Russian_Assassin said:
I would like to comment on something else, which is not so irrelevant. Ok, everyone says blood and gore are not suitable for people under 18. May I ask why? Do you know many 16 year olds who are pussies and have never seen blood or guts before? Do we really raise our children to be made of fragile glass, believing that the world is nothing but rainbows ponies and candy?
This really boggles my mind. Anyways, poor Ausies etc etc. You can still buy the game on steam you know, or did they ban internet too?
Groups like Steam, Google, Gamersgate, and similar things are just as castrated as the actual games industry. Rather than fighting for free speech and distribution they play along with the goverments by cooperating with censorship efforts. If the goverment in a given area doesn't want a game to be sold, these guys aren't going to thumb their noses and do everything they can to render the goverment as powerless as possible. Google is paticularly bad (look at what happened with China), but I also believe Steam has been playing by those "rules" as well.
-
Ratings are a touchy subject, in general PG-13 actually grants a lot of latitude for violence and sex. The whole bit about breast nudity being allowed in PG-13 movies has even been satirized in movies with characters saying "well I won't go all the way tonight, but how about a PG-13 moment" before flashing their breasts or whatever.
Now, the way how people are treating things today they act like gore and breast nudity are "R" rated material, which they are not.
With an "R" rating you can do anything in a movie legally EXCEPT show sexual penetration. Legally, the way things are SUPPOSED to work, there are no real limits unless someone files an obscenity suit (which is something all it's own). This even allows for full frontal nudity of both genders, simulated sex, and the most depraved and detailed violence imagiable.
The thing is that not all movies are designed to wallow in these things and the simple fact that you have to fight at times means that despite having the right Hollywood is gradually becoming more relaxed in how far ir pushes the envelope as long as the potential is there for when they want to.
In theory an "M" rating should be able to get away with anything an "R" rating goes, and at least in the US they can only push for an AO rating if sexual penetration is shown. At least this is how I learned things. However as things stand now the game industry has not fought for their rights to take things as far as they should.
There is also a tendency to over-rate things voluntarily. For example I've seen many movies that were no worse than a PG-13 in content, but carried an "R" rating probably so they could just release the movie quickly and nobody would bother to analyze everything given the latitude that allows.
Voluntarily requesting a higher rating that strictly needed I think has also scewed people's perceptions.
The point of this rant is that blood and gore in general AREN'T going to warp a 16 year old. Legally speaking they should be able to see giant piles of steaming guts anytime they want (actually seeing someone rip those steaming guts out of someone else in clear view is something else entirely though and goes 'R') Not is more or less clean violence (ie people being shot without any excessive violence or cruelty). They are allowed to see things like that, but honestly even with Hollywood's safely defined rights you just see less of an effort being made to give productions the smallest rating possible.
In part I suspect Hollywood cares less about the ratings than they used to is that the "in theater" viewership is increasingly less important than the rentals, digital viewership, and other things. They want a big audience, but are no longer as desperate to literally put as many butts as possible in seats as they can in the shortest period of time.