Korea Challenges Blizzard with Adults-Only StarCraft II Rating

[James Raynor]

Why is Korea purposely butting heads with blizzard?

 

[Baldr]

I bet the only recommendation were to add LAN option to SC2 to lower the rating.

 

[tzimize]

hahaha, awesome...I guess Blizzard has finally made a game that is just "too good". ^^

 

[The Great Zegrool]

Err... AO for Starcraft? What?
There are much worse games that get just an M rating in the states.

 

[Snow Fire]

People have overdosed on water, and you don't see some government placing drinking restrictions on it because of some people. This game should of got a 12-and-older rating. The Adult Only rating will do nothing to stop kids from playing it, as they will just pirate it or an adult will buy it for them.

I'm glad to know the ESRB has given StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty a T for Teen(13+) rating.

 

[Danpascooch]

You should reread my post, I did not say "ban" I said "ban FROM AGE GROUPS"

It's not a ban it's a restriction.

And I said they banned it due to their popularity, which as far as I'm concerned is the reason it's addictive.

Evidence? Who said they banned it due to popularity??

I think if the board wants to restrict the game because it's addictive, they need to find out why it's addictive first and report that as a reason for it's rating, rather than blaming it on the violence and other non-18+ warranting themes within. They have a responsibility to report why they are restricting the game, and they didn't mention addictive nature. That said, restricting it for its addictive nature sets a dangerous precedent of restricting games because they are TOO good, and thus are popular and addictive.

I noticed the fact that you completely ignored my question about "where's the evidence that this type of rating is without precedent?". Convenient and entirely predictable. You're spouting a lot with no facts to back it up.

First of all, a restriction is banning it from certain age groups, I get it's not a total ban, I never said it was a total ban, stop splitting hairs.

Secondly, I don't believe you asked for any evidence, but even if you did, I don't really care.

Remember, I posted my opinion, and you were the one who had a problem with it, I really don't owe it to you to come up with a list of citations for what I know to be true, you're the one who came after me, so the burden of proof is on you, I really don't care whether you believe me or not, so if you want to prove me wrong, you come up with the evidence. I know it is true from what I've seen from the Korean ratings board in the past, but if you expect me to go chase all that information down for you, you're nuts, believe whatever you want, I was just voicing what I know to be true.

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

I think that this is just ridiculous, because who cares if it's too addicting? It's their choice to play, and if they are willing to run the chance of getting addicted, so be it. I think the Korean government is going too far in this by not allowing them to play a video game, something made to entertain the audiences! I may sound biased here but I think this is too screwed up and that the Korean government shouldn't challenge Blizz like this.

 

[Icehearted]

That's my point. Artists, game makers, writers, anyone involved in entertainment of any sort has or will face an irrational, one-sided, subjective censoring or ratings. Just because some asshole thinks it's impolite to put elbows on the table while eating, but can't say why it is impolite, and so a scene in a movie with someone placing their elbows on the table during dinner winds up on the cutting room floor. It's nonsensical, and it's controlling what we get in any finished product.

I don't want to see what the ratings board approved of, I want to see what the game makers had in mind, free and absent of fear and pandering.

And if you're an adult, you can see it. That's the point. The game isn't being banned in Korea, it's being RESTRICTED to adults. Or probably more accurately, restricted to being purchased by adults. If you're an adult you can see and play the game as intended.

This isn't a question of censorship either. They're not censoring anything. The only censorship that will come into play is if Blizzard censors itself in an effort to get a lower age rating and make more money.

That's exactly what I'm getting at! You're essentially arguing against my grievance with my grievance.

 

[ResiEvalJohn]

Speaking from someone who lives in Korea, I think that's actually a pretty good idea. Korean kids are addicted so easily to online games, espeially because there are no drugs in Korea. Games are like crack for children here because they have nothing else to do, lol. I can just imagine when this thing comes out - all the kids are gonna stop coming to school and all hell will break loose. It's gonna be scary, so hopefully the Adult Only rating will do something to stop that.

 

[James Raynor]

Because having AO rating always keeps kids from getting their hands onto them.

 

[Poomanchu745]

Honestly, I don't blame them at all. Kids are too fat and lazy these days and if this stuff is like crack cocaine to them maybe it should be given an Adult only rating. If it gets more kids from being lazy fat asses then I say its probably the right call by the government on this one.

