ESRB Rating

Hümmelgümpf · Jul 5, 2007

Vault Dweller, we all know that dialogues are excellent, storyline is epic and groundbreaking, and the amount of role-playing goodness is enough to make Fallout, Arcanum and Torment pale in comparison. But what about mature content? Are there any drugs to get addicted to, children to rape and kill, whores to pimp, white bunnies to skin, that sort of things? In other words, what rating would ESRB give AoD, if it was allowed to?

Vault Dweller · Jul 5, 2007

Depends on what mature content is. No drugs, no rapes, no whores to pimp. As for what's in, here is an example (one of the Imperial Guards quest).

*** spoiler ***

The Imperial Guards control a mountain pass. One of the Noble Houses is courting with a barbarian horde, working on an alliance with them to counter the Imperial Guards influence. Anyway, an agent of that House delivering a message to the horde is stuck at that mountain pass with other "civilians" (merchants, travelers, exlporers, etc). The Imperial Guards know that they closed the pass in time and that one of these people is the agent. They don't know who. They have no choice but to order you and other soldiers to kill everyone. If you have other skills (other than killing people and executing orders skills), you can figure out who the agent is. Or you kill everyone. Men and women, who are absolutely innocent. They will beg you to spare their lives as you kill them. According to several testers, it wasn't a pleasant experience.

The Merchants Guild will be very displeased if you kill their traders, of course.

Hümmelgümpf · Jul 5, 2007

That's what I have been waiting for for all those years! I love this game already! When will you be able to pre-order it?

Major_Blackhart · Jul 5, 2007

Well, if you leave no survivors, how will they know? The Imperial Guards will let it out that you and a few others wasted everyone?

Vault Dweller · Jul 5, 2007

It's kinda hard to keep a massacre like that a secret.

Bradylama · Jul 5, 2007

Right, I mean you're slaughtering Guild representatives. When they don't show up in the next town somebody's going to catch wind of it.

galsiah · Jul 5, 2007

Major_Blackhart said:
Well, if you leave no survivors, how will they know? The Imperial Guards will let it out that you and a few others wasted everyone?

I think it makes sense here - the Imperial Guards control the area, so it'd be safe to assume that they either let it happen, or they did it themselves. Presumably the House knew their agent was in that area, so they'll know that the IG had both motive and opportunity - and will no doubt blame the IG if anyone. Also, in the absence of a very skilled cover-up, any evidence gathered will be consistent with the IG being to blame - since they were.

It's also not necessarily certain that the IG would want not to be blamed. They have two options:
(1) Look like nasty powerful butchers.
(2) Look too impotent/stupid/out-of-touch... to stop a massacre on their own territory.

If you want not to be messed with, you'll probably take option (1) - probably after coming up with some way to paint the innocent victims as not-so-innocent. In the long run, looking heartless might be preferable to looking powerless.

Roqua · Jul 5, 2007

Whats is this shit? Is President Bush and Fox News making this evil game of wanton violence? VD lied and people died. I cannot tolerate this. You just lost a customer, buddy.

I think adding children to this scene might up the drama some, but might make selling it in Germany a problem. But look at the drama value for having a portait of a little wide eyed kid hugging the decapitated head of his mother while crying and begging for his life before you cut to the next portait of his head split in twain. You just can't get that in games anymore.

Section8 · Jul 5, 2007

Oh wow, look. It's an interesting moral dilemma involving the wholesale slaughter of innocents. Beats the living shit out of "I'ma drop me a bomb today!'

Claw · Jul 5, 2007

Roqua said:
VD lied and people died.

It rhymes so it must be true! :lol:

Ander Vinz · Jul 5, 2007

Vault Dweller said:
Or you kill everyone. Men and women, who are absolutely innocent. They will beg you to spare their lives as you kill them. According to several testers, it wasn't a pleasant experience.

I hope you have more unforgettable quests like this because it was really spoiler. I regret reading this.

Sovy Kurosei · Jul 5, 2007

It sounds like an over the top reaction. Unless there are extenuating circumstances (soldiers are whacked, stressed or message is so important that the fate of nations rely on it) you didn't mention it smacks of the nonsensical psychosadistic evil you would find in a Bioware game.

John Yossarian · Jul 5, 2007

@Andre Vinz
Yeah good luck with getting him to stop those.

John Yossarian · Jul 5, 2007

Sovy Kurosei said:
It sounds like an over the top reaction. Unless there are extenuating circumstances (soldiers are whacked, stressed or message is so important that the fate of nations rely on it) you didn't mention it smacks of the nonsensical psychosadistic evil you would find in a Bioware game.

I think it smacks of the pragmatic evil we find in the real world every day.

galsiah · Jul 6, 2007

Sovy Kurosei said:
It sounds like an over the top reaction.

Presumably it's a highly important message, but even so, it should seem over the top to some people. It's supposed to be a hard decision.
Each person is being killed for a reason - because they might be the agent, and the message is very important. If you can't find a way to expose the agent, there are two reasonable choices - kill everyone, or kill no-one. If killing everyone seems over the top, presumably you can decide not to.

