AO+ Games, a Symbol for the Taboo, or a Pass to Creative Freedom?October 14, 2012 by

All over the world different cultures and societies have different ideas on what is considered normal or taboo. In the United States, there is still a lot of topics that are not socially excepted here (even if we like to think we are the most civilized and excepting country on the planet). Just look at the circus act that is our government, we bicker over homosexuals, abortion, war, religion, and a countless amount of other things that stunt our country's growth. Though I am not here to give anyone a political lecture. I am here talk about videogames.


This is the 21st century, a time when videogames are not only accepted, but played by almost everyone. The average gamer is in their thirties, and videogames themselves are held to an ever growing level of quality that has never been seen before. It is a good time to be a gamer. Even with other forms of media becoming plagued with unoriginality, videogames seem to be doing great (for the most part). Though despite the fact that we are in this “gaming revolution” were videogames are no longer for kids, or blamed for school shootings. They are protected under the Constitution, and are considered art by most. Yet they are not completely free. There is still not the freedom to do what ever you want, to create the game that you had envisioned. Most game developers have no problem fitting all the mature content into their games under the “M for Mature” rating, or at least you would think.


In the 1990s when home consoles became more common, and more powerful, developers were able to animate their games in the best graphical quality imaginable (at least for the 90s). Everything looked better, clearer, and smoother, including blood and gore. There have always been violence in games, but just because a stick man on screen had a few red pixels jump off of his body didn't mean that it was gory. Until it wasn't just a few pixels anymore. Games like Mortal Kombat and Doom terrified parents. A videogame that showed blood and brains coming out of a guys head after you put a shotgun to his face, or a game were the goal was to beat and kill the other player was too much. People began to question what these games were doing to their children, and wanted a way to know what kind of content is appropriate for who. That brings us to the creation of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). Where from then on a parent could easily know about the content that is in each videogame before they even buy it.


Only about twenty-five or so games have ever bared the mark of “AO”. It is the most uncommon and most extreme rating that a videogame can get. It is practically a death sentence for any videogame. Niter Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft allow anything above the “M” rating, and all major retailers like Wal-Mart and Game Stop refuse to sell them as well. In some countries like Australia the current maximum rating is “15+”. Though next year they will, for the first time ever, be getting an “18+” rating (and even then sex and drugs is severely restricted). You can show borderline naked women on prime time television, and show men beating each other bloody. Any problems? No. Do you think that Mortal Kombat (9) or Grand Theft Auto would be the same without the ESRB breathing down their necks to make sure that their game is “tame” enough? No. I have heard the creators of Mortal Kombat talk about their think tanks were they create new fatalities. Every once and a wile they would think of a brutal and horrifying finisher, but then they say, “Ah they would never let us put that in a game.” What could of happened if Rockstar didn't hide “Hot Coffee” in the game out of fear that their game would get the big “AO”? Hot Coffee. Man it still surprises me just how much of a s**t storm came from a simple, fully clothed, sex mini game hidden in the disk would bring. Is sex really that big of a deal for games? We are constantly surrounded by images of sex. Yet it is somehow too mature for a grown man to see a pair of animated breasts in a digital game.


A great man, a great visionary, is the complete embodiment of my ideals. He is the creator of Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit, and is the founder of Quantic Dream, David Cage. Cage is a man who sees videogames as the next great medium of entertainment, story telling, and inspiration. He makes games for adults. Not just mature in the way of a GTA, but in a deeper way. He puts heart into his games. He wants to invoke true emotion in the player, to make them legitimately connect to the characters and feel as they do. Despite all of this, he is still restricted, barely being allowed to create adult situations for an adult audience. In an article on Cage talked about this very problem:




    Finally he spoke about the importance of the ESRB, to an extent:"Game ratings are absolutely necessary, and I'm glad they exist. But we need to make sure that games are judged by the same standards as film. What can be shown in an M-rated film should also be allowed in an M-rated game. We need to get censorship back to normal standards. Their excuse is that games are interactive - but I've checked, and there is no study to ever show that interactivity has any effect."

   I am not saying that every game should have an “Adults Only” rating, most games do not. It is just the freedom to not have to worry about inching ever closer the the “M” rating's ceiling. Yet the more I think about it, maybe we don't need to have the “AO” rating. After all, isn't “Adults Only” traditionally reserved for blatant pornography? Maybe the people who rate games need to change, not the ratings themselves. Maybe I was wrong to think that people truly believe that videogames are no longer for children. The “M” rating is the equivalent of a “R” rating. Yet they have vastly different limits to sex and violence. If the ESRB grew up and (as Cage said himself) treated videogames on the same level as films or books, than maybe we can all grow up. As the great Bob Dlyan put it, “ The times they are a-changin'.” and we need to change with it.

If not just for the freedom of expression, what about the financial side. I mean game developers like the green far more than modern expressionism. If say Sony was the first and only console developer on the planet to allow “AO” games on their systems, I can only imagine what kind of profit that kind of exclusivity could bring. Trying to stay objective, it is simple fact that Sony is putting to most effort into creating mature, artistic, and meaningful content on the PlayStation 3. That is why Quantic Dream only makes games for Sony and that the most popular PSN games are more artistic than practical. Games like Journey, Flow, Papo & Yo, The Unfinished Swan, and more only on PSN. That is why I used them as an example because in my opinion they would be most likely to go that rout. As far as distribution goes, a lot of people would go the extra mile to get a game that was rated “AO” not just for the shock value, but being able to see the full vision of a creator. Expectantly in games like the ones created by David Cage. The people get what people want, and if people want to stop having all of the red tape wrapped around these pieces of art than they need to fight. If an “AO” or “Unrated Director's Cut” of a game came out than I bet a lot of people would try to get the compete version. Now Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit did actually have a “Director's Cut” that I wish I could play, and most Quantic Dream game fans could if made easy. Though a lot has changed in the seven or so years since its release.

  So will there ever be a market for “AO” games? I think so. Do videogames clearly still have old stigmas of immaturity? I would say yes, but for how long? Every day hundreds of gamers turn eighteen (as if 365 days is enough time for a child to mature enough to see two animated people roll around in a bed together.) So as the years go by and videogames become even better, the graphics get better, and the stories get better, I hope that when people think of a videogame they don't think of them as a toy for children. I hope they will appreciate it for what it really is, art (and as we all know) there is no censoring art.

Submit Blog
TellTale's Walking Dead and its Second SeasonOctober 8, 2012 by

I hope more games will start to have episodic releases like The Walking Dead. Though I would prefer it if episodes were released more often. I am also curious to see what they do with season two. Will it follow the events and choices that you make at the end of the first season? Or does it start a new story? All that I know is that I hope that Telltale doesn't pull a "Mass Effect" and have your choices that you have made not really matter in the end. It would be a lot easier to have everyone start season two on the same page though. If I were to guess, I would say that everyone will have basically the same ending. I think that because (if no one noticed) your strings are always being pulled. Certain people are destined to die, events are destined to happen, and you are destined to go to certain places. Telltale will most likely "neutralize" the choices that you have made, such as killing off characters that you have saved (which we all know has happened before) in order to cleverly lead everyone to the same ending.

Submit Blog