Portal 2 offends toolbags

i don't get it.

have parents become really this over-protective that nothing except rainbows and unicorns reach their precious little snowflake's eyes and ears or is it just a very vocal minority?

common sense would tell me that if i ever had a kid and found some off-color jokes that are relatively saint-like compared to the shit they see in cartoons and tv shows nowadays, that would be a great opportunity to educate.

they're not seeing the game as a fantastic puzzle that encourages lateral thinking and that ignorance, coupled with this overblown "outrage", is just silly.

also, how insecure is that guy as an adoptive parent that a video game makes him think that his adopted daughter's world is gonna fall apart just because of some dialogue between a couple of opposing characters? they're supposed to talk like that.

man.

Aparently making fun of someone who has been adopted is wrong. But calling someone who is overweight, "Fatty, Fatty, Fatty," is right?

Or, on-the-other-hand, if you don't think the game is appropriate for your children--don't let them play it.

Oh, you're not allowed to make fun of fat people either. They have a lobby.

I think you guys are missing the point. The problem stems from the rating: E 10+ (Fantasy Violence, Mild Language).

Which really doesn't specify any of the usual "Suggestive Themes" found in games, or anything else. Which is kind of weird because Portal 1 had a central plot, that really isn't for kids.

Now I am sure what Valve did, is use the whole "puzzle solving" as a softener for the rating, since Portal 1 was "T" for teen.

It's not the first time sequels get lower ratings while retaining much of the same gameplay.

Now as for the specific problem with the parent and adoption. I understand he didn't buy the game thinking it would open up a conversation he had reserved for a later time, which I completely understand because it is not something you would expect to be found in a video game, much less if you are buying it for the "puzzle solving" aspect of it, and it has a E10+.

Even though I doubt the girl is 10+.

So he is not a complete tool bag for believing they should have been more specific about the ratings. That's his right as a costumer. If you pay $60 for a game, you should be able to have more than two sentences describing why they gave the game the rating they did, or more importantly why they changed it from Teen to E 10+.

and it's not about sanitizing anything. Anyone should have the right to know what a movie has, or hasn't, so that they can decide for themselves if they should purchase it or not. That's all.

I totally agree... kinda, but I don't think we have a "right" to know, especially when it comes to something as subjective as what qualifies as "offensive material". The integrity of the product and the company was hurt due to this sort of thing, but it should, by no means, be handled by some sort of regulatory response. The company should uphold its own integrity for the sake of avoiding this kind of public response.

If I have to pay extra or have to change a game so that censored content like that is avaliable, I'd be dissapointed. It's vanity to think that they are excluded from it, or that the joke was there to offend.

It's a joke. What do they want on the back:

E FOR EVERYONE
CONTAINS JOKES ABOUT ADOPTION
CONTAINS JOKES ABOUT OVERWEIGHT PERSONS

Where does the line end?

True. But it's also true that some people should Lighten The Hell Up.

i might be mistaken but i think the girl in this specific situation knows that she's adopted. the issue is not about a conversation the father wasn't ready to talk to her with.

even if the kid didn't know she was adopted, the joke would have had no bearing to her because it's not like she's gonna question her legitimacy as a biological child after hearing a joke about adoption.

i have portal2, and there are other offensive things said. hell, in the same news segment there's a crack about fat people. the game was only on screen for 10 seconds and potentially offended a third of the population of america. more if you count over-sensitive, politically-correct idiots who feel they need to stick up for that third, even if the joke didnt offend them.

She'll get over it.

Exactly. If there's fat jokes, or any other stuff, then it shouldn't be E 10+ game. That is all. The line doesn't interfere with anything else, it doesn't sensor a single thing. The game is still available for everyone else.

This isn't germany banning an entire game on grounds of being too violent. To everyone mind you, even adults.

Plus it isn't that hard. If IMDB can track every major release with a parental guide that includes detailed instances, including how many F's bombs are thrown, then this isn't hard.

It is the developers responsibility to show the ESRB all the content that might raise a flag.

Clearly Valve softened what they showed to get a lower rating so that they would sell more. As I said before the first game was rated Teen.

and that's the primary problem here a 10 (or less) year old kid is playing a game it shouldn't because of a wrong rating. Regardless what was offensive or not, it shouldn't have happened.

The game is not in-line with other E10+ games.

I don't think it's a matter of people lightening up. There are tons of games that are out, that didn't get banned. Heck Manhunter 2 was released on the Wii, and it still is on the wii, and there are no riots on the streets or anything like that. Even if it was released in the "Family/Casual friendly system", I saw it on the same rack as Mario once.

and there's a big difference because if you buy that game for your kid, and you didn't read the rating, then it's you fault if your 8 year old learns about chopping people in half with a fire axe.

and honestly I don't get the whole "people are too PC argument" if anything the whole rating system gives a pat in the back to parents to ease them in their progression of graduating their kids towards violent content, it doesn't provide any roadblock whatsoever.

