Well, the fact that the game has perfect graphics doesn't mean it will be ultra bloody...

@mr shady- bit heated.

i agree there is no argument for sony develiping motion control before nintendo, in terms of this gen there was talk [which i think is probably untrue] that sony started developing motion controls before nintendo ANNOUNCED the Wii remote. i do believe sony probably thought a lot about motion control long before the remote, but don't reckon they developed anything before it.
I believe as companies playstation and sony are decievers and cowards [not braving anything new other than making new media formats... although the ps3 price was damn brave], Wheras nintendo are much braver in ideas terms, and certainly more trustworthy [except on game release dates] but i do believe they probably fleece us out of a little too much money [i would hazard that the Wii would be profitable had it been the same release price as GC [£130] or at least very near profitable.

i would also add that although i havent used it i bet the six axis works fine. however i would argue about it being "6 axis" because that makes no sense; axes [axis plural?] refer to dimensions, of which there are three to travel in, you cannot count pitch, roll and yaw [tilting] as new axes... though sony dont seem to mind claiming "4D graphics" [was that actually sony or is it just a rumour?]

/rant

@ TWroO

I never argued that sixaxis is not good for racing games nor am I planing to. I was arguing about sixaxis being better then Wii remote on that field. Which is against all logic cos Wii remote is capable of doing anything sixaxis is plus a lot more.

And about your sixaxis definition, I am a electrical engineering major, trust me you dont want me to get started. People used to get so bored that they would die.

Do you acctualy believe that crap about sony developing motion controller for PS3 before nintendo announced Wii. Guys from Incognito Entertainment (Warhawk) said that "it only received development controllers with the motion-sensing feature 10 days or so before E3". And Warhawk was the only game with motion for PS3 showed at E3. And N started developing that controller back in 2002 as accessory for GC. Of course that they said they started development before N, you dont expect them to say "Hey we sow this Wii thing at E3 and there was a such a buz around it that we decide to copy it"

I dont have nothing against ps3 its just that there fans are making such a ridiciols claims that its annoying

 Actually, I firmly believe that Gears of War should have been rated AO. 

I mean, the secondary function of the default weapon is a chainsaw that spatters blood all over the place.  Not to mention curb stomping.  

I greatly enjoyed this game but it is full of graphic violence.  AO should not become relegated to things the ESRB sees as "perverse" the way NC-17 is for movies.  I mean, Saw I, II, and III all got R ratings, which is frankly ridiculous. 

Those movies and their ilk are nothing but tributes to moviegoers' apparent thirst for gore and sadism, and for those to not be given the highest rating the MPAA can dole out is just an admission that the ratings system is corrupt.  Saw actually started out as NC-17 when it was shown at the Sundance Film Festival; when they wanted to distribute it to theaters they cut out a few bits (Wikipedia describes the difference as "minimal") and got it re-rated to "R".  

Hello everyone, longtime reader-first time poster. On the subject of games getting too realistic and having M or AO ratings, I don't think it will be that big of a change as it already is.

Their is already plenty of violence in movies, and it's not so ultra realistic that they get NC17 ratings.

I think in the context of entertainment, portrayed violence is distinguishable from real violence, and many people are already sensitized to this portrayal.

Short end of the matter is, IMO there won't be a huge change in the ratings violent games recieve.

I disagree with VAMP. The difference between seeing gore in a movie, and seeing it in a game is totally different. In the game you are in direct control of it, and all those euphoric middle aged people out there will say "its gonig to make kids kill each other" and everything. They will get there way and ratings will go up.

But will games ever get that photorealistic? In the form as we know them, no. Eventualy/if ever when games move into total virtual reality (like it gets projected into your mind, like a concious dream that you are in total control of, that stuff will be totally realistic. Or when hardware gets advanced enough, and we have 3-D holographic displays in our house, and HDTV's would be then to what black and white TV's are to us now.

That's true, but from a purely graphical standpoint (which is what the original post asked) will there be a change in ratings? I don't know. You make a good point about the interactivity, but then again, we are already in direct control of everything now so that won't change as the graphics get more photorealistic.

mr shady.
thats what i said, i dont believe sony developed squat for six-axis before they saw the remote... but i do believe that sony will have discussed something about motion control early on in R'n'D, though they probably didnt think much about it and probably didnt think of incorporating something into a standard controller.

i would even reckon both sony and nintendo thought about it last gen, but it didnt get very far [maybe the eye-toy came out of it]. Microsoft im not so sure about, i doubt they even gave a thought.

I think the problem is that Sony/MS/Nintendo all refuse to license AO games on their consoles. I hate this theory that adults should not be able to buy whatever they want. Who are they trying to protect? Definitely these games should no be sold to minors, but I don't see why adults cannot play these games.