Will the game have children on the streets?

[Sardukhar]

Witcher was censored in Australia (2) and US (1) for sexual content. CDPR put it in anyway, and more in Witcher 2. They will do it if it serves a purpose and censorship be damned.

Keep in mind Germany has some very restrictive anti-violence censorship - killing kids is far from the only thing they disallow. The UK cut to Fallout also featured some Low Violence meter forcing, so lots of stuff got cut.

Note that GOG offers you the uncensored versions of Fallout 1 and 2 no matter where you live and the angry squeaking is non existent. UNTIL THEY READ THIS THREAD. AAGGH JACK THOMPSON. RUN.


It's a pretty amusing thing, isn't it? UK and Germany censor children out. Australia and US censor sex out. US left the sex in for Witcher 2, though, Oz had no issue with the sex cards in Witcher 1.


I'd have to give it to the Euros on this one - if you insist on banning actions in videogames, murdering kids seems like a better target, ( heh heh heh), than sexuality.

 

[Viperswhip]

In Shadows of Undrentide right near the beginning, a hysterical Mom asks you to recover her kidnapped baby, on the way back you can instead sell it to a Red Wizard of Thay who sacrifices it to a demon.

That's ten years ago heh, maybe nobody cared back then. There should be kids in the game and they should be killable. I won't kill them I can't even roleplay a bad guy. Everytime I even try to do a full renegade playthrough of NWN or Mass Effect or something, I end up doing more good than bad.

Still the kids should be there. They were in Fallout weren't they? Could we kill them? I haven't replayed it in a while.

 

[maelcom]

Still the kids should be there. They were in Fallout weren't they? Could we kill them? I haven't replayed it in a while.

They were there, originaly killable, but some country banned them, so you had to put a patch to add them in the game.

Anyway, censor don't stay long in front of the succes of a game (with a few exception).
Originaly Mortal Kombat 2011 was banned in Australia and Germany, "too much violent".
Now I'm not sure about Germany (they ban everything there), but they unbanned it in Australia.
Why? the game hasn't changed.

Maybe they tought "Holy shit guys, we're losing a lot of money, they all buy this game throught another country's website"
It's just forbiden to sell the game in the country, but you can freely buy it elsewhere if it's compatible with your region (Pal / Ntsc).
Germans MK fan bought their from neighbors country.

 

[animalfather]

children get killed in movies....i hate retarded people.

 

[Sardukhar]

I don't even...I'd really suggest you edit that line, Animal. Quick! Before your village is flamed from above!

 

[chriswebb2020.736]

...The roof, the roof. The roof is on fire!

 

[Direwolf029]

I think they should do what Bethesda did with Skyrim. Add children, make them unkillable but also record death cries for them and add them to the game files so modders can add killable children in and people have the option whether they want to use it or not.

 

[Direwolf029]

Witcher was censored in Australia (2) and US (1) for sexual content. CDPR put it in anyway, and more in Witcher 2. They will do it if it serves a purpose and censorship be damned.

For reference, The Witcher 2 wasn't censored in Australia because it had sexual content, but because sex was offered as a reward for a quest.

Killable children would almost certainly get the game refused classification here. I'm expecting it to be RCed in any case though because it's also against the rules to show drugs having a positive effect, and I'm guessing that will feature in the game in some way.

 

[thewarsend]

For reference, The Witcher 2 wasn't censored in Australia because it had sexual content, but because sex was offered as a reward for a quest.

Killable children would almost certainly get the game refused classification here. I'm expecting it to be RCed in any case though because it's also against the rules to show drugs having a positive effect, and I'm guessing that will feature in the game in some way.

Thats outright retarded.. (i'm not saying you are retarded, i'm saying their reasoning is retarded) Sex wasn't rewarded in that game.. It wasn't even part of any quest line.. They only have sex because they have a conversation about that rose and only if you choose to tell her that you (meaning Geralt) tells her that he cares about her.. (In a way, i don't want to spoil any part of the game for people who didn't played it yet) It is not like Triss tells Geralt "Geralt, i will have sex with you if you find me a rose." ("Quest is updated, find a rose for Triss.. NOW!") They just wanted to censor the game and they are making silly excuses now..

 

[gregski]

Thats outright retarded.. (i'm not saying you are retarded, i'm saying their reasoning is retarded) Sex wasn't rewarded in that game.. It wasn't even part of any quest line.. They only have sex because they have a conversation about that rose and only if you choose to tell her that you (meaning Geralt) tells her that he cares about her.. (In a way, i don't want to spoil any part of the game for people who didn't played it yet) It is not like Triss tells Geralt "Geralt, i will have sex with you if you find me a rose." ("Quest is updated, find a rose for Triss.. NOW!") They just wanted to censor the game and they are making silly excuses now..

Actually, there was one quest - it depends on your decisions in act I if I remember correctly - that had something like sex being a reward for Geralt's actions. I think Dire Wolf meant that one, not the scene with Triss.

