Aiming for a Rating. Your Thoughts?

Does this annoy anyone else? Many times when reading interviews with a developer or publisher they will say "We are aiming for a T rating" or "This will be a T rated product, we are working closely with the ESRB to make sure of that". Feel free to replace the T rating with M if the dev/pub is going for the "mature" audience. Sure, it's all about money, I know this. With a T rating the potential market expands and with an M rating they can go after the so-called "mature gamers" aka little kids trying to act cool. Knowing this doesn't make it any less annoying. It makes games seem like less a piece of art and more like a mass market product.

Rather than set out to make a fun game, they set out to make a best seller. Personally I think a game should be made with no thought to how it will be rated. Aiming for a rating, IMO, takes the emphasis off of the game and places it onto the almighty dollar. Before you say it, I am aware that they are making games with profit in mind and it would be stupid to make a game that won't sell, but that doesn't make me any more thrilled with toning a game down or ramping up the violence just for the sake of sales.

Some examples would be as follows.....

BMX XXX (GC, XBOX, Ps2) - They stated numerous times that they were working with the ESRB to make sure they got an M rating. Rather than take the gameplay into account they decided to see how many times they could say "boobies"

Postal series (PC) - Obviously, they are going for shock value. They set out to make a game that pushed the envelope, not a fun game. Despite that, I still enjoy the two games. Though, it still bothers me where the emphasis was placed.

Medal of Honor Series (Ps, Ps2) - Constantly I hear about how realistic this series is. Yet, a grenade explodes at the foot of an enemy and what happens? They fall over and disappear. Yeah, nice and realistic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those "If it doesn't have blood it's not cool" gamers (if you can even call them gamers). After all, my favorite console FPS featured no blood at all. It just gets to me that the only reason games in this series have no blood is so they can get a T rating. I still don't see how shooting someone in the face is somehow worse when a little red liquid shoots out. As with Postal though, I still enjoyed the games.

Def Jam Vendetta (PS2, GC XBOX?) - In an interview I read(sorry, I forget where), they asked if there would be any blood. The answer? "We are aiming for a T rating, so if that allows blood than yes" Not direct quote, but close. Again, I read this interview before the game came out and I cannot remember the source. Sorry. Would blood have made the game better? Not really. Blood doesn't add much (If anything) to games. Again, my problem is with making a game with the rating system in mind. From the sounds of the interview, it seemed as if they were going to have blood, but if the T rating didn't allow it they would scrap it.

Another example is changing the blood color and putting clothes on the Sea Reapers in Giants to get a T rating. Doesn't this bother anyone else? I want developers to make money as much as everyone else, but I'd rather not have games be comprimised just so they can make more money. We see the same problem with movies where nearly every movie is rated Pg-13 nowadays. What are your thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by UndeadKing
It makes games seem like less a piece of art and more like a mass market product.

---

Now I don't want to start a war here, but this is the way it's always been.

Games are not art for the simple reason that they are mass produced for profit. I understand I might be the only one with this view, and I'm not "forcing" you to see otherwise. I also believe that there are elements of art incorporated into games, but that doesn't make the final product "art." It's just like making toothpaste or pretzels.

Now, that said, I take it you don't get upset when a film maker cuts certain pieces of footage to achieve a PG-13 rating. Why? I don't get upset because I know it's a business move in a business environment to achieve the highest profits possible. I understand that, and sympathize with the company/film maker. It is no different in the world of games. But why should it be? To satisfy your ideas of art and how it behaves and should be treated?

Game making is a business, not an artform. It should be viewed as such. If it were looked at this way by more people, you wouldn't be so wounded when your favorite developer decided to cut something for rating's sake.

Actually I thought that even with those changes in Giants, my box had an M rating.

My thoughts: games that aim for controversy (Postal, BMX XXX) suck. Ever play one that didn't? Well, I suppose that Carmageddon had some very good qualities about it (big maps, cars with very good and varying physics), but usually they aren't god. Postal was insanely easy, and people seem to bag on the physics engine in BMX XXX...

The other way around though? I don't know. Trying to appeal to a greater audience is a smart move on the sales front. Creators of other games like Postal seem to think that the controversy will help sales, but the impact is nowhere near the impact of having a T rating on MoH (sidenote on MoH:AA: the game, unlike what most people tell me, had very little convincing atmosphere, it was incomplete and boring). So that's my view.

I can understand the frustration gamers can go through due to company self-censorship. Unfortunately, the ESRB isn't that good of a base to determine what material is deemed appropriate for which age group. Companies are just paranoid that if their game is slapped with the "M" rating then sales will equal less. It's unfounded and has little to no legs to stand on. Hell, look at the GTA phenomenon for example.

