firemario1001
Member
It's also a matter of cultures too. If you've ever watched raw japanese cartoons before they've hit the US dubbing you'll see what I mean. And children in japan watch that 
Evil!!!!!!
- Thread starter akirahedgehog
- Start date
- Status
akirahedgehog
Veteran
PUPPETS!!!!!!!!PUPPETS!!!!!!!!OH GOD HELP!!!!!!
SOMEBODY HELP ME!!!!!!
PUPPETS!!!!!
EVERY WHERE!!!!!!!!!
AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
SOMEBODY HELP ME!!!!!!
PUPPETS!!!!!
EVERY WHERE!!!!!!!!!
AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
akirahedgehog
Veteran
Hello is anyone out there.....................
*oh no*
*Im the last person alive*
*the puppets killed every one*
NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*oh no*
*Im the last person alive*
*the puppets killed every one*
NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
firemario1001
Member
Sorry, but I couldn't figure out how to reply to your last post Akira.
Well remember that a lot of anime isn't aimed at kids. Although some of the stuff aimed at kids would be considered inappropriate in America, a lot of it doesn't need much editing. Mostly, things that are considered obscene in one culture just aren't in the other, and vice versa. Nudity and the middle finger are rather high on the list of things that need to be censored for American audiences, because they don't have much of a problem with nudity, and the middle finger isn't anywhere near as strong a gesture.
Most of the uber-violent stuff is not aimed at kids, and is more aimed at a teenage audience, which you probably are =P
Also, just remember that nowadays, Looney Tunes would probably have to be censored to put on American TV. It's really quite a depressing state of affairs.
Most of the uber-violent stuff is not aimed at kids, and is more aimed at a teenage audience, which you probably are =P
Also, just remember that nowadays, Looney Tunes would probably have to be censored to put on American TV. It's really quite a depressing state of affairs.
Are you off your rocker? It's been at least two years since I watched a liberal amount of television, but what I've heard about it everywhere since tells me they're allowing more and more to be gotten away with, and your "depressing state of affairs" could be out of a Looney Tune. Besides, it can't have changed that much in a few years. If you said that in 2001 I could tell you from my firsthand TV watching that you were nuts.Mystic said:
I mean for children's shows, a441. At this point, Looney Toons would be considered unacceptable for showing things like guns and other violence, no matter how cartoonish. Apparently we cannot shoot a duck with a gun on children's shows anymore, even if it doesn't actually DO anything.
Headsmouse
Member
Violence/Sex : Games/Media :: Pain/Injury : Old Wooden Playgrounds
Eh. I know analogy is always suspect, but seriously - the situations are very much parallel, and seemingly indicative of a general trend toward obsession with safety (in the US at least - I don't presume to speak to the situation elsewhere).
Yes, injuries and the occasional death occurred on the wooden and metal playgrounds that used to be fairly common. However, on balance one might consider that by replacing them with prefab plastic structures, one merely keeps children from experiencing pain and injury in relatively safe circumstances. On a playground there is generally an adult around, probably with some basic knowledge of how to cope with the usual minor injuries - when that child grows up, there is no guarantee that there will be helpful person waiting around to bail him or her out of danger. Yes, experience is a harsh mistress, but better to learn from her while there is a support net - because it must happen sooner or later.
Similarly, people will run into violence and/or sex sooner or later (all jokes about nerds' sex lives or lack thereof aside
). Gradual exposure to almost anything, however, has far less of an impact than sudden exposure after a prolonged sheltered period; ask any biologist. Again, is it better to have sudden exposure when the parental support net is no longer nearly as strong, or a gradual exposure that the parent is in a position to influence. I would agree that five year olds, to take an extreme example, shouldn't play hentai rape simulators, but in large part I think the age at which sex and violence should be introduced to a person's experience depends on their personal stability and ability to understand what's going on.
All that said, my main view is that attempting to completely shelter children from anything is not only usually futile, but in fact stunts the maturity upon which the well-intentioned feel such exposure should be contingent.
Conclusion for the day: I use too many dependent clauses.
Eh. I know analogy is always suspect, but seriously - the situations are very much parallel, and seemingly indicative of a general trend toward obsession with safety (in the US at least - I don't presume to speak to the situation elsewhere).
