Comments on: Half-Life 2 rated R http://www.aelon.net/2004/10/half-life-2-rated-r/ Random babblings from a few digitally inclined people Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:02:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Kelmon http://www.aelon.net/2004/10/half-life-2-rated-r/#comment-299 Sun, 31 Oct 2004 10:14:31 +0000 http://www.aelon.net/2004/10/half-life-2-rated-r/#comment-299 Freedom of choice is important and, while I don't much like it, being reckless in a game and facing the consequences should be possible. I seem to recall that the Midtown Madness games had pedestrians always leaping out of the path of your car so that it was impossible to actually hit someone even if you ploughed through an outside cafe. However, the GTA games currently lack real consequences for doing distasteful things unless you go nuts enough to warrant the rozzers turning up to arrest you. What might be more interesting is to add something along the lines of a reputation within the community such that if you go out of your way to help or protect that the locals are more likely to assist while the opposite happens if you start whacking random passers-by. From what I've read of San Andreas it sounds as though they are going in that direction (i.e. people respond to how much time you've spent in the gym or how you are dressed) but I'd prefer to see random acts of violence discouraged. Freedom of choice is important and, while I don’t much like it, being reckless in a game and facing the consequences should be possible. I seem to recall that the Midtown Madness games had pedestrians always leaping out of the path of your car so that it was impossible to actually hit someone even if you ploughed through an outside cafe. However, the GTA games currently lack real consequences for doing distasteful things unless you go nuts enough to warrant the rozzers turning up to arrest you. What might be more interesting is to add something along the lines of a reputation within the community such that if you go out of your way to help or protect that the locals are more likely to assist while the opposite happens if you start whacking random passers-by. From what I’ve read of San Andreas it sounds as though they are going in that direction (i.e. people respond to how much time you’ve spent in the gym or how you are dressed) but I’d prefer to see random acts of violence discouraged.

]]> by: Holliday http://www.aelon.net/2004/10/half-life-2-rated-r/#comment-298 Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:07:08 +0000 http://www.aelon.net/2004/10/half-life-2-rated-r/#comment-298 I can see where you are coming from. I think Rockstar is either a very experimental developer or they are just masters of excess. What I mean is I am not sure if the results of the GTA games are accidental or on purpose. Is Rockstar just pushing controversy as far as possible to sell? Or do they have more thought behind it. I am fine with the way GTA is now. None of the missions ever force you to kill innocent people. It is all up to the player. I could blame the game for making it available but I can't blame the game if I actually do it. It presents some very interesting results when I play the game. When I was first testing some things out in San Andreas I had gotten a little knife for the first time. I was just swinging it around a bit and hitting a car with it. A woman walked behind me and during one of my swings I somehow turned around (targeting is better but still not perfect) and slit her throat rather graphically. After that I felt a little sick. Its very interesting how things like that can effect you, its just a bunch of polygons that looks like a person, but it triggers a similiar response. Ever since that incident I have been a lot more careful when on the streets with a weapon. I check my targets to make sure I am blastin' gang members and not grandmas. I feel like a thug with a little sense of honor. It is also worth mentioning that you can respond to people now. Its a simple feature just a positive or negative comment but it makes all the people feel more real. So when you walk around on the streets and someone says "Damn homey you stink" you can cuss him out or blow it off. Or if a lady says "Mmm mmm you lookin' fine" you can say something like "shut up bitch" or "Yeah, i've been workin' out". While I hardly ever just beat on random civilians for money, when someone backs into my new car I just spent $5,000 on, (There is a lot more bad drivers in SA) a beat down is pretty likely. I can see where you are coming from. I think Rockstar is either a very experimental developer or they are just masters of excess. What I mean is I am not sure if the results of the GTA games are accidental or on purpose. Is Rockstar just pushing controversy as far as possible to sell? Or do they have more thought behind it.

I am fine with the way GTA is now. None of the missions ever force you to kill innocent people. It is all up to the player. I could blame the game for making it available but I can’t blame the game if I actually do it.

It presents some very interesting results when I play the game. When I was first testing some things out in San Andreas I had gotten a little knife for the first time. I was just swinging it around a bit and hitting a car with it. A woman walked behind me and during one of my swings I somehow turned around (targeting is better but still not perfect) and slit her throat rather graphically. After that I felt a little sick. Its very interesting how things like that can effect you, its just a bunch of polygons that looks like a person, but it triggers a similiar response.

Ever since that incident I have been a lot more careful when on the streets with a weapon. I check my targets to make sure I am blastin’ gang members and not grandmas. I feel like a thug with a little sense of honor.

It is also worth mentioning that you can respond to people now. Its a simple feature just a positive or negative comment but it makes all the people feel more real. So when you walk around on the streets and someone says “Damn homey you stink” you can cuss him out or blow it off. Or if a lady says “Mmm mmm you lookin’ fine” you can say something like “shut up bitch” or “Yeah, i’ve been workin’ out”.

While I hardly ever just beat on random civilians for money, when someone backs into my new car I just spent $5,000 on, (There is a lot more bad drivers in SA) a beat down is pretty likely.

