Where Have the M-Rated RPGs Gone?

[GameBanshee News]

Fallout 3: APNB offers a piece by Desslock, in its not-edited-by-PC Gamer format.

The gaming world is apparently similarly filled with contradictions, since while M-rated shooters are thriving; similarly rated RPGs have sadly almost vanished. Although I’d like an RPG with a Die by the Sword-type combat system that profoundly demonstrates the skull-bludgeoning power of a mace or a sword’s propensity to decapitate, it’s not the loss of graphic death animations that I’m bemoaning. The best RPGs effectively draw you into their worlds by making environments feel incredibly realistic, and settings that are completely stripped of M-rated elements are inherently artificial. Temple of Elemental Evil had its NPC children removed when threatened with being saddled with an M-rating if the tots could be harmed. You similarly won’t find kiddies running around in the otherwise realistic environments of other RPGs such as Oblivion. Omitting toilets and outhouses may not be an unwarranted compromise to fidelity, but removing all evidence of procreation tends to strain credulity.

Daggerfall was released before the current rating system existed, but even its novels were subsequently sanitized so that its (T)een-rated sequels. One of the Elder Scrolls’ most important historical characters is the dark elf, Barenziah, and conflicting accounts of life appear in competing volumes that litter Tamriel’s landscapes. The series of novellas that purports to most accurately reflect her life are the “Real Barenziah” books, but the spicy versions that appeared in Daggerfall were censored of erotic content in Morrowind and Oblivion (series bookworms can read the unedited editions at http://til.gamingsource.net/). Daggerfall also featured occasional nudity, but concern over the apparent presence of an errant nipple hidden in other Oblivion artwork generated a patch. RPGs may have occasionally included profanity and sexuality to titillate (in other words, for the same reason shooters graphically gib victims), but a realistic setting can’t entirely ignore those elements or any other aspect of human experience. Many of the best RPGs in recent memory have been M-rated because they didn’t shy away from including such content. Gothic 2, Vampire Bloodlines, and Fallout were better RPGs because they featured brothels, profane curses and NPC guards urinating against walls.

[DesR85]

Is lots of gore, violence and sex considered mature? There must be more to maturity than these few.

[GawainBS]

You're kind of missing the point, Des. Including them doesn't make an RPG more realistic, but not including them will hurt its credibility. It's a subtle difference.
Check the paragraph about the kids. Excluding kids from appearing in an RPG is absurd. Wouldn't you find it strange if you walked in a town and you hadn't seen a kid in a day? Sometimes, this happens in between patches or different versions, like with Fallout 2, where it botched at least one quest.
All people swear from time to time. It adds to the realism if you include this in a game. It doesn't have to be a "f*ck-feast" (How I hate to have to use the *), but maybe something setting specific, like a "damn", or "blasted". Think of Battlestar Galactica's "Frak".
Sex generally is a pleasant activity and about the most human-like activity you can engage in. So why wouldn't characters in an RPG pursue it? After all, they're allowed to enjoy eating and drinking (Inn, Taverns), a theatre show (The Five Flagons in BGII), contests of all kinds, fairs, so why not sex? In essence, there's nothing morally abhorrent about them: it's an exchange of services for goods, represented by money in this case. If the RPG in question features a Good/Evil system, this is an opportunity to implement it, just like saving the orphans is, or joining the slave trade.
Apart from this context, there's also the more important romantic context. If the romance goes well, sex is a logical consequence. I'm not saying you have to make a mini game out of it, but showing them kissing, caressing, undressing each other and afterwards seeing the couple laying naked intertwined with each other can increase the gaming experience, since it portraits an (essential) part of your character's life. The laying naked isn't important, but the connotation of it is: the feelings of security, tenderness and affection that such a thing implies, can be critical to understanding motivations and needs.
Gore is a simple consequence of battle. If a warhammer impacts a skull, you'll see brains. It's more or less the purpose. Seeing brains doesn't increase my gaming experience per se, but it can add to it. Let's look at it this way: if my character jumps in water, I appreciate it if (and expect that) the water splashes up, has ripples running away from me and sloshes around my waist. That's what should happen if you jump in a pool. (Just think a moment of Dungeon Lord's water, and you'll know what I DON'T mean here. ) The same thing applies to said warhammer and a head.
An archetypical example where violence, gore and sex are prevalent: your typical Docks district in the average medieval RPG. It's a rather poor area, with the lower class citizens living there and the official presence is rather low. It's natural that there's a concentration of acitivities that are frowned upon in the neater districts, like gambling houses where the occasional brawl errupts, low cost brothels, more muggings... These factors make the more "decent" folk avoid the area, etc.