 

[thewarsend]

Actually, there was one quest - it depends on your decisions in act I if I remember correctly - that had something like sex being a reward for Geralt's actions. I think Dire Wolf meant that one, not the scene with Triss.

But it still depends on your actions and choices, not only on a quest.. She wasn't the quest giver, saving her wasn't part of any quest, you can save her and few others (if i remember correctly) during a quest but quest doesn't fail if you don't save them (or her).. There are absolutely no consequences for it. So the quest was completed in chapter 1 and you already got any rewards you are going to get for it, in chapter 2, she finds Geralt to thank him anyway she can.. Geralt doesn't even remember her, so it was never about sex or getting any rewards.. So she finds Geralt and she wants to offer him her thanks, Geralt can accept or refuse it.. Thus it is not a quest for sex and i still think it is a lame excuse to censor a game..

 

[Sardukhar]

Ves.

 

[emicrania]

"Write the laws and find the flaws" or something like that,said the old man.
Kids and pets and hobos and junkies and whore and police officer and scum of the earth,as degenerate and rich motherf..athers all part of of this wonderfull future.
Get them all and just let us play, if there is no way we can be allowed to kill children,fine be me,but an open world,it should be open for all as long does not comes to perversion,after all,if you wanna kill children or rape girl in a videogames you can find what you want on internet.
I just think would be rather silly get in trouble with the censor for killing baby instead of pushing limits on hardcore violence and explicit sexual contents wich,i belive, are gonna be engaged more often than a swarm of half naked children in a war zone.
Anyway,all men must die.

 

[Direwolf029]

Actually, there was one quest - it depends on your decisions in act I if I remember correctly - that had something like sex being a reward for Geralt's actions. I think Dire Wolf meant that one, not the scene with Triss.

There's that one, and there's also the succubus quest in act 2.

The scene with Triss made it through untouched.

 

[walkingdarkly]

Since the last time I posted in this thread I return to say NO to kids...those evil little monster...looking so innocent...thinking they'll help ya but all they'll do is gut ya like the brainless choomba you are and sell your organs to the local rip-doc. I'd be more scared of kids in Night City than a jacked up chromed out booster blasting high.

 

[dragonbird]

But it still depends on your actions and choices, not only on a quest.. She wasn't the quest giver, saving her wasn't part of any quest, you can save her and few others (if i remember correctly) during a quest but quest doesn't fail if you don't save them (or her).. There are absolutely no consequences for it. So the quest was completed in chapter 1 and you already got any rewards you are going to get for it, in chapter 2, she finds Geralt to thank him anyway she can.. Geralt doesn't even remember her, so it was never about sex or getting any rewards.. So she finds Geralt and she wants to offer him her thanks, Geralt can accept or refuse it.. Thus it is not a quest for sex and i still think it is a lame excuse to censor a game..

OK, I'm late to this one (three days without internet, did you miss me?)

And I totally agree with you. She offers sex, freely, without even the slightest hint of a suggestion from Geralt, as a thank you gift that she thinks will give pleasure to BOTH of them. That isn't even remotely sexist, but censoring it was. The implication is that sex couldn't possibly be something that a woman would actually offer through her own choice.

At least with the succubus there was some logic behind it.

 

[thewarsend]

OK, I'm late to this one (three days without internet, did you miss me?)

And I totally agree with you. She offers sex, freely, without even the slightest hint of a suggestion from Geralt, as a thank you gift that she thinks will give pleasure to BOTH of them. That isn't even remotely sexist, but censoring it was. The implication is that sex couldn't possibly be something that a woman would actually offer through her own choice.

At least with the succubus there was some logic behind it.

Yes i missed you so much.. (I missed anyone that agrees with me soooo much Nowadays i have to deal with Sard, who agrees and disagrees with me at same time.. It is maddening i tell ya... )

I think it is ridiculous that some (most) countries insist on censoring games and movies, deciding what their people should or should not see. In my opinion it is a direct violation of freedom of choice.. (It is like saying, you are all retarded and that's why i will decide what is best for you.) Like you said, it usually becomes sexist and always gets weird, like what does UK has against headbutting i will never know...

 

[Sardukhar]

Nonsense, you're right.

 

[thewarsend]

Nonsense, you're right.

 

[JeromAsdert]

In my opinion it is a direct violation of freedom of choice.. (It is like saying, you are all retarded and that's why i will decide what is best for you.)

Sorry to break it to you. But you don't have freedom of choice. It's not part of human rights or the constitution (In it's entirety at least). Governments take that away all the time all over the world, for some countries it's mandatory schools and or public service (conscription) for others it's strictly religious marriages (Marriages have lots of none religious "value" to them in most of the countries - pensions and insurances just to name a few), right to vote, not vote or lack of thereof.

You don't have a freedom of choice.