Korea Challenges Blizzard with Adults-Only StarCraft II Rating

[robinkom]

Rather see them put a limit on all the crappy MMO games that come out of Korea instead... They flood the market severely... that's worldwide market since so damn many of them receive English translations; An endless stream of cookie-cutter Everquest/WoW clones.

Starcraft II is the least of their problems.

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

You don't know jack buddy.
You don't even know WHY they banned it. You think you know. But from this article they haven't seemed to released any information. And they've obviously played a Starcraft 2 that potentially differs from the Beta. And I very much doubt you've analysed EVERY SINGLE GAME that the Korea board has put a rating on and compared it to the content of Starcraft 2 and determined that's it's "unfair" or what was the word you used? Corrupt?. Hahahaha

Cute, I especially like the extreme the nerd rage dripping out of every orifice. "Hahahaha" could you be any more immature? I wouldn't be surprised if that combined with the "you don't know Jack" incurs mod wrath.

I know Blizzard, I know Starcraft 1, and I know that Starcraft 2 didn't get R18+ anywhere else. And I certainly know that out of all countries, South Korea wouldn't be the only one to slap on an R18+ based on conventional content analysis, they are definitely not the harshest ratings board out there.

Which brings us to the logical conclusion of an ulterior motive.

EDIT: Also, I like how you seem to think I need to dig through literally every game South Korea put a rating on just to voice my opinion on an internet forum and believe it myself, It's surprising that you attached that ridiculous level of research as a requirement of me posting on this forum, yet you didn't look up how to spell "analyzed".

 

[Danpascooch]

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 couldn't disagree more, the freedom is always worth fighting for, it's the responsibility of the speaker to choose whether or not to exercise it. I for one didn't have a problem with the Russian airport scene, it was portrayed as a group of terrorists not sanctioned by any government carrying it out, and you as the undercover agent didn't have to take a single shot. They even made it very very clear that it could be skipped, I actually applaud them for making such a powerful scene, and letting people skip it if they want. Most companies would just make you play it, they should a touch of sensitivity.

Hell, most of the seasons of 24 contain some worse act of terrorism.

Have you played Prototype? That also contains MUCH worse acts of aggression toward innocents. But since it's not as popular, nobody cares.

 

[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.

You heard the man people lets start shipping those drugs off to korea so Sc2 can get a 15+ rating. I really dont care if it gets 15+ of AO rating since i dont live in korea and it has no effect on me. Its just strange to see a game being rated AO not because of its content but because of its potention addictive nature. It doesnt surprise me actually the east seems alot more concerned with that type of thing then most western countries.

LOL, let's start a canned drug drive, sounds good! These kids are under so much pressure to get top grades and enter the best colleges, or they risk dishonoring their families and bringing shame to their country. If they don't deserve to get baked, then I don't know who does! I just hope SC2 brings them a brief escape from all the pressures and stuff. I'd buy a copy for all of em if I could ^_^

 

[Danpascooch]

I couldn't disagree more, the freedom is always worth fighting for, it's the responsibility of the speaker to choose whether or not to exercise it. I for one didn't have a problem with the Russian airport scene, it was portrayed as a group of terrorists not sanctioned by any government carrying it out, and you as the undercover agent didn't have to take a single shot. They even made it very very clear that it could be skipped, I actually applaud them for making such a powerful scene, and letting people skip it if they want. Most companies would just make you play it, they should a touch of sensitivity.

Evil prevails when good men do nothing.
My problem with that scene is not that a group of terrorists is targetting a bunch of innocents, but rather that the player can only either A)join in the attack or B)stand by and watch. Where is the option to intervene? I haven't played the game, nor any Call of Duty game. But if your player's goal is to combat terrorism why is your only option to let it happen?

Let me guess, needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and you have to play along to get information on some stolen nuke or other big plan? Boring. Railroading in-game story shit like that is some of the worst kind of gameplay decision in my opinion because it means the player can't be the player. Let me shoot the guys, even if it screws up the mission.

You can shoot the terrorists, and it WILL screw up the mission, and immediately start it over

 

[Danpascooch]

Cute, I especially like the extreme the nerd rage dripping out of every orifice. "Hahahaha" could you be any more immature? I wouldn't be surprised if that combined with the "you don't know Jack" incurs mod wrath.

I'm a geek not a nerd. And is it immature to laugh?
There's a difference between me saying that you're wrong and you saying that I'm "immature", "nerd" etcetera. Maybe one day you'll learn what that difference is but obviously not today.

And I don't much care if the mods crack down on me. I trust that they at least can tell the difference between attacking an argument and attacking a person.

EDIT: Also, I like how you seem to think I need to dig through literally every game South Korea put a rating on just to voice my opinion on an internet forum and believe it myself, It's surprising that you attached that ridiculous level of research as a requirement of me posting on this forum, yet you didn't look up how to spell "analyzed".

Yes it's ridiculous. And so is your claim that the rating is "unprecedented" when you don't know. You want to make ridiculous claims? Back them up with legitimate facts. You talk as though you know it for fact when really you don't have a freaking clue. You're making shit up. What you should have said instead is "I don't know for sure, but I SUSPECT that this game has been given a higher rating than have other past games with comparable content."

