Game developer bemoaned unfair treatment coused by protection of minors

[Sqrl]

Hus said:

Game_boy said:
Games are more interactive: It's watching a realistic person getting killed for effect vs. Killing realistic people yourself for enjoyment.

I've always thought Mario, Pokemon, Viva Piñata, etc. are just as good as more violent games; violence doesn't make a game better by itself.

Games aimed at that audience should be designed with minimal violence in mind, not doing and then getting angry that censorship you knew would happen is enforced and you have to ruin the game. It was your (as a company) decision in the first place.

Did not take long. So what is it will nintendo people and everything should be childish. Are you scared of the realism of viloence in games, what type of world do you live in. Cant you handle it, what ?

The retarded way the rate games thats the problem, a little blood and its M but people on fire ohh thats fine that is T rated. The hypocrisy and ignorance of those idiots behind the game ratings is what F5 is complaining about.

 

 

Hus what is wrong with you, do you really have to make everything about consoles?  This has nothing to do with fanboys or individual consoles yet you have to make that rediculous attack anyways? 

On the topic: Most people on these forums know how I feel on this subject so I won't go in depth.  I am just wondering how long we are going to let the ESRB tell us what is too violent/sexually explicit for us before we tell them off and make our own decisions about content.  I don't think anyone is suggesting there aren't certain games that cross a few boundaries, but I just don't see how a group of people can tell me what content is too violent for me or too sexually explicit for me, I am an adult and I will make that decision for myself and I expect every parent to read reviews on any game their child wants to buy.

PS - Nobody ever talks about how stupid it is that the games companies actually have to pay the ESRB to rate their game.