Why is this game USK 18? (adult content)

[Positron]

I played KoA some years ago and remember Elves and Dwaves, Easy Combat and Leveling Mechanics. Our 12 year old son and his friend asked me to recommend other games on Steam like "Risen" so KoA came to my mind . Now i am quite surprised by the USK 18! label.

If you have other ideas for Risen like games for age 12 wich reward exploration and will run on a nvidia 800 generation please let me know. Thanks!

[EpyonComet]

Here is the ESRB summary for its M (17+) rating in the US:

“Content Descriptors: Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Suggestive Themes

Rating Summary: This is an action role-playing game in which players assume the role of magical characters that embark on quests in the fictional world of Amalur. As players explore "open-world" environments, they complete missions that impact their character's destiny during an ongoing war. Players use swords, hammers, daggers, and magical attacks to kill human-like enemies and fantasy creatures (e.g., demons, trolls, giant spiders). The frequent combat is highlighted by slashing sounds, loud cries of pain, and slow-motion finishing moves—players complete battles (e.g., impaling enemies, tearing them in half) by pressing button sequences that correspond with on-screen prompts. Large blood-splatter effects occur during combat and cutscenes, which sometimes depict dismembered characters. Upon activating Aggressive mode, players can choose to attack/kill innocent civilians who cry out and run when struck. During the course of the game, players can access “books” that reference suggestive material: “His trousers down, his passions flared/He groped with drunken hand,” “ . . . from the motions of their bodies, I perceived that they were taking part in an activity that was altogether satisfactory," and “For hours, only the panting and sighs of love broke the silence.””

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/Synopsis.aspx?Certificate=31750&Title=Kingdoms+of+Amalur%3a+Reckoning

[mpnorman10]

Who puts a rating on life? The "players" who, with or without their parents permission, choose to live life can at young ages, start fires, bully others and steal, just to name a few inappropriate features of life. Life allows these activities with nothing to prevent any of them except the threat of punishment after the deed is done, like in games, but with the actions less reliably punished.

Perhaps it is thought that rather than playing computer games boys should gather into groups and collectively come up with boredom-fighting activities they might find fun or intersting. Joining into formal or informal gangs is certainly a more wholesome and creative spare time activity than playing a game on a computer or play station, is it not, especially games which would allow the player (with consequences) to do something bad against innocent victims in the virtual world?

Perhaps games should be kept away from them because kids will better learn about being bad and hurting others when there are real life victims for those acts.

Life should definitely be rated M (99+), wouldn't you say? It is not appropriate to kill an innocent person in a game or in life. When does a child get to or need to learn that it happens anyway, sometimes?

This is clearly sarcasm, but I do actually question the abilitiy of authorities, reviewers and sometimes parents to judge accurately what is and is not appropriate. It is all based on theories about what will bring about the best behavior. Does a child who grows up in a world of safety and security have a better chance of dealing with the necessary stresses of growing up? I would say yes, but if all of the monsters are ugly, mean and sound and look a certain, easily recognizable way, so kids playing games are not confused, then who is to protect them from the smooth talking and good looking?

Growing up is hard and parents do want to protect their kids and should. I do, however, very much question the correctness of those who take it upon themselves to sit in judgment of a game like this and give it that rating for the stated reasons. I question both their motives and competance. That some games are better than others for kids and their development into adulthood is likely, but I question the appropriateness of one human limiting another person's experiences, unless it is based upon love and even then care should be taken in daring such a bold thing.

[May90]

These discussions are very strange for me to read, as I played the original Doom - a game far bloodier than most games rated at 18 nowadays - at the age of 4. That game seriously disturbed me though. I mean, I would keep dying at the same spot on the 3rd level and couldn't experience the rest of the game until I returned to it a few months later... :(

[Division By Zero]

Having played through this fully, I don't really see a strong reason for its ESRB M rating (and it definitely doesn't deserve a USK 18+ rating, perhaps a 15+ at most).

The only things in the game that I can think of that would rise above an ESRB T rating are the somewhat gory (and even then it's cartoonish/animated gore) intro video when you start a new game (I'm guessing the ESRB saw that and immediately slapped an M rating on it) and then the side-quest easter eggs such as the book collection.

Having read through the ESRB review someone posted above, the rest is an overreaction bordering on #FakeNews. All of the combat is animated MMO style (by no means realistic), there's no gore when finishing humanoid opponents, and finishers that tear enemies in half are generally reserved for beastlike foes.