Yes, injuries and the occasional death occurred on the wooden and metal playgrounds that used to be fairly common. However, on balance one might consider that by replacing them with prefab plastic structures, one merely keeps children from experiencing pain and injury in relatively safe circumstances. On a playground there is generally an adult around, probably with some basic knowledge of how to cope with the usual minor injuries - when that child grows up, there is no guarantee that there will be helpful person waiting around to bail him or her out of danger. Yes, experience is a harsh mistress, but better to learn from her while there is a support net - because it must happen sooner or later.
Similarly, people will run into violence and/or sex sooner or later (all jokes about nerds' sex lives or lack thereof aside
). Gradual exposure to almost anything, however, has far less of an impact than sudden exposure after a prolonged sheltered period; ask any biologist. Again, is it better to have sudden exposure when the parental support net is no longer nearly as strong, or a gradual exposure that the parent is in a position to influence. I would agree that five year olds, to take an extreme example, shouldn't play hentai rape simulators, but in large part I think the age at which sex and violence should be introduced to a person's experience depends on their personal stability and ability to understand what's going on.All that said, my main view is that attempting to completely shelter children from anything is not only usually futile, but in fact stunts the maturity upon which the well-intentioned feel such exposure should be contingent.
Conclusion for the day: I use too many dependent clauses.
He's right. Of course, I'm only 13, but I'm mature enough to know what's going on in those hentai games. I've never played them, but google shows too many screenshots.
I guess the ratings aren't payed attention to, but what is in the game. The violence and everything. That should be the main focus. I don't know why those warnings are in fine print under the rating. The rating box is also rather small. I didn't even notice the T on SSBM till way later. I wonder who rates these games anyway. I mean, of course those AO games(Playboy Mansion, etc.) have an AO rating for a reason. But honsestly, I think these games are rated through survey and machine. Of course, somebody ought to do research on this. This is really serious stuff.
I guess the ratings aren't payed attention to, but what is in the game. The violence and everything. That should be the main focus. I don't know why those warnings are in fine print under the rating. The rating box is also rather small. I didn't even notice the T on SSBM till way later. I wonder who rates these games anyway. I mean, of course those AO games(Playboy Mansion, etc.) have an AO rating for a reason. But honsestly, I think these games are rated through survey and machine. Of course, somebody ought to do research on this. This is really serious stuff.
I don't know if they still do it this way, but it used to be that the game publisher would send videos to the ESRB showing normal gameplay, and the videos were supposed to include a showing the game's most risque elements. Three people would watch these videos, discuss them, and each decide the rating the game should have. If they're not in agreement, more raters get sent in to figure it out.
If http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_faqs.asp is up to date, this is still how it's done. Strangely, http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_parents.asp tells me to upgrade my browser, yet it lists Mozilla (of which I'm using the newest release) as a suggestion.
It won't say how much they charge to rate a game. You have to be registered as a publisher, with a phone number and address, to even access the publisher info section of their site, so I imagine it costs a lot. They used to have something up about a rating service for interactive web sites that was $100. It was aimed at 'smaller' companies/projects. (Keep in mind $100 would be chump change next to the budget of a commercial game.)
Some people have suggested the raters should actually play the game, the way the MPAA guys rate movies. Seems ideal, but suppose you had to play and rate, say, Battletoads. You'd kill yourself, and it wouldn't be because of the in-game violence.
If http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_faqs.asp is up to date, this is still how it's done. Strangely, http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_parents.asp tells me to upgrade my browser, yet it lists Mozilla (of which I'm using the newest release) as a suggestion.
It won't say how much they charge to rate a game. You have to be registered as a publisher, with a phone number and address, to even access the publisher info section of their site, so I imagine it costs a lot. They used to have something up about a rating service for interactive web sites that was $100. It was aimed at 'smaller' companies/projects. (Keep in mind $100 would be chump change next to the budget of a commercial game.)
Some people have suggested the raters should actually play the game, the way the MPAA guys rate movies. Seems ideal, but suppose you had to play and rate, say, Battletoads. You'd kill yourself, and it wouldn't be because of the in-game violence.
- Status