Fallout 3 and Game Violence's Taboo

Sure, just wait until your 20th VATS kill when you've had to sit through that damn death bullet time again, without being able to skip it.

See how much laughter you'll have then.
 
Pope Viper said:
You just don't get it! Violence is fucking COOL.
WRONG, not "cool" - it's MATURE!

"Little Timmy, you're not so little any more, time to act grown up and mature now!"

"You mean, like killing people grotesquely in slow motion"

"You got that right Timmy!"

*father and son laugh together*
 
Pope Viper said:
Sure, just wait until your 20th VATS kill when you've had to sit through that damn death bullet time again, without being able to skip it.
Reminds me of Final Fantasy and it summons... Jesus Christ, the horror. But I think you can skip VATS animation... I'm not sure though.


By the way, remember the old beth's excuse for not being able to kill kids?
"Do you really want to kill children?"
Derp.
 
Just a thought here guys... maybe its because I am from the UK and dont fully understand (nor care) about ESRB ratings but whats so wrong with 'AO'? As far as I can tell it would just be an 18 rating over here.

If it has the AO rating it can still sell right? 'only' to 'adults' but kids will still buy it, in fact they are more likly to want to play it if it has a nice shiney sticker on it saying its for adult only.

I got (had bought for me) Duke Nukem 3D when I was about 13 or somthing. Thats an 18 where you can pay strippers to flash your their breasts and then shoot them.

So yeah, what would be so bad if it got an AO rating?
 
Over here, there are large retail companies (Target and Walmart come to mind)that will not stock AO games, thus reducing the exposure and potential sales.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
Isn't that for us to decide?
You mean you want to actually participate and role-play? Not on bethesda's watch I'm afraid.

Just a thought here guys... maybe its because I am from the UK and dont fully understand (nor care) about ESRB ratings but whats so wrong with 'AO'?

AO sells like shit and is generally hard to get.
 
So sell it online? With all the coverage the game has I think its not really going to make that big a difference if some of the big stores dont stock it. Just means people will go to the smaller outlets or find other ways to purchase it.

I can see where Beth is comming from I guess, 'maximum exposure' or whatever but personally I think its rubbish. If you've made a good game, doesnt matter where you sell it, if people know about it and like the look of it they will buy it.

In the end I suppose its all to no end anyway. The game has shipped; no chance to edit it now.
 
In the US of A, walmart wont sell anything with an AO rating.

For the most part, these walmart stores represent the most easily accessible form of purchasing a game in person.

Bethesda would never make the AAA bucks that they require to account for their huge production costs if they dont sell it in every wallmart and bestbuy store in the US.

So effectively, Walmart's hypocritical operating practices have limitted what the rest of the world gets to see in their video games.

I can go into walmart and buy some stupid rap music that talks about shooting people and pimping hos, but I can't buy a video game that has a certain degree of realism to it.
 
Perhaps, but they don't want to miss out on that opportunity. It's much easier to water the game down to appeal to the drones.
 
Pope Viper said:
Over here, there are large retail companies (Target and Walmart come to mind)that will not stock AO games, thus reducing the exposure and potential sales.

But at the same time, those stores have little retail space for PC games, they shelve maybe 10 copies. In fact if this was PC only an AO rating would probably have little lost sales since most stores barely stock PC games anymore.
 
I wouldn't say everyone who buys games such as F3 are drones. I know a lot of co-workers and friends who are buying F3 are very well aware of the older games (and many I know has played them a lot, some have never played F1 and 2 before, I made sure those people are aware of GOG ;) ). Realistically, MOST people aren't worried so much about following the spirit of a game closely or even following in it's footsteps at all... they just want entertainment, and if F3 (or any other "made-for-the-drones" game) does the trick for them, then Bethesda succeeded.

Unfortunately, the community of "hard-core" Fallout fans (i mean people are very passionate about the spirit of what made Fallout so great in the first place) are probably not even a blip on the sales/marketing target of this game.

Still, the critiques will come... as they should.
 
Pope Viper said:
Perhaps, but they don't want to miss out on that opportunity. It's much easier to water the game down to appeal to the drones.

Think we will ever have games like in the 90's again in which gamers decide what they like and what they do not like?
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
Black said:
By the way, remember the old beth's excuse for not being able to kill kids?
"Do you really want to kill children?"
Derp.

Isn't that for us to decide?
Isn't that for fictional characters that we roleplay to decide?
 
I doubt it, the kind of games that were enjoyed back in the 990's seem to absorb too much time, and require too much thinking.

Games seem to be geared more to the "casual" gamers, who can just pick up their controller, and whack a few beasties for that visceral "I've killed, now it's time to go watch TV."
 
But then we began to think, really what benefit would there be in killing the kids in the game? It just seems gratuitous, unnecessary and cruel.

So we can review:

Killing kids = gratuitous, unnecessary, cruel.

Nuking an entire town = awesome explosion.

Decapitated old lady = hilarious.

The world according to Emil.

Make fun of the decision all you want, but it was never an option. Which makes this whole op-ed piece kind of inane.
I suppose so. I still don't get it though.
 
Back
Top