In fact unless your 9 years old is using your lawnmower to hack to pieces to your next door neighbor, then there's no way for anyone else to know he is playing Dead Rising 2.

Almost every parent I know let kids play games at least a rating above what they should, because the rating works.

In fact I dare, go out and buy only exclusive games of a specific content. Only E10+ games, and stay on that rating for a year and you'll see why parents turn to the side and graduate their kids to more violent games.

If it was the case then almost every M rated game I have owned wouldn't be filled with kids on XBL. I would actually appreciate if every parent out there was a major fucking tool bag that got offended by the littlest thing. So that I wouldn't have to play with kids my sons age on games they have no business playing.

But the E rating surely should not include jokes like that?

Also, how the fuck does a 10 year old play Portal 2?! Some of those puzzles made me struggle let alone a 10 year old.

ten year olds today are smarter on average than we were at ten. (most especially in poorer neighborhoods. at ten, my parents started putting me to work to "save my money for a car after graduation", aka pay the mortgage. learning wasnt as much expected and technology is amazing now.)

Except IMDB is a Wiki, meaning that such information is A. user-submitted, and B. only available after release.

Who the ESRB is and how their rating process works:

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is a non-profit, self-regulatory body established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), formerly known as the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA).

(...)

During the final stages of development and prior to a game being released to the public, game publishers submit responses to a detailed, written questionnaire (often supplementing responses with lyric sheets, scripts, etc.) specifying exactly what pertinent content (as defined by ESRB) will be in their game. Along with the written submission materials, publishers must provide a DVD that captures all pertinent content. This includes typical gameplay, missions, and cutscenes, along with the most extreme instances of content, across all relevant categories, including but not limited to violence, language, sex, controlled substances and gambling. Pertinent content that is not playable (i.e., "locked-out"), but will exist in the code on the final game disc, must also be disclosed.

Once the submission is checked by ESRB for completeness, which may also involve ESRB staff members playing a beta or alpha version of the game, the video footage is reviewed by at least three specially trained game raters. ESRB raters must be adults and typically have experience with children through prior work experience, education or through being parents or caregivers themselves.

Upon reviewing the DVD, each rater recommends an appropriate rating category and content descriptors. However, this initial recommendation is merely intended as a starting point from which the raters will collectively deliberate about what rating should be assigned to the game. Once the raters reach a consensus on a final recommendation, ESRB staff reviews their recommended rating category and content descriptors, conducts a parity examination where appropriate to maintain consistency in rating assignments, and issues a certificate with the official rating assignment to the game's publisher. A rating summary is finalized shortly thereafter, providing additional detail about the key factors that contributed to the rating assignment, including specific examples of game content or attributes. The publisher may either accept the rating as final or revise the game's content and resubmit it to the ESRB, at which time the process starts anew. Publishers also have the ability to appeal an ESRB rating assignment to an Appeals Board made up of publishers, retailers and other professionals. Unless a different publication date is requested by the publisher the complete rating information (rating category, content descriptors, and rating summary) is made public on the ESRB website 30 days following the assignment of the rating.

When the game is ready for release, publishers must send copies of the final product to the ESRB. The game packaging is reviewed to make sure the rating information is displayed accurately and in accordance with ESRB requirements. Additionally, ESRB staff, including raters (time permitting), play-test the final version of a variety of games - including but not limited to games which generate consumer inquiries to ESRB and those which receive broad consumer exposure - to verify that all the materials provided by the games' publishers during the rating process were accurate and complete.

The above process applies to all games except those that will only be available for download directly through console and handheld storefronts (such as Microsoft Xbox LIVE® Arcade, Nintendo Wii® or DSi™ Shop and Sony PlayStation® Store). As of April 18, 2011, these games are rated via a streamlined rating process in which publishers are required to complete a form containing a series of questions that address content across relevant categories (as described above). The responses to these questions determine the game's rating, which is issued to the publisher once a DVD reflecting all disclosed content is received by the ESRB. Rating summaries are not available for games rated via this process.

All games rated in this manner are tested by ESRB shortly after they are made publicly available to ensure that appropriate ratings have been assigned. In the event content was not fully disclosed by the publisher, either the rating displayed in the store will be promptly corrected or, in egregious cases, the game will be removed from the store.

- www.esrb.org

So, it would appear that if the E10+ rating is incorrect, that it would be through the misjudgement of the ESRB.

I like how the news anchor guy can't say insensitive.

Oh, sure! Make fun of feofle with sfeech imfediments!

hey i have the worst speech impediment of them all! I'm dumb.

In related news: I just beat Portal 2.

Poor [REDACTED]...