The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm writing this as i've just recently purchased and completed Onimusha Warlords for the PS2.
The game itself only got a 15+ rating but i was actually surprised by the amount of blood, violence and gore that was in the game. Especially when you complete the game, I don't want to spoil it for those who have yet to complete but it is good! I then thought to myself, how can they rate this 15+ where if they were to make a film out of it, it would run the risk of being rated as a 18+ (maybe even banned) if certain parts where not edited or cut. For example, even if a film has somebody headbutting somebody that film automatically gets a 18 rating. The Matrix and the Tomb Raider film had to edit out headbutts from the film so they would not be classed as a 18. Same deal with the Resident Evil games. Ok, the violence might be much today but when Resident Evil (the first one) was under production there were rumours flying about that the game might be banned due to the graphic nature of the violence.
With the graphics of the PS2 far surpassing the PS1, violence is more graphic and may seem more "real" to those people playing or watching it.
Personally i don't mind violence in computer games or films, but why are the ratings for each so different? What does a game have to have to get a 18 rating?
For those people who think swearing and nudity have to be in a game to get a 18 rating, then think again. Hostile Waters has violence, swearing and nudity but that too only got a 15+ rating.
Before people start replying pointing out how i have contradicted myself numerous times in this post my final word is, i don't mind violence, swearing or nudity is game but i just think it's sort of strange how such games get a 15+ rating while films of the same content would get a 18+ rating or even banned/edited.
Darkreaper
The game itself only got a 15+ rating but i was actually surprised by the amount of blood, violence and gore that was in the game. Especially when you complete the game, I don't want to spoil it for those who have yet to complete but it is good! I then thought to myself, how can they rate this 15+ where if they were to make a film out of it, it would run the risk of being rated as a 18+ (maybe even banned) if certain parts where not edited or cut. For example, even if a film has somebody headbutting somebody that film automatically gets a 18 rating. The Matrix and the Tomb Raider film had to edit out headbutts from the film so they would not be classed as a 18. Same deal with the Resident Evil games. Ok, the violence might be much today but when Resident Evil (the first one) was under production there were rumours flying about that the game might be banned due to the graphic nature of the violence.
With the graphics of the PS2 far surpassing the PS1, violence is more graphic and may seem more "real" to those people playing or watching it.
Personally i don't mind violence in computer games or films, but why are the ratings for each so different? What does a game have to have to get a 18 rating?
For those people who think swearing and nudity have to be in a game to get a 18 rating, then think again. Hostile Waters has violence, swearing and nudity but that too only got a 15+ rating.
Before people start replying pointing out how i have contradicted myself numerous times in this post my final word is, i don't mind violence, swearing or nudity is game but i just think it's sort of strange how such games get a 15+ rating while films of the same content would get a 18+ rating or even banned/edited.
Darkreaper
I thik the reason games have so far mainly avoided the BBFC ratings ( in the main ) is that, unless the media pick up on a games content, e.g Grand Theft Auto and Kingpin or the publishers themselves submit it, then the people in charge of the BBFC will not actively press for legally binding age restrictions on games. There's a general attitude at the moment that if if something takes place on/with a computer then it doesn't matter because they're for kids. I know this isn't the real truth but a far as politicians/ media it is. Take for example that guy who was sentenced this week for hacking those credit cards. The FBI tracked him halfway around the world and our courts let him walk ! This is someone who beat computer security systems worldwide, and he reckons he did it because of low self esteem ! LOL !
My point it that I think games do need to be regulated far more so that they can continue to include whatever a developer feels is relevant to their game. I don't buy a title because its violent or whatever it is that makes it receive an age rating but if its a good game then it doesnt matter - to me it is the gameplay that matters most ! By introducing BBFC ratings for all games then it would make the whole games industry more recognised and would stop dead all media stories about games influencing kids who are too young. All the papers moaned about GTA but Gone In 60 Seconds ? No complaints becuase it was rated !
My point it that I think games do need to be regulated far more so that they can continue to include whatever a developer feels is relevant to their game. I don't buy a title because its violent or whatever it is that makes it receive an age rating but if its a good game then it doesnt matter - to me it is the gameplay that matters most ! By introducing BBFC ratings for all games then it would make the whole games industry more recognised and would stop dead all media stories about games influencing kids who are too young. All the papers moaned about GTA but Gone In 60 Seconds ? No complaints becuase it was rated !
I'm writing this as i've just recently purchased and completed Onimusha Warlords for the PS2.
The game itself only got a 15+ rating but i was actually surprised by the amount of blood, violence and gore that was in the game. Especially when you complete the game, I don't want to spoil it for those who have yet to complete but it is good! I then thought to myself, how can they rate this 15+ where if they were to make a film out of it, it would run the risk of being rated as a 18+ (maybe even banned) if certain parts where not edited or cut. For example, even if a film has somebody headbutting somebody that film automatically gets a 18 rating. The Matrix and the Tomb Raider film had to edit out headbutts from the film so they would not be classed as a 18. Same deal with the Resident Evil games. Ok, the violence might be much today but when Resident Evil (the first one) was under production there were rumours flying about that the game might be banned due to the graphic nature of the violence.
With the graphics of the PS2 far surpassing the PS1, violence is more graphic and may seem more "real" to those people playing or watching it.
Personally i don't mind violence in computer games or films, but why are the ratings for each so different? What does a game have to have to get a 18 rating?
For those people who think swearing and nudity have to be in a game to get a 18 rating, then think again. Hostile Waters has violence, swearing and nudity but that too only got a 15+ rating.
Before people start replying pointing out how i have contradicted myself numerous times in this post my final word is, i don't mind violence, swearing or nudity is game but i just think it's sort of strange how such games get a 15+ rating while films of the same content would get a 18+ rating or even banned/edited.
Darkreaper
The game itself only got a 15+ rating but i was actually surprised by the amount of blood, violence and gore that was in the game. Especially when you complete the game, I don't want to spoil it for those who have yet to complete but it is good! I then thought to myself, how can they rate this 15+ where if they were to make a film out of it, it would run the risk of being rated as a 18+ (maybe even banned) if certain parts where not edited or cut. For example, even if a film has somebody headbutting somebody that film automatically gets a 18 rating. The Matrix and the Tomb Raider film had to edit out headbutts from the film so they would not be classed as a 18. Same deal with the Resident Evil games. Ok, the violence might be much today but when Resident Evil (the first one) was under production there were rumours flying about that the game might be banned due to the graphic nature of the violence.
With the graphics of the PS2 far surpassing the PS1, violence is more graphic and may seem more "real" to those people playing or watching it.
Personally i don't mind violence in computer games or films, but why are the ratings for each so different? What does a game have to have to get a 18 rating?
For those people who think swearing and nudity have to be in a game to get a 18 rating, then think again. Hostile Waters has violence, swearing and nudity but that too only got a 15+ rating.
Before people start replying pointing out how i have contradicted myself numerous times in this post my final word is, i don't mind violence, swearing or nudity is game but i just think it's sort of strange how such games get a 15+ rating while films of the same content would get a 18+ rating or even banned/edited.
Darkreaper