I also don't recall this game having massive blood-splatter effects or the ESRB-rating mentioned gore other than the intro movie.

While Alyn Shir's outfit is cringeworthy, it's technically decent (covers enough) and likely falls well within modern FCC decency guidelines for broadcast TV.

[EpyonComet]

Originally posted by Division By Zero:

Having played through this fully, I don't really see a strong reason for its ESRB M rating (and it definitely doesn't deserve a USK 18+ rating, perhaps a 15+ at most).

The only things in the game that I can think of that would rise above an ESRB T rating are the somewhat gory (and even then it's cartoonish/animated gore) intro video when you start a new game (I'm guessing the ESRB saw that and immediately slapped an M rating on it) and then the side-quest easter eggs such as the book collection.

Having read through the ESRB review someone posted above, the rest is an overreaction bordering on #FakeNews. All of the combat is animated MMO style (by no means realistic), there's no gore when finishing humanoid opponents, and finishers that tear enemies in half are generally reserved for beastlike foes.

I also don't recall this game having massive blood-splatter effects or the ESRB-rating mentioned gore other than the intro movie.

While Alyn Shir's outfit is cringeworthy, it's technically decent (covers enough) and likely falls well within modern FCC decency guidelines for broadcast TV.

The ESRB simply have massively different standards from yours.

[Division By Zero]

Originally posted by EpyonComet:

The ESRB simply have massively different standards from yours.

That's why I no longer fully rely on them. I have content standards and my own rules for acceptable vs. unacceptable content in media.

What I have found over the years is that the ESRB doesn't always do a good or even-handed job in handing out ratings, particularly with Teen vs. Mature. ESRB M ratings are overused and are too-often used as a bin that many premium games get thrown in for various reasons, despite the fact that there is a massive amount of content advisory variance within the spectrum of ESRB M rated games alone.

Then you have the case of old classics that were considered by some to be horrible in the 1990's and received ESRB M or otherwise strong content advisores, yet now if they were re-evaluated they might slip down.

In the old days I used to only buy games with an ESRB T rating or below. Once I figured out that the ESRB issues a significant amount of frivolous M ratings, I changed my content standards to "ESRB T or below preferred, ESRB M will be evaluated case-by-case".


I take a morality-based approach to content ratings and what's acceptable, rather than the conventional wisdom, practical stupidity "hurp durp violence is bad".

Using my metrics, violence alone isn't necessarily grounds for a higher (more restrictive). Factors such as blood and gore push the rating up depending on the style and amount, but the most important factor is the motivation behind the combat. It doesn't matter as much what you fight, how you fight, and how messy the consequences are, what matters is WHY you fight - is your virtual cause righteous, honorable, and just?

A few examples of my content rules:

A game with a standard modern FPS level of violence in which you are fighting to save your people from a generic oppressor or invasion (for example: Mass Effect or Call of Duty) will be rated lower than a game with equivalent level of violence that's just about smashing random stuff and causing mayhem (for example: Saints' Row).

A game that generally casts the player in an honorable and righteous role will receive a lower rating, even if heavy or realistic violence and gore are present.

A game where you play as the villain will generally get a higher rating than normal. This becomes doubly true in the case of realistic crime simulators, for example GTA.

A game where you have the choice of being good or bad won't be penalized with a higher rating if there are negative in-game consequences (deterrents) for being evil. For example, the Elder Scrolls series has a bounty system where player characters who commit crimes are assigned a fine that they can pay off (or serve their sentence based on their outstanding fine when caught). You can ransack villages and towns, but this will send your bounty through the roof and your character will effectively be exiled.

Cartoonish or animated ("MMO style" or "Final Fantasy style") violence will push the rating down.

Unrealistic (sci-fi or fantasy) violence will receive a lower rating than realistic violence.

More violence (especially blood and gore) will push the rating up somewhat, although this can be mitigated if the game has you fighting for a truly honorable and righteous cause.

Realistic violence and realistic simulation of crime (that the player character is commiting) will push the rating up strongly.

Nudity and sexual content are unacceptable and are grounds for immediate rejection except if they are hidden well out of the way and completely avoidable.

Any game centered around the player character doing sick or abhorrent/reprehensible things (for which there is no reasonable justification or mitigating circumstances) as the main theme will generally be rejected as unacceptable.