly from it. Sure, we won't see as many AO games on the shelves on our local super market if this continues, but what's really missing from the game industry isn't quantity, but quality. Games that rely on their violence or sex scenes are usually crap anyway and shouldn't be on the shelves in the first place, so by putting an AO rating on them and withdrawing them from most major stores, they're actually doing us a favor. Sure, this will obviously (further) hurt sales of inspired games such as Killer 7, but gamers who know what they want will hunt it down regardless, and even mentioning this in a game collectors community seems somewhat redundant.

I voted "yes" to the above poll, simply because of the violent and overall mature nature of the game. Sure, its still graphical violence, but its much different to what we used to see in the likes of a Contra game for example, since obvious technological advancements have allowed violence and sex to represented in a much more realistic, and therefore, much more "influential" way (I use that term loosely here, but I still use it)

And about the "Why shouldn't a 17-year-and-364-day old be able to play an 18 year old oriented game"... thats just stupid. Laws are made exactly to fill up those gray areas, and setting an age limit is needed to define what general audience a game is overall best suited to. Sure, you can have mature 14 year olds, in exactly the same way you can have immature 25+ year olds, but ratings and laws are unfortuantely created through analyzing group behaviours, and not individual cases. An age limit needs to be set in order to define an "adult", and that number has been set to 18. Maybe its too high, but as stated earlier, changing the law is a subject for another thread. Not 18 yet? Well, not being able to play certain games is only one of the many things you can't do, so please just shut up and be patient :P

[Gamereviewgod]

, and I don't really see the movie industry suffering that badly from it.

Because Aliens vs. Predator worked so well in PG-13.


Sure, we won't see as many AO games on the shelves on our local super market if this continues, but what's really missing from the game industry isn't quantity, but quality. Games that rely on their violence or sex scenes are usually crap anyway and shouldn't be on the shelves in the first place, so by putting an AO rating on them and withdrawing them from most major stores, they're actually doing us a favor.

That's terrible. "It has sex, it must suck." Come on. There will be plenty of games to feature violence and sex, two this year along that are two of my faves from this gen (God of War and RE4). Am I saying all these games are great and all of it is neccesary? No. But I can appreciate that's what they want to create, and they have a right to. An obscure game like K7 already is going to struggle, let alone be slapped with a rating that most stores are too ignorant to carry. That's not going to bode well for more oddball titles.

[FantasiaWHT]

That's terrible. "It has sex, it must suck." Come on.

He didn't say if it had sex it must suck, he said if it RELIED on sex (or violence) it usually sucks. Two important differences there.

[fpstream]

It does injure the video game indurstry, parents are less leniant to buy games, games will begin to be more mild and sometimes you need violence and sex in a video game. The opposite effect could come true where devolpers push the envolope, but that would still make them more dependant on sex and violence. The immediate effects can't be seen, but down the road they'll have an effect.