Post by Lýfelíëk Heroblãde on Sept 19, 2007 22:03:07 GMT -5
I'm sorry that it's been so long between FT's, but I've been super busy. Fantasy football and Steelers tickets just seem to take a bit of priority. Anyway, my teaser in Breathern's Mini FT is going to have to wait a few weeks. I've been checking out all of the Manhunt 2 internet video that I can find lately as no one's really saying what's ended up on the cutting room floor. It appears to me that most of the brutal kills have been blurred so much that you can hardly tell what's going on. I can't tell you how much this frustrates me- we need all of the hardcore games that we can get on Wii. Let's face it- they're few and far between. If we could be treated to one Metroid-quality game per month, I think everyone would be happy. This FT is a three-parter, so here goes:
I'm really not so sure. Third parties are obviously not happy with the way the board plays a sliver of a game then gives it a pass or fail. "E" through "M" guarantees publishing, while "AO" pretty much shoots a title dead in the water. Don't forget that without the industry's self-regulation, the Federal Government will get involved and do we really want that? So, I guess it's crappy regulation by a bunch of stiffs or six-month delays tagged on to every title? I dunno which is worse. That leads me to the next part:
I simply wonder this because somethings got to give. I know that when you buy an album, there's the Wal-Mart version and the normal one as well. Is it possible that game development will begin to include differently rated versions? It's not as far-fetched as it might seem at first. And finally:
We know that the big three don't want "AO" rated games on their systems, but what if the consumer had an actual choice? Mainstreamed versions could be sold at major retailers whereas the more graphic ones could be handled online by the publisher and/or specialty shops. With the major gaming audience being between 18 and 35, this is something that can't be denied much longer. As always, I can't wait to read what you all think...
- Will the industry ever rise up against the ESRB?
I'm really not so sure. Third parties are obviously not happy with the way the board plays a sliver of a game then gives it a pass or fail. "E" through "M" guarantees publishing, while "AO" pretty much shoots a title dead in the water. Don't forget that without the industry's self-regulation, the Federal Government will get involved and do we really want that? So, I guess it's crappy regulation by a bunch of stiffs or six-month delays tagged on to every title? I dunno which is worse. That leads me to the next part:
- Will AO ratings force a change in the development cycle?
I simply wonder this because somethings got to give. I know that when you buy an album, there's the Wal-Mart version and the normal one as well. Is it possible that game development will begin to include differently rated versions? It's not as far-fetched as it might seem at first. And finally:
- Will console manufacturers allow multiple versions of one title on their consoles?
We know that the big three don't want "AO" rated games on their systems, but what if the consumer had an actual choice? Mainstreamed versions could be sold at major retailers whereas the more graphic ones could be handled online by the publisher and/or specialty shops. With the major gaming audience being between 18 and 35, this is something that can't be denied much longer. As always, I can't wait to read what you all think...