]]> by: Kelmon http://www.aelon.net/2004/10/half-life-2-rated-r/#comment-297 Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:20:58 +0000 http://www.aelon.net/2004/10/half-life-2-rated-r/#comment-297 I'm probably going to be seen as a bit of a prude on this one, but I do think that GTA is a bit iffy when it comes down to whether it should be allowed (and this coming from the man that owns both GTA3 and Vice City). Half-Life is no big deal in that you are giving it to people/things that quite obviously deserve it while in the GTA series you are happily rewarded for giving it to the innocents. While I have no real desire to go outside now and beat a nun for her money, it does seem somewhat distasteful to reward such actions in a game (although I do kinda miss the Hari Krishna's from the old 2-D games since they were fun to mow down). The whole idea of breaking into people's homes and being rewarded for it really does seem wrong to me, much like the rest of the game. Anyway, I'd be quite happy if they banned the GTA games unless they removed the parts of it where the player is rewarded for beating the crap out of innocent bystanders. Being able to shag prostitutes or machine gun the bad guys, fine, but getting cash for a random beating isn't really on. To be honest, I'd think about buying GTA:San Andreas (therefore blowing a whole in my argument) had I not got bored of Vice City too quickly (way quicker than GTA3 that, for some reason, I enjoyed more) and Gamespy's review (5-stars was great but the comments on the final page makes me wonder where they came from). I’m probably going to be seen as a bit of a prude on this one, but I do think that GTA is a bit iffy when it comes down to whether it should be allowed (and this coming from the man that owns both GTA3 and Vice City). Half-Life is no big deal in that you are giving it to people/things that quite obviously deserve it while in the GTA series you are happily rewarded for giving it to the innocents. While I have no real desire to go outside now and beat a nun for her money, it does seem somewhat distasteful to reward such actions in a game (although I do kinda miss the Hari Krishna’s from the old 2-D games since they were fun to mow down). The whole idea of breaking into people’s homes and being rewarded for it really does seem wrong to me, much like the rest of the game.
Anyway, I’d be quite happy if they banned the GTA games unless they removed the parts of it where the player is rewarded for beating the crap out of innocent bystanders. Being able to shag prostitutes or machine gun the bad guys, fine, but getting cash for a random beating isn’t really on.
To be honest, I’d think about buying GTA:San Andreas (therefore blowing a whole in my argument) had I not got bored of Vice City too quickly (way quicker than GTA3 that, for some reason, I enjoyed more) and Gamespy’s review (5-stars was great but the comments on the final page makes me wonder where they came from).

]]> by: Cyrris http://www.aelon.net/2004/10/half-life-2-rated-r/#comment-296 Fri, 29 Oct 2004 05:02:57 +0000 http://www.aelon.net/2004/10/half-life-2-rated-r/#comment-296 I'm not so concerned about that, as HL2 isn't my most anticipated game anyway. And personally, I can only see it coming out as MA aswell. I'm more concerned about the fact that the OFLC has the power to ban games at all. Talk is also about that GTA: San Andreas will start selling here from day one - but we may get a censored version which Take2 already took the liberty of making for us. While Vice City's censorship was only a small part of the game with the hookers, my understanding is that in San Andreas you can't do home invasions, which are a more crucial aspect. Despite censoring Vice City, the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.oflc.gov.au/content.html?n=44&p=34&sTitle=vice+city&record=183512">OFLC lists the game as the "original" version</a>. Half-Life 2 isn't so much the issue here, the OFLC is. I guess I put too much emphasis on HL2 to get to my point, as it was what was going around the internet at the time. I’m not so concerned about that, as HL2 isn’t my most anticipated game anyway. And personally, I can only see it coming out as MA aswell. I’m more concerned about the fact that the OFLC has the power to ban games at all. Talk is also about that GTA: San Andreas will start selling here from day one - but we may get a censored version which Take2 already took the liberty of making for us. While Vice City’s censorship was only a small part of the game with the hookers, my understanding is that in San Andreas you can’t do home invasions, which are a more crucial aspect. Despite censoring Vice City, the OFLC lists the game as the “original” version.

Half-Life 2 isn’t so much the issue here, the OFLC is. I guess I put too much emphasis on HL2 to get to my point, as it was what was going around the internet at the time.

]]> by: Cereal Samurai http://www.aelon.net/2004/10/half-life-2-rated-r/#comment-295 Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:24:36 +0000 http://www.aelon.net/2004/10/half-life-2-rated-r/#comment-295 Okay, seriously, you shouldn't be perpetuating this "report"... people are getting all worked up over nothing, the game's not even on the OFLC website just yet. San Andreas got through. I'm sure Half-Life 2, will. As spootle said, their R-Rating doesn't necessarily mean a ban. That's the highest they have, so it generally converts to the highest we have. Resident Evil 2 and Grand Theft Auto are two examples that I recall having the R-Rating in the UK magazines I read, but came here as MA15+ without a stir. Manhunt was borderline. Larry was a sex romp. GTA3 was the best of both. Though I think that we need an R-Rating for games, I can see why with the current standards, all of those games hit trouble on the road to getting here. But really, the only uproar to really stick has been that Dave Mirra SEXX FARM BIKE RACE thing... and no one cared about that. There's no way they'll ban Half-Life 2. Okay, seriously, you shouldn’t be perpetuating this “report”… people are getting all worked up over nothing, the game’s not even on the OFLC website just yet. San Andreas got through. I’m sure Half-Life 2, will. As spootle said, their R-Rating doesn’t necessarily mean a ban. That’s the highest they have, so it generally converts to the highest we have. Resident Evil 2 and Grand Theft Auto are two examples that I recall having the R-Rating in the UK magazines I read, but came here as MA15+ without a stir.

Manhunt was borderline. Larry was a sex romp. GTA3 was the best of both. Though I think that we need an R-Rating for games, I can see why with the current standards, all of those games hit trouble on the road to getting here. But really, the only uproar to really stick has been that Dave Mirra SEXX FARM BIKE RACE thing… and no one cared about that.

There’s no way they’ll ban Half-Life 2.

]]>