 

[Icehearted]

That's my point. Artists, game makers, writers, anyone involved in entertainment of any sort has or will face an irrational, one-sided, subjective censoring or ratings. Just because some asshole thinks it's impolite to put elbows on the table while eating, but can't say why it is impolite, and so a scene in a movie with someone placing their elbows on the table during dinner winds up on the cutting room floor. It's nonsensical, and it's controlling what we get in any finished product.

I don't want to see what the ratings board approved of, I want to see what the game makers had in mind, free and absent of fear and pandering.

That's exactly what I'm getting at! You're essentially arguing against my grievance with my grievance.

Considering the "let's slaughter innocent civilians in an airport" sequence in the last modern warfare, are you surprised there are ratings boards? If game designers can't censor themselves someone else obviously has to.

I mean seriously what sort of game or entertainment content do you think you're missing out on? Freedom of speech is only worth fighting for when the speech is worth listening to.

I honestly don't understand what the issue is. I get the feeling you're either yanking me or we're having two different conversations here. Let me spell this out as simply as I can for you.

In the 40s and 50s, when Noir films were in their heyday, it wasn't unusual for there to be elements of sex. Noir, is practically all about sex, lust, obsession, so naturally there would be skin, though not very much, and of course kissing. The ratings board was, at that time, very firm about what was considered pornographic, and so kissing scenes were not allowed to last longer than a few seconds (I can't remember exactly, but I know that 10 seconds was considered x-rated).

And that's my point, Noir is fueled by the male obsession with power, women, or revenge, so naturally, long bittersweet kissing was a part of the elements of this storytelling, and in all too many cases a long kiss, which might have carried the depth and weight of any given character's desire or desperation or motivations end up on the cutting room floor.

Games are no different. The ESRB has, in my opinion, a corrupt and twisted moral compass, where nudity, and depictions of sex of any kind in a game is AO material, depictions of murder are perfectly acceptable.

So my point, once and for all (so help me), is that as long as these ratings boards holds the kind of power they do now, game makers will continue to release filtered content, rather than the pure vision they'd likely had prior to any issues with ratings.

 

[Zappa Daddy]

It's all fine and dandy to say that Starcraft is a dangerous game and the government is only looking to protect its citizens. But on the flip side, I remember reading about an entire shopping mall collapsing in Seoul a few years back because the developers bought off the government inspectors. Seems like a clear case of mistaken priorities if the government sees banning video games from minors as a bigger safety issue than building codes.

The other thing I'd like to know is whether Starcraft 2 is unfairly being picked on because it's an American game. In other words, do the government reviewers give a free pass to say the latest NCSoft title with equivalent violence and mature content?

If this decision is upheld, I hope Blizzard adds a sex scene involving Raynor and a mutated Kerrigan. Might as well earn that AO rating.

 

[DTWolfwood]

AO for SC?!?! wtf mate WTF!

looks like SC1 will remain the predominate competitive esport in Korea for many more years to come? i mean that totally sucks after watching some of the pro-games on SC2 going back to SC1 is total crap. (assuming the AO rating will actually have an affect on the competitive scene) Although even if less ppl play it, anyone who follows the SC esport would not be too unfamiliar with the new game. bah! \/ i hope something good comes out of this! >.<

 

[Lucifron]

I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

Amirite? Amirite?!

 

[Alar]

Because having AO rating always keeps kids from getting their hands onto them.

Trufax, broham, trufax.

I think that if they're going to put restrictions on the age limit for this game due to the addictiveness/popularity of the previous title, they should really just come out and say that. Otherwise, it just seems dirty. Not necessarily corrupt, but dirty. Like lying to your wife about why you can't go out to dinner with her folks, even though you just plain can't stand them (I understand it is more serious than that, this was just the only example I could come up with off the top of my head).

 

[Asehujiko]

Blizzard is NOT at fault for somebody elses lack of self preservation. If starcraft hadn't been there, he would have gotten himself killed in another stupid manner. It is completely impossible to predict these events and wether or not people learn from it so there is absolutely no sense in planning for things that might not ever happen again.

You think that a game like WoW isn't made to be addictive? Of course it is. All of those MMO online games are designed such that people keep playing and more importantly keep paying. So in the case of World of Warcraft, Blizzard is entirely at fault for getting people addicted to playing it. Why should an addictive game be exempt when other addictive products are not?

I mean you don't see people watching the same movie over and over for 50 hours. Not even the nerdiest Naruto fanboy watches 50 hours of it back to back. But people play stupid games for days on end. Forget about their newborn babies at home and let them die. So on and so forth. You cannot call that not problematic.

You think it's in their best interest of Blizzard to kill off their own paying customers?