This is a very different situation from a "That village is evil - kill them all" decision. Here, the only logical options (in the absence of good information), are to kill everyone, or no-one. It's not a case of killing everyone "just because", or "because they're all EVIL" - it's a pragmatic necessity based on a reasonable situation and the lack of subtler options.
Also, do Bioware decisions usually involve killing completely innocent people on the basis that they might be the bad guy? I'm not sure, but isn't it usually a case of "These guys are pretty bad - punish them or forgive them.". This is a harder choice because either decision will likely have horrible consequences - you're knowingly killing innocents, not punishing fairly-evil-guys. Alternatively, you're allowing something undesirable to go ahead when you could have stopped it.
Presumably allowing the agent through has significant consequences?? ["Yes" will do VD - no spoilers necessary]

The problem with most such RPG situations isn't the "Kill these guys" part. It's the lack of coherent motivation - both from the PC's point of view, and the quest giver's. Also, it's usually a moral choice of this sort: "Be righteous, and punish them for their evil" / "Be righteous and forgive them" and sometimes "Kill them because U R TEH EVIL".
In this case you're stuck between a moral rock and a hard place. You're not choosing between two "right" answers that suit different outlooks; you're choosing between two wrong answers because the gods dealt you a shitty hand.

Major_Blackhart · Jul 6, 2007

Hey, the Nazis did it. Because of their good efforts in concealing their crime, their is today even doubts that the holocaust even occurred. But enough about me.

I think it would be entirely possible to keep something like that a secret. Secrets can stay a secret if everyone involved dies, and the survivors concoct a believable cover story about what 'really' whent on.

Vault Dweller · Jul 6, 2007

Ander Vinz said:
Vault Dweller said:

Or you kill everyone. Men and women, who are absolutely innocent. They will beg you to spare their lives as you kill them. According to several testers, it wasn't a pleasant experience.

Click to expand...

I hope you have more unforgettable quests like this because it was really spoiler. I regret reading this.

Didn't it say "spoiler" at the top?

Sovy said:
It sounds like an over the top reaction. Unless there are extenuating circumstances (soldiers are whacked, stressed or message is so important that the fate of nations rely on it) you didn't mention it smacks of the nonsensical psychosadistic evil you would find in a Bioware game.

The Noble house is trying to recruit the barbarian horde and use it to keep the Imperial Guards (what's left of the Imperial Army) from taking over. If the horde makes it to the town in question, the Guards lost. Big time. Killing a score of civilians seems to be a very acceptable price to keep a major player (the horde) from joining the game and avoid a massive loss of power and decades old plans.

In some scenarios you manage to sabotage the alliance, in some scenarios you (and other soldiers) fight the horde at that pass. :epic:

I think I have an old untextured picture of the pass somewhere.

galsiah · Jul 6, 2007

Major_Blackhart said:
Secrets can stay a secret if everyone involved dies, and the survivors concoct a believable cover story about what 'really' whent on.

Again, only if they do it well, and want not to get the blame.

I think it's credible for the IG to satisfy neither of those criteria. They're not the assassin's guild - an organisation well-versed in subtlety / cover-ups, with members who are right at home with that mindset.

Again, I'd point out that they either look like the bad guys (if they can't concoct some story to paint the victims as not innocent), or they look impotent/out-of-touch. If you're fighting for control with various other factions, and you're exposed, you can't afford to look weak. You probably can afford to look like possibly merciless butchers. Appearing weak is an option for a less military/exposed operation, but probably not for the Imperial Guards.

Even if they blamed the PC for the massacre, then punished him, that doesn't make them look strong: a load of people were massacred under their nose, and they only managed to do something about it after the fact. Either it's to be presumed that they were complicit in the act (in which case they should take full responsibility, claim it was right for [reason X], and look strong and not-to-be-crossed), or that they can't control their territory.
I'd say that being perceived as harsh/bloodthirsty is the lesser of two evils - if it's considered a bad thing at all.

[Of course I'm assuming that they'll make an enemy of the House either way - since they'll never believe any cover-story.]

Vault Dweller · Jul 6, 2007

galsiah said:
If killing everyone seems over the top, presumably you can decide not to.

You can refuse, but you will be immediately kicked out from the Imperial Guards. The Guards are the army, they have no tolerance for fags who don't follow orders, which makes sense.

Presumably allowing the agent through has significant consequences?? ["Yes" will do VD - no spoilers necessary]

Hard to explain without really spoiling things. Basically, you can't let the agent escape, too many soldiers around, but you can continue his mission. In which case there would be consequences.

Sovy Kurosei · Jul 6, 2007

Vault Dweller said:
If the horde makes it to the town in question, the Guards lost. Big time. Killing a score of civilians seems to be a very acceptable price to keep a major player (the horde) from joining the game and avoid a massive loss of power and decades old plans.

Alright, that clears it all up then. It sounds good and nice screenshot.

Kingston · Jul 6, 2007

Can't you just pick out a random person from the crowd and say "This is the agent!" ?

Balor · Jul 6, 2007

I guess you gotta prove it somehow.

Vault Dweller · Jul 6, 2007

GhanBuriGhan · Jul 6, 2007

Well I didn't read the spoiler, because it was a spoiler. But here is a stupid question: Will it get a rating? Am I correct in thinking that this ESRB thing is essentially a voluntary thing, and not needed if you don't want to sell your game in stores?

Ander Vinz · Jul 6, 2007

Vault Dweller said:
The Guards are the army, they have no tolerance for fags who don't follow orders, which makes sense.

So most of quests for IG would follow "go there do that and I don't care how" manner, I suppose. Will there be more freedom of whom to alliance with or which house to destroy later in the game as you rise from the ranks?

ESRB Rating

Arbiter

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Arbiter

Codexia Lord Sodom

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Arcane

Erudite

Prospernaut

Cipher

Erudite

Scholar

Erudite

Magister

Magister

Erudite

Codexia Lord Sodom

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Erudite

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Erudite

Arcane

Arcane

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Erudite

Scholar