10 reason to wait for the Revolution

[Reveilled]

Is it still true that Nintendo doesn't go for games above a Teen rating?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Never has been.

I'm not so sure about that. Nintendo used to have very strict rules about the games they allowed on their machines. I remember Rare getting in trouble for Conker's Bad Fur Day for.. Was it Nintendo 64? I think so. Also, back in the 16-bit era, they used to censor the games on the Nintendo. Blood could not be red, developers had to either remove the blood or turn it into a harmless colour.

 

Nintendo has always been aimed at kids (Nintendo is still one of the strongest brands among 5 year olds), even though they've at least been letting other kinds of games appear on their consoles now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think that's really true. What I think is the case is that Nintendo have always aimed their products at all ages. There are plenty of adult games on Nintendo consoles, just very few "adult" ones, and very few kids games, but rather ones that are designed so young children as well as adults can enjoy them.

 

Nintendo's games, I think, are analagous with board games like Monopoly, Backgammon, or Risk Children are able to play the first two, but they're not childrens' games. Adults might not play Monopoly often, but when they do play it most can easily derive enjoyment from it, and in the case of Backgammon, it is a perfectly normal game for adults to play. On the other hand, to play Risk you need to have a reasonably adult grasp of strategy, but these games aren't "adult" in the sense that say Grand Theft Auto 3 is, and if you're a teenager who can play Risk and enjoy it, there's no danger that you'll become damaged in some way (if it is possible you can be damaged by a violent game), or that everyone will become angry at the publisher and the industry that you were exposed to an adult game.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Right now, I'm not really looking to pick up a 360. If I pick up any new console within the next couple monthes, it'll be a DS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Didnt you just buy a Game Boy Micro ? Kinfd of pointless if your getting a DS unless its a fashion statement.

[mkreku]

It gets old pretty fast discussing things with people who start their posts with "I think...".

 

If you weren't there to witness it for yourselves, why don't you read up on Nintendo history instead of "thinking" stuff which suits your view in the debate?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo#Censorship

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The whole censorship thing is in regards to Nintendo America.

 

Censorship

For many years, Nintendo of America had a policy of strict censorship for video games published on its systems

 

Wouldnt be the first time that other rules applied in different countries.

[kumquatq3]

It gets old pretty fast discussing things with people who start their posts with "I think...".

 

If you weren't there to witness it for yourselves, why don't you read up on Nintendo history instead of "thinking" stuff which suits your view in the debate?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo#Censorship

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Um, you do know that Wikipedia is updated by random people.

 

and I KNOW that the bit you targeted is at least partially off, for example, the Original Metal Gear (1987) had a random pack of cigerettes that Snake could smoke. So it wasn't this Nazi state where nothing got through.

 

There is no arguement that Nintendo had cenorship on the NES, but video games were targeted to kids back then. They were viewed as kids toys. OF COURSE they made some content more kid freindly.

 

That, of course, ended when the ESRB came out for the most part.

[kumquatq3]

The whole censorship thing is in regards to Nintendo America.

 

Good point

[Nartwak]

I couldn't nuke the hamster in the NES version of Maniac Mansion.

[Reveilled]

It gets old pretty fast discussing things with people who start their posts with "I think...".

 

If you weren't there to witness it for yourselves, why don't you read up on Nintendo history instead of "thinking" stuff which suits your view in the debate?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo#Censorship

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't see how that disproves anything I've said. Nintendo censored their games. Heavily. That doesn't mean the games were aimed at kids. Risk has no blood, gore or sex in it. Neither does Chess. Or Backgammon. Things which make a game adults only do not an adult game make.

 

Does Nintendo censor their games so that they are aimed at kids, or does it censor their games so that they are aimed at everyone? The vast majority of Nintendo's games can be enjoyed by people of all ages. The fact that they are edited so that children can legally play them does not make them childrens' games.

[mkreku]

Um, you do know that Wikipedia is updated by random people.

Yes, I do. And so are encyclopedias and dictionaries too. Your point?