Present an opinion as an opinion, not as a fact.

Actually, an attack on an argument stops being an attack solely on the argument when you start using "hahaha" like you're some 7 year old brat.

Also, like I said before, I posted my opinion, which I know to be true, and since my aim wasn't to convince other people, the burden of proof is not on me, since you demand to be convinced in order for me to voice my own opinion (which is outrageously stupid BTW) you can be the one to do all the work proving me wrong if you want.

 

[BigFurry]

Korea, I would like you to meet a friend of mine. His name is Australia, I have a feeling you two are going to be very close.

 

[Danpascooch]

I couldn't disagree more, the freedom is always worth fighting for, it's the responsibility of the speaker to choose whether or not to exercise it. I for one didn't have a problem with the Russian airport scene, it was portrayed as a group of terrorists not sanctioned by any government carrying it out, and you as the undercover agent didn't have to take a single shot. They even made it very very clear that it could be skipped, I actually applaud them for making such a powerful scene, and letting people skip it if they want. Most companies would just make you play it, they should a touch of sensitivity.

Evil prevails when good men do nothing.
My problem with that scene is not that a group of terrorists is targetting a bunch of innocents, but rather that the player can only either A)join in the attack or B)stand by and watch. Where is the option to intervene? I haven't played the game, nor any Call of Duty game. But if your player's goal is to combat terrorism why is your only option to let it happen?

Let me guess, needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and you have to play along to get information on some stolen nuke or other big plan? Boring. Railroading in-game story shit like that is some of the worst kind of gameplay decision in my opinion because it means the player can't be the player. Let me shoot the guys, even if it screws up the mission.

You can shoot the terrorists, and it WILL screw up the mission, and immediately start it over

Right, so shooting the territorists is PUNISHED by the game and is the "wrong" thing to do if you want to keep playing. Stupid.

See, that's not even "artistic". It's just a publicity gimmick to help sell more copies of the game.

It's hard to offer too much branching choice in any game, considering the fact that the game would seem very short, since development time would be split along all the branched choices.

 

[Danpascooch]

Actually, an attack on an argument stops being an attack solely on the argument when you start using "hahaha" like you're some 7 year old brat.

Also, like I said before, I posted my opinion, which I know to be true, and since my aim wasn't to convince other people, the burden of proof is not on me, since you demand to be convinced in order for me to voice my own opinion (which is outrageously stupid BTW) you can be the one to do all the work proving me wrong if you want.

Oh I'm "outrageously stupid" and a "7 year old brat" now am I? I tell you what, I'll let you know when your opinion of me means a damn. Don't hold your breath.

Sure your aim was to convince other people. Why else would you post your opinion? Don't you even know why you participate on these boards? And "know to be true"? No that should be "believe" to be true, because obviously you haven't looked at every game or compared the content to a game you yourself haven't even played.

Anyway. Send Blizzard another love letter. Though the only love letter they want is your 70 bucks.

I said the IDEA was very stupid, and you're ACTING like a 7 year old brat. Which you just confirmed with this last post.

Also, if my opinion doesn't give a damn to you, why do you care enough to bother freaking out over it, and posting over and over in an ever increasingly condescending manner telling me I'm wrong, in such a way that it sounds like you'll rip your own hair out if I don't change my mind? Hippocracy at its finest. Tell you what, want to prove to me that my opinion doesn't matter to you? Then don't reply to this, and that'll show me that you really don't care what I say, I'm sick of responding anyway.

And don't tell me what my aim was as if you know my intentions but I don't, my aim is to add my opinion to the group, not to spend 6 hours researching my position for some jerk who has obviously already decided his position and set it in stone beforehand.

Lastly how is acting like I love Blizzard hurting my original argument anyway? It's completely unrelated, try sticking to the topic at hand, instead of posting ineffective and unrelated garbage like that last little paragraph.

 

[Danpascooch]

I couldn't disagree more, the freedom is always worth fighting for, it's the responsibility of the speaker to choose whether or not to exercise it. I for one didn't have a problem with the Russian airport scene, it was portrayed as a group of terrorists not sanctioned by any government carrying it out, and you as the undercover agent didn't have to take a single shot. They even made it very very clear that it could be skipped, I actually applaud them for making such a powerful scene, and letting people skip it if they want. Most companies would just make you play it, they should a touch of sensitivity.

Evil prevails when good men do nothing.
My problem with that scene is not that a group of terrorists is targetting a bunch of innocents, but rather that the player can only either A)join in the attack or B)stand by and watch. Where is the option to intervene? I haven't played the game, nor any Call of Duty game. But if your player's goal is to combat terrorism why is your only option to let it happen?

Let me guess, needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and you have to play along to get information on some stolen nuke or other big plan? Boring. Railroading in-game story shit like that is some of the worst kind of gameplay decision in my opinion because it means the player can't be the player. Let me shoot the guys, even if it screws up the mission.

You can shoot the terrorists, and it WILL screw up the mission, and immediately start it over

Right, so shooting the territorists is PUNISHED by the game and is the "wrong" thing to do if you want to keep playing. Stupid.

See, that's not even "artistic". It's just a publicity gimmick to help sell more copies of the game.

wait....how did we get to here from "Korea gives Starcraft 2 18+ rating"? lol