Seneque said:
Short version :
Putting such an option makes sense from a business point of view.
Long version :
1. For those who did not read: it's an option, as in optional, or as in "you don't have to activate it if you don't want to". As for the rating, it will have no impact on it, unless some mandatory parental code is implemented (that's not the case as far as I know), and at best it would get the game a 16+ rating instead of a 18+.... So :
2. Congratulation on discovering that Epic put a violence filter in their games. It only took you 10 years. Of course that has everything to do with obscure pressure from hidden parental organisations and unknown governments, and absolutely nothing to do with increasing the game potential audience (without hurting the original one, since it's an option), and as such its sales, and ultimately the profit of the company (Epic is a caritative agency).
3. As for swearing : Forum rules :
"Insults. Attacking other users for any reason is never acceptable. This includes racism and bigotry. Do not insult someone's religion, race, sex, sexuality, nationality, political beliefs, or gaming preferences. Debate is encouraged, but respect the beliefs and opinions of others."
Not having insults is the norm, even on this site (for reasons). Why some people assume it's perfectly normal for everyone, in a game, is beyond me...
4. The majority of the FPS gamers play those games for the -aiming- skills, the strategy aspect (think Counter Strike), or simply because it's simple and fast to learn (aim, fire, hit). Contrary to the thread opener's belief, many of those people simply don't care for the gore or realistic aspect of the game, some being even turned off by it. Epic is trying to compete with 'Call of Duty', 'Halo' or 'Resistance', not 'the Saw IV: the game', and narrowing its audience by not putting such a simple option in its game just does not make sense.
5. Apparently, video games doesn't make people violent. It makes them paranoid.
|