 

The articles only cover the american points of censorship, but that's mainly because I couldn't find any that covered the rest of the world. That does not, however, mean Nintendo didn't censor games in any other country than America.

[mkreku]

Does Nintendo censor their games so that they are aimed at kids, or does it censor their games so that they are aimed at everyone?

You are answering your own question with the question. If they didn't censor the games, who would be the only ones not able to play the games? The kids. They censor the games so the kids can play them too, which basically means they aim the games for kids by censoring them. Of course a more mature player can still play the games, but do they still want to? Lowest common denominator and all that..

[Reveilled]

Does Nintendo censor their games so that they are aimed at kids, or does it censor their games so that they are aimed at everyone?

You are answering your own question with the question. If they didn't censor the games, who would be the only ones not able to play the games? The kids. They censor the games so the kids can play them too, which basically means they aim the games for kids by censoring them.

 

No it doesn't. How you can think this confuses me. Wolfenstein 3D was banned in Germany because of the Swastikas present in it. When nintendo censored this game, they removed the nazi symbolism. Does this mean they were aiming the game specifically at Germans? Or Germans in addition to everyone else? If it was just aimed at Germans, I think it would make sense for them only to sell it in Germany, where the people they were marketing it to live. Do you think they did?

 

Of course a more mature player can still play the games, but do they still want to? Lowest common denominator and all that..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think you'll find a great many people have played Mario and Zelda, despite any lack of blood or swearing.

And what do you mean by the lowest common denominator? That sex, swearing and graphic violence are all that appeal to them?

[kumquatq3]

Um, you do know that Wikipedia is updated by random people.

Yes, I do. And so are encyclopedias and dictionaries too. Your point?

 

 

Riiiiiiiiiight. Yea, I don't think I have to go any farther on this one.

 

 

The articles only cover the american points of censorship, but that's mainly because I couldn't find any that covered the rest of the world. That does not, however, mean Nintendo didn't censor games in any other country than America.

 

Just like I'm sure Sony has censored some stuff. Nin of NA was a different level.

 

The only reason you really know of the censorship is comparing Japanese versions of the games to their NA counter parts.

[Tigranes]

Reveilled is right on a theoretical basis. Just because a game is rid of "adult" content does not mean that it is a "mature" game. Doing away with conventional terminology which meshes the two together... "adult" being all the risque sex, gore, whatever, "mature" being the level of gameplay is above that of a kiddy game. Whether this is true in practice is debatable. I, for one, have no idea. Is Mario as popular amongst 20+ gamers as Halo?

[Krookie]

Right now, I'm not really looking to pick up a 360. If I pick up any new console within the next couple monthes, it'll be a DS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Didnt you just buy a Game Boy Micro ? Kinfd of pointless if your getting a DS unless its a fashion statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, I bought a Micro. But Pokemon has kind of grown on me and the new ones (Diamond and Pearl) are coming out for the DS.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Yeah, I bought a Micro. But Pokemon has kind of grown on me and the new ones (Diamond and Pearl) are coming out for the DS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh well you can blame me I guess

 

Any chance you can take the micro back ? Swap it for a DS ?

 

'Cause unless you have some aversion to carrying a DS around (or if your Micro is famicom version) there isnt much point having both.

[Krookie]

I'll probably keep both. The DS is good for long car trips, or boring family gatherings. The Micro is good for just having something to do if you're out somewhere.

[Hell Kitty]

Just because you're too young to remember Nintendo's stinking policies doesn't mean they never existed.

 

I don't know if 26 makes me too young or not, but I've been playing Nintendo consoles since the NES (though I skipped the N64) and their games in the earlier days never struck me as any more "kiddy" than other systems.

 

Nintendo was (and still is) branded as the console for kids

 

By gamers, not by Nintendo, which was my point. It is not Nintendo's view that they make consoles for kids, or that they won't accept ratings above teen, it's their view that most games should be enjoyed by both kids, teens and adults. Hell, Nintendo purchased the rights to the Resident Evil series in an attempt to move away from this "kiddy" label.

Edited December 7, 2005 by Hell Kitty