Oblivion Rating Change

ESRB Changes Oblivion's Rating to M announces a change in the ESRB rating for The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to "M" for mature, the game had previously been rated "T" (teen). Word is: "The content causing the ESRB to change the rating involves more detailed depictions of blood and gore than were considered in the original rating, as well as the presence of a locked-out art file or 'skin' that, if accessed through a third party modification to the PC version of the game, allows the user to play with topless versions of female characters."
View : : :
56.
 
No subject
May 3, 2006, 22:47
Dev
56.
No subject May 3, 2006, 22:47
May 3, 2006, 22:47
Dev
 
Creston:
Actually you will end up noticing it.
For instance, if the regulation said that a game must NEVER contain hidden code, art or textures or anything else, even stuff that can't be activated without a 3rd party mod (like hot coffee) anything that would potentially change a rating; then what would happen?
Well game companies would end up producing less games in fear of fines (especially after the first couple fines hit). Risks and thus the costs of producing games would go up, so there would be less availible game production dollars in the market place. They would tend to produce games that were similar to other games, even more than they do now, because they would not want to take a chance on something new with the decreased supply of usable game production dollars. They also would try to reuse as much code as possible from other games, code that had been "vetted" as b00bie free or whatever.
And the release time would have to be extended (although with most games this wouldn't be a bad thing) so they could go over the code with a fine tooth comb to make sure no one hid anything in it or any content was outside of the rating. So that would somewhat stifle the incentive to make new game engines, which might have an effect on seeing new graphical features.

And even that might not be enough. Some TV shows or movies end up removing some graphic bloody frames to maintain a rating. For instance if there's a sequence where a guy's leg got shot off or amputated. Often they have say 2 seconds (approx 60 frames) of the actual leg. Then the MPAA might tell them they have to remove 45 frames to maintain the PG 13 rating.
Its relativly easy to do so on a movie.
But what if a game was released where the animation of dying was considered too explicit after a 2nd review by the ESRB? Then the game company could get fined.

For a prime example of this, just take a look at oblivion, in this very story. Its not ONLY about the b00bies, it also says that they decided after a second look that the game contained more detailed blood/gore than they want for a T rating.

If this were regulated, bethesda could have gotten fined for that (even without the b00by factor).

Additional regulation is almost never a good idea. It always has unintended consequences. The times when its nessasary is for things like enviroment or safety issues because those are something that the free market does a poor job at.

This comment was edited on May 3, 22:49.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
2.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
20.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
28.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
49.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
3.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
4.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
5.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
7.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
6.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
8.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
9.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
43.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
45.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
52.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
62.
May 4, 2006May 4 2006
71.
May 4, 2006May 4 2006
10.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
31.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
33.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
34.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
35.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
36.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
37.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
38.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
40.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
     Re: No subject
46.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
     Re: No subject
39.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
11.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
12.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
13.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
14.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
15.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
16.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
17.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
18.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
41.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
44.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
48.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
50.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
51.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
53.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
     Re: Ridiculous
58.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
      Re: Ridiculous
72.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
       Re: Ridiculous
75.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
        Re: Ridiculous
76.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
         Re: Ridiculous
77.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
          Re: Ridiculous
78.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
           Re: Ridiculous
79.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
           Re: Ridiculous
80.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
           Re: Ridiculous
81.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
          Re: Ridiculous
83.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
          Re: Ridiculous
85.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
           Re: Ridiculous
86.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
           Re: Ridiculous
82.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
         Re: Ridiculous
84.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
          Re: Ridiculous
63.
May 4, 2006May 4 2006
64.
May 4, 2006May 4 2006
65.
May 4, 2006May 4 2006
     Re: Ridiculous
19.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
21.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
23.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
47.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
73.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
24.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
22.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
25.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
26.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
27.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
29.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
32.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
30.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
42.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
54.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
57.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
66.
May 4, 2006May 4 2006
60.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
61.
May 4, 2006May 4 2006
55.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
 56.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
No subject
59.
May 3, 2006May 3 2006
67.
May 4, 2006May 4 2006
68.
May 4, 2006May 4 2006
74.
May 5, 2006May 5 2006
69.
May 4, 2006May 4 2006
70.
May 4, 2006May 4 2006
87.
May 7, 2006May 7 2006