Fallout censorship by Beth: no childkilling, no groinshots..

Ehm, what? Calling this censorship is ridiculous. It isn't censorship, they aren't censoring the original games either, they've decided to change this for their new game so as to get the desired rating and avoid a controversy.
 
Sander said:
Ehm, what? Calling this censorship is ridiculous. It isn't censorship, they aren't censoring the original games either, they've decided to change this for their new game so as to get the desired rating and avoid a controversy.
Click to expand...

These are very radical changes in the game, even if you argue that they just left that stuff out of the game. If you d call this the fallout serie, you can say the Fallout serie is beïng censored. Bethesda does call it a serie and therefor the use of the word censorship is justified, especially because it s about controversial content.
 
Munin said:
These are very radical changes in the game
Click to expand...
?
Radical? I can think of a million things that Bethesda have changed that are a lot more essential than killable children and being able to point a gun at someone's groin.
Munin said:
, even if you argue that they just left that stuff out of the game. If you d call this the fallout serie, you can say the Fallout serie is beïng censored. Bethesda does call it a serie and therefor the use of the word censorship is justified, especially because it s about controversial content.
Click to expand...
No, what this means is that Bethesda are not keeping true to the series. Not keeping true to the series is very different from censorship, which implies outside control over content that the creators do not agree with.
 
Sander said:
Radical? I can think of a million things that Bethesda have changed that are a lot more essential than killable children and being able to point a gun at someone's groin.
Click to expand...

It isn't the most essential game in Fallout that has changed but is is part of a large chunk of essential stuff that has changed. The groin shots where a typical example of Fallout humor. Therefor they are to me essential to the Fallout serie


Sander said:
No, what this means is that Bethesda are not keeping true to the series. Not keeping true to the series is very different from censorship, which implies outside control over content that the creators do not agree with.
Click to expand...
Original creators of Fallout: Interplay, BlackIsle
New company that s supposed to continue the creation of Fallout:
Bethesda (Outside control)

It would be fair to say that Bethesda is censoring content from the original Fallout games, that would be in a Fallout game if it wasn't up to them. (if it was upto the fallout fans, RPG-gamers, biggest part of the gaming community that does buy controversial games like GTA and other even more controversial games)
 
Munin said:
It would be fair to say that Bethesda is censoring content from the original Fallout games, that would be in a Fallout game if it wasn't up to them.
Click to expand...

No, it would not be "fair to say". That Bethesda isn't making the hypothetical Black Isle Fo3 of your imagination has nothing to do with censorship, period.
 
Per said:
No, it would not be "fair to say". That Bethesda isn't making the hypothetical Black Isle Fo3 of your imagination has nothing to do with censorship, period.
Click to expand...

If Bethesda would censor the same stuff in FO1 and FO2 what would you say then? Leaving controversial stuff out in FO3 and calling it a true sequel doesn't make that much difference to me
as changing the Fallout serie by censoring controversial stuff.

That has little to do with my imagination of Black Isles hypothetical FO3, this is imagination of the original Fallout creators of how Fallout is suposed to be like.
 
Original creators of Fallout: Interplay, BlackIsle
New company that s supposed to continue the creation of Fallout:
Bethesda (Outside control)
Click to expand...
Creators of Fallout 3: Bethesda. QED

That has little to do with my imagination of Black Isles hypothetical FO3, this is imagination of the original Fallout creators of how Fallout is suposed to be like.
Click to expand...
This has *nothing* to do with censorship, yet again. Please go look up the meaning of the word 'censorship'. This is not it.
 
Sander said:
Creators of Fallout 3: Bethesda. QED
Click to expand...
I ll have to admit this is rather complicated:

* Creator of Fallout Franchise = Interplay + BlackIsle => censorship of original Fallout concept

* Creator of Fallout 3 = Bethesda => selfcensorship of controversial stuff

Sander said:
This has *nothing* to do with censorship, yet again. Please go look up the meaning of the word 'censorship'. This is not it.
Click to expand...
Selfcensorship of something you own, but might not have created yourself is also censorship (Falloutconcept). And Bethesda has bought more then the name alone of Fallout: it has bought the Frenchise of Fallout.