As for your "does blood add anything to a game" question, I could argue that blood does have some reason to exist in games. It boils down to personal satisfaction or reward. People get off on seeing blood. Look at the backlash games like Metal Slug receive for changing the blood to sweat (or whatever it is). Personally, it's not necessary to censor games in any way, shape or form.

Argh! I feel the need to modify my statement before this gets out of hand.

Certain games, made under certain conditions are art. To cite an example, most everything Treasure produces I consider art. It isn't made to achieve the highest profit possible, but to please the developers and all those who find fun and inspiration while playing it.

Now, after clarifying, I think it necessary, when taking a look at a game objectivly, to first identify it as either art or not.

Treasure games are art (if you disagree with this, then choose a different company to fill in the blank), and, thereby, anything they would do to make their games appeal more to a mass market, rather than simply sculpting their art, would be tragedy.

In the case of mass marketed games, I don't get so miffed when the dev cut's stuff for rating's sake. It isn't art anyway, but a ticket to profits.

This type of thing is sadly needed since it helps creates funding for the games that do go for the "art" approach.

Yeah but most of the time it doesn't go to that...it just goes to more of the other games.

Everyone likes Enter The Matrix though, so that isn't a bad idea anyway. In fact, I think I'll go play that after I slam my face into a few windows.

Metal Slug is a game that I'd consider art. Lots of design work has went into the sprites throughout the series, especially on its current pinnacle- Metal Slug 3.

When the US version comes out, I don't think SNK Neo-Geo USA should censor it. They need to stick to the Japanese developers' original vision in all ways. If that means taking an M rating, so be it. Gamers over 17 are still a sizable portion of the market.

Metal Slug's violence is cartoony and less realistic, so SNK USA could find it getting a T even if they didn't turn the blood white.

Now BMX XXX on the other hand is totally meritless. Why not just play a Dave Mirra game instead? It seems like Acclaim deliberately went for the controversy and the M. As for Postal 2, I had fun with the demo for a few moments- but find the game as a whole forgettable and not worth $50.

Mr_Furious,
I agree 100%. It makes no sense to aim for a T rating when games like GTA 3 sell so well. If you are making a game where you shoot people in the head you might as well go all the way and put a little blood in. I definite share your stance on censorship. And I am one of those people who will not play Metal Slug with white blood. Does the red blood add anything? I'm not sure. I'd still love the game with no blood whatsoever, but seeing the white blood just disgusts me and makes me not want to support the product.

BoBVila,
Giants may have ben rated M. I never bought it. I was under the impression that they performed the changes to get a T rating. If not, than the changes seem even stupider. As ar as games aiming for controversey always sucking, I don't really agree. I had fun with both Postal games and Carmageddon 2. Arguably GTA could be lumped in and I enjoyed those games as well. As for the other way around, I don't feel that it makes the game less fun really, I just don't agree with chopping stuff out of games for money. I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me.

Captain Vegetable,
I don't want anyone to censor their opinons. So, I won't turn this into a war, don't worry. I expected replies such as yours and even though I don't agree with them, I respect them. ;) As stated at the bottom of my original post, I do get upset when a movie get's cut to recieve a PG-13 rating. In fact, I'd say this is even worse than the situation ith games because it happens much more often. Smart business decision? Maybe. However, it comprimises the original vision. This is one of the many reasons I support independent cinema.

As far as games or anything not being an artform, I disagree. From the publisher's standpoint, sure, it's all about the money. However, somewhere out there, people exist that see their game as a piece of art. After all, they spent their time creating something special to them. Obviously, a game like Enter the Matrix isn't art, but what about something like ICO? I won't argue with you, but some games are art whether or not they were created for money. Is a painting any less "art" if it was made with the express intent of selling it? Regardless, it's not worth debating. Even if games aren't art, censorship for any reason is wrong in my opinion. Even self censorship. I don't agree with holding back to appeal to a mass audience. Just my view....

I do agree that not all games are art. I don't think anyone would sit here and argue that American Idol is a piece of art. However, it still bothers me when an obvious mass marketed game is chopped up. I know why they do it, and I'm not saying it's a bad business move. I just do not agree with it at all though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenshin Himura
Metal Slug is a game that I'd consider art. Lots of design work has went into the sprites throughout the series, especially on its current pinnacle- Metal Slug 3.

When the US version comes out, I don't think SNK Neo-Geo USA should censor it. They need to stick to the Japanese developers' original vision in all ways. If that means taking an M rating, so be it. Gamers over 17 are still a sizable portion of the market.

Metal Slug's violence is cartoony and less realistic, so SNK USA could find it getting a T even if they didn't turn the blood white.

---

what's even more silly is even if MS3 kept the blood in, the game would still receive a Teen rating so removing it doesn't matter (or make any bit of damn sense).