The VG Resource

Arguably. They don't actually censor anything, all they do is put a rating on the game and tell the game company the reason for that rating. If the game designers want a lower rating, then they can choose to cut or alter that content themselves. Nothing is really "censored" in the traditional sense, meaning they are forced to do it. It's their own choice.

The thing is most companies are going to try and make those changes, optional or not, because having lower ratings increases their ability to sell the game. Many stores will outright refuse to carry games rated AO and will heavily scrutinize games rated M, making them harder to sell. And games that don't acquire an ESRB rating at all are pretty much f**ked, as NOBODY will sell them.

(12-06-2015, 11:15 PM)Monobrobe Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2015, 11:07 PM)psychospacecow Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2015, 09:00 PM)Monobrobe Wrote: [ -> ]I'm afraid I don't quite follow. Wouldn't that mean that you can get away with certain things if the government isn't controlling it? Or does even ESRB have rules about games that fall under various ratings?
Or are companies just that fickle? That would be surprising considering how many other games there are with super-sexualized characters.

Companies typically want to abide by the ESRB because it significantly supports them in selling their product. Many vendors will not stock products not rated by the ESRB effectively making said product a specialty item. It does offer more flexibility.

So, in other words, ESRB is the reason for the censorship? Am I understanding correctly?

Sort of. It is purely of the creator's discretion to alter their product to meet the standards of a certain rating. Censorship is usually enforced by an outside force, but game creators do not need to go through the ESRB or change their games to meet a certain rating. You don't really get that liberty in most places and the ESRB is overall a positive force in that regard.

Does the publisher have a say in it? Think about most Nintendo of Japan to Nintendo of America releases. Crosses removed, blood removed, etc. Was that just NoA being super afraid of soccer moms flipping tables at them, or what?

Yeah, that's pretty much all Nintendo. Sometimes, they do that to force a different rating. For the most part, Nintendo of America just likes to keep a certain image because of who they figure buy Nintendo games, moms that don't actually look into the games their kids play and complain when someone gets beheaded sort of deal.

I don't think many companies change game content to score lower in the ESRB... I think there's a whole lot of wanting to avoid a negative critical backlash going on.

Kingdom Hearts 2 did in order to keep the esrb rating lower. They edited two scenes in the Pirates of the Caribbean world and made them different from what they actually were in the movie. A lot of companies will do that to reach their target audience in a region.

Right, but the question becomes: which is the exception and which is the rule?
And then... where do you classify publisher/cooperative overrule? Disney is the one who wanted the KHII changes, but they aren't the actual developers of the game. Do we consider that a company changing its own content to suit the ESRB, or do we consider that some form of censorship imposed upon the developers?

When, as a Nintendo rep, you say something big is announced on a day within the same month as the Smash Broadcast is supposed to come out, it better be the Smash Broadcast. Instead we get a date for Minecraft Wii U (Dec. 17 (in Europe)).

Don't mess with our expectations, man.

(12-07-2015, 09:48 AM)NICKtendo DS Wrote: [ -> ]When, as a Nintendo rep, you say something big is announced on a day within the same month as the Smash Broadcast is supposed to come out, it better be the Smash Broadcast. Instead we get a date for Minecraft Wii U (Dec. 17 (in Europe)).

Don't mess with our expectations, man.

Well, Minecraft Wii U still is pretty big. Like, if you think about it that shouldn't...even exist, what with it currently being a Microsoft franchise now and all.






you're just not the target audience. What, did you expect them to say "Hey, we've got a big announcement FOR KIDS!"

(seriously tho now I'm actually kinda curious what the Wii U version would add if anything)

I'm not denying anything. I know it's big, I know I'm not the target audience. I'm just bothered by the timing of this announcement.

speaking of timing, well, the big announcement was made in Europe. A Nintendo of America rep said they had big news today - and it's not even 8AM in Redmond

so you can still remain optimistic about a better announcement coming later today ;D

besides, it could've been worse. it could've been both the announcement that people wanted and the announcement that people didn't want, both at the same time:

I've wanted Steve (with an Alex alt.) in Smash for a long time, actually >.>;;

A Minecraft stage would be awesome and nobody can convince me otherwise.

Has an indie game ever been represented in Smash before? If something like that happened, that'd be interesting. But so far, even the games that were hyped up the ass like Shovel Knight weren't even mentioned in Smash. It got a crossover with Battletoads at least.

(12-07-2015, 09:48 AM)NICKtendo DS Wrote: [ -> ]When, as a Nintendo rep, you say something big is announced on a day within the same month as the Smash Broadcast is supposed to come out, it better be the Smash Broadcast. Instead we get a date for Minecraft Wii U (Dec. 17 (in Europe)).

Don't mess with our expectations, man.

Well it makes sense when you think about the fact that the rep is the one who's doing all the bussiness stuff with indies (minecraft was originally an indie game) and if we were to get a smash broadcast they would've announced a timeframe yesterday for a direct on twitter and other social media.
@Koh Actually yes, in Smash U there's a trophy of Bit Trip Runner.

I can actually see a minecraft skin for the villager working out pretty well. That isn't to say it would be done, but it isn't too hard to imagine.