Viewing Thread:
"Possibly a baltant gameaday attempt.... if nobody notices, that is."

I feel that Rare have made a huge mistake by trying to change their 'cutesy' image. Or rather, the way in which they have done it.

Perfect Dark has always been advertised as "the sequel to Goldeneye". Goldeneye was, of course, available for all to enjoy, young and old. And until now, nobody knew that the game would receive any rating at all. Therefore, for three years, everyone from toddlers to pensioners have been anticipating the release of Perfect Dark, waiting to get their copy. However, Rare's decision to add more gore than before has meant that a large portion of the fan base are not allowed to buy the game legally - surely a commercial disaster by Rare, considering that the changes hardly add much to the game? Wrong. Rare (surely) know as well as everyone else that any kid can get hold of any game or film, just by getting a parent or older sibling to buy it for them. This means that, rather than improve their image, Rare will 'disturb the minds of innocent children' (as the BBFC will inform you). I know that this is probably untrue, but Perfect Dark still encourages law-breaking, just because of its prequel's popularity.

And it's the same with "Conker's Big Adventure" / "Conker's Bad Fur Day". Conker was originally going to appeal to children particularly, but has gone full circle and is now going to be an 'adult humour'-only game (I think it's ironic that under the USA's rating system, Conker's Bad Fur Day will be rated as "Mature"!). Conker was introduced in Diddy Kong Racing - a cutesy racing game. So any Conker game will appeal to fans of DKR - young or old. I think that, if anything, the lead character should be changed - to break any bonds with DKR. Or, better still, the cartoon element should be eliminated all together. Everyone knows that adult cartoons do not work (just look at South Park).

I want to know what both children and adults think of this situation. I would also like to tell Rare that anyone can and will get hold of your games, no matter what rating they are, because they are so damned good. Although this pathetic protest it probably not going to affect Britain's gaming giants, but at least consider the consequences.

PD is an 18 because of its realism. and Conker is a 15.

Ok Rare haven't changed their image they have always been both.

Killer Instinct wasn't a kiddies game and neither was Goldeneye, just because it is becoming a little more obvious doesn't mean they are changing. PD and Conker are excellent games and the adult parts make it more reaslistic (PD) and more funny (Conker). There is nothing wrong with Rare's adult games they still have Banjo, Donkey Kong and with a mamoth amount of upcoming Mickey mouse games proves to me they do both. And thats the way it should be.

Dringo

TheMorrigan wrote:
Er, England
> rules? Why?

Why not? ... Id be more worried if the British kids were shouting America rules... :)

Id say the Americans aren't as stupid as people would
> tend to believe.

I've known & worked with quite a few yanks over the fave 5 years or so... all of whom were intelligent, interesting and fun to pop down the pub with..

however... since it appears the American media has trouble dealing with non-Americans as anything other than stero-types... why is it bad for us to do the same?

And not everybody is 'English' who use this forum
> or 'British' for that matter.

Its doesnt 'really' matter all that much though huh?

I'm currently sharing a house with an Australian girl and a South Afican girl... who generally spend their time compaining about pretty much ever facet of the UK...

Since its not really ment in any derogitary manner, no one ever really takes any offence... generally its pretty funny... and much of the time its true! (although I'd never admit that to their faces :) ) :)

C'mon... have a laugh... c'mon now... hey... hey... just a little giggle?... go on... you know you want to :)

Whats wrong with being patriotic ? The U.S don't seem to mind belittling other countries in order to make themselves look superior.

And whats wrong with stating that something is stupid when it is ? are you saying that my comment about alcoholic sponsors isn't ? When i say Seinfeld is poo compared to the likes of Bottom, it is my personal preference and i say it light heartedly.

I said England rules, so sue me for being proud to be English. Personally if some French bloke came on here and said "France rules !", i wouldn't go whining at him so whats your problem ?

In reality, I have no problem with the U.S, i think its a nice country, but there are things that i find stupid about some of the things they do. Can't exactly hate the country when my girlfriend is American and lives in Florida. But even she finds some of the things there pretty stupid. It seems nowadays its ok for people to slate England, burn English flags, etc. But anyone who has the cheek to feel proud to be English is just purely arrogant and in the wrong.

savatt1668 wrote:

> better than poo Seinfeld or whatever the blokes name is ;-))
> England Rules ! ;-)

Er, England rules? Why?
Id say the Americans aren't as stupid as people would tend to believe.
And not everybody is 'English' who use this forum or 'British' for that matter.

I think its a bit stupid how thanks to the U.S, we don't get to see alcoholic sponsors on team shirts in football games like Fifa, it kind of makes the game look incomplete when a bunch of teams have their sponsors on their shirts and others don't.

Of course theres the usual protect the kids thing, but 1. Most American kids don't even know what Carlsberg or Strongbow is and it wouldn't particularly effect British kids when they see these sponsors on their heroes shirts week in, week out anyway.

And 2. Whats the point in "protecting" kids from the evil names of alcoholic drinks and then giving them a game which consists of them pulling someones lungs out through their backside !? Only in America ;-))

I think the strictness of ratins has gone down over the last few years.

Look at the original Lethal Weapon, it was 18. Films come out today that have the same violence/swearing and they are rated 15's.

I remember that if films had the F word in it more than once or twice it was automatically an 18. If you compare that with something like American Pie which had it in loads of times, and was just a 15.

Grix Thraves wrote:
> Agreed. :0)

I can't stand Friends... (The tv programme, I expect
> he means.)

Fraiser I like though. Much better.

I agree except Chandler can be quite funny!

Does anyone get the idea that Nintendo might have got Rare to make Conke full of bad language etc, to raise publicity beyond a "kiddy games machine" before the GC came out? It's a possibilty!

Sonic

The half eaten man might have done it, Dan... ;0)

Remember, Felix Lighter had his leg bitten off, and he was put on a sofa covered with blood with the note "He disagreed with something that ate him", or something like that.

There were quite jumpy bits in it. Sanches, or whatever his name is, killed a man in cold blood right near the start of the film. It wasn't so much gory, but the thought of it isn't that nice.

I think you get more sensitive to violence as you get older... Bit odd, really.