Please go look up the meaning of the word 'selfcensorship' because this is also it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

TO give an example of selfcensorship:
Not long ago there was a Danish cartoondrawer that drawed a controversial cartoon of muhamad in a newspaper, that made muslims all over the world angry against the Danish (riots, ...). Now newspapers don't dare to use simulair cartoons out of fear for the muslimreactions. This is censorship, don't make no mistake about that ... http://www.buydanish.dk/index.php/2006/10/10/censorship-and-selfcensorship-revisited
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Munin said:
I ll have to admit this is rather complicated:

* Creator of Fallout Franchise = Interplay + BlackIsle => censorship of original Fallout concept

* Creator of Fallout 3 = Bethesda => selfcensorship of controversial stuff
Click to expand...
*sigh*
It's not censorship. They're simply leaving it out as they're changing the series. Change is not the same as censorship, regardless of the positive or negative aspects of that change.
 
Sander said:
*sigh*
It's not censorship. They're simply leaving it out as they're changing the series. Change is not the same as censorship, regardless of the positive or negative aspects of that change.
Click to expand...

censorship is a way of changing the series (not putting stuff in it for a reason), the reason for changing the series makes the difference between censorship and just changing something. If the reason for changing something is fear/controversy this is censorship. To me it seems that controversy is the reason. If it s not as you probably think the reason is, then it has nothing to do with censorship.
 
It could be called self-censorship (like the German version of RtCW not containing any swastikas to dodge legal constraints), but that's not what it is.

They're already digressing too far from the original concept as that leaving out certain "uncomfortable" features could be considered self-censorship.

I think a more appropriate term would be "streamlining".
 
Ashmo said:
It could be called self-censorship (like the German version of RtCW not containing any swastikas to dodge legal constraints), but that's not what it is.

They're already digressing too far from the original concept as that leaving out certain "uncomfortable" features could be considered self-censorship.

I think a more appropriate term would be "streamlining".
Click to expand...

What you re saying is that they re not making a sequel, and that new game has just to be seen seperatly from fallout games (like it s got nothing, or very little to do with them) or at best as a some sort of sequel for Oblivion? And that they re not changing the serie, they are making a new one?

Intresting view I must say, If I look at it that way: yes, then I could agree with you. But why does a game like that deserve the attention it gets on this forum? (let me guess? : Because of people like me?)
 
Here are my thoughts.

Bethesda is going to pretty much fuck up the Fallout we know and love. The biggest change is to 3D/Third Person perspective. That's a complete fuck-up in my opinion. It saddens me to know that this game will not live up to the expectations I and a lot of other Fallout fans had for the fabled Fallout 3.

I'll still most likely purchase this game and play it, but I've got a gut feeling that I will be hugely disappointed.

Please let me be wrong.
 
Why the website talks about Fallout 3 so much?

Because it's "Fallout 3" and they have the license to prove it.

Doesn't matter how little it has to do with the actual Fallout games, they're re-inventing the series (in a bad way) and their game will determine the future course of the series.

That's why.
 
Sweet Jesus man, censorship implies that they're taking something that exist (Fallout 1 or 2) and then actually censoring it. Like the European release of FO1/2 was censored.

They aren't censoring squat.
 
Learn the definition of self-censorship, please.

The reason it's not censorship in this case isn't that it's not an external censor (self-censorship is internal) or that it's not censorship of something that already exists uncensored (Fallout 1+2 would be the uncensored version), it's that it's neither changed out of fear of being banned/flamed nor intended to be any more than what they're going to release.

Fallout 3 won't be castrated because it's the censored remains of a good idea, it'll be castrated because it's the streamlined knock-off of a good idea.

They didn't paint over the nasty bits of the original, they took a cheap xerox and let a retarded kid play with scissors and pencils on it.
 
My god....yes. To the OP, please learn the meaning of "censorship". If Fallout 3 were created with naked women running around the in-game areas and then the company pixelated the private parts, it would in fact be censored.....so...to OP...you're dumb....
 
If you don't have anything to add, don't, please.

And no needless name-calling.
 
If you can't kill kids, I hope they won't be in the game at all. Invulnerable NPCs ftl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top