[DesR85]

But don't you think that most of the time, a lot of developers just include those elements just to please the lowest common denominator? If done properly, sure, it makes sense and enhance the level of immersion, but most of the time, that isn't always the case. Violence? I've come across games like Gears of War and God of war that focuses on blood and gore to make itself look edgy.

Sex? What those devs do is just create voluptuous female characters just to attract testosterone-laden guys. You'll notice that in some RPGs and quite a number of action and fighting titles. Sure, Mass Effect have that alien sex scene and the Witcher have their sex cards but I still can't shake the feeling that it's aiming at the kiddie crowd (as in: "Ooh, there's sex in the game, so it must be cool." sort of reaction). Swearing? I admit that a lot of games have done this tastefully, but I did come across games where they drop 's' and 'f' bombs in a single sentence.

I'm not saying all this is bad per se, but if this is how game developers treat maturity, I don't see how this helps in making games more 'mature'. That's why I said that there must be more to maturity than what was mentioned in the article. What about story structure and subject matter? Shouldn't that be broached as well?

[GawainBS]

Like the writer of the article, I'm not a fan of gore-for-the-sake-of-gore.
As you know, I'm one of the fiercest opponents of scantly-clad women (for no reason) in an RPG.
I was trying to illustrate that that article is right: avoiding swearing, violence and sex deteriorates the gaming experience. They are part of human nature and two of them aren't even so terrible as some people think they are.
You've got a point, however, that including them in a "stand alone" context is just as bad for the game.

[Lady Dragonfly]

We have a similar thread about mature games in the RPG Discussion forum.

Gothic 2, Vampire Bloodlines, and Fallout were better RPGs because they featured brothels, profane curses and NPC guards urinating against walls.

For some people, it seems, urinating NPC is a hallmark of a "better" RPG. That is pathetic.

[GawainBS]

I think the urinating part should be seen as a "pars pro toto".

[Lady Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by GawainBS

I think the urinating part should be seen as a "pars pro toto".

What do you mean? That it was just an example of a "realistic environment"?

[Xandax]

I've never understood the difference being allowed to run around and decapitate pixels, but seeing some of them kiss is terrible.
Messed up priorities in my book.

I do think games such as Fallout and yes, also the Witcher, contains a way better setting then many other RPGs, because it dares to portray the world a bit more realistic. Sexual content or such simple for the sake of it - is just as bad as violence just for the sake of violence, but both are parts of both real world and game worlds.

Yet, due to warped sense of morality in many game-developer and markets, violence is celebrated, yet sexual content or other realistic behaviours are not.

[GawainBS]

Yes. Not the urinating against walls makes it a good RPG, but the fact that certain guards would do it, shows that there went great thought in fleshing out the NPCs.

One thing I don't agree with in the article is the lack of outhouses. I mean, most RPGs features extensive sewers, but why have sewers in the first places if there aren't any bathrooms? Especially in less advanced civilisations, it compromises a huge part of the need for sewers.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by GawainBS

Yes. Not the urinating against walls makes it a good RPG, but the fact that certain guards would do it, shows that there went great thought in fleshing out the NPCs.

One thing I don't agree with in the article is the lack of outhouses. I mean, most RPGs features extensive sewers, but why have sewers in the first places if there aren't any bathrooms? Especially in less advanced civilisations, it compromises a huge part of the need for sewers.

Realistically depicted environment indeed enriches gaming experience. By the same token, eye candy graphics and fancy soundtrack enrich gaming experience. But is it enough to call a game "a better RPG" just because it features fraking and urinating NPCs and gives you a chance to abuse children? Is a game featuring "Eviscerated bodies hung on meat hooks, disemboweled corpses leaving trails of blood, satanic idolatry..." considered inherently superior to any other that lacks such feature?

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly

Realistically depicted environment indeed enriches gaming experience. By the same token, eye candy graphics and fancy soundtrack enrich gaming experience. But is it enough to call a game "a better RPG" just because it features fraking and urinating NPCs and gives you a chance to abuse children? Is a game featuring "Eviscerated bodies hung on meat hooks, disemboweled corpses leaving trails of blood, satanic idolatry..." considered inherently superior to any other that lacks such feature?

A game does not get better simply because it features those things. It gets better because it features "sense" and "logic", "purpose" etc within the framework of the setting, and those is a large part of what is lacking in todays gaming. Often in my view as well, it shows larger attention to detail, which can overall result in the developers making a better game, because they focus on the gameworld and the game, more then just nifty graphics.
"Urinating" is just exemplifying.

It is about the taboo associated with anything but gore and (mindless) violence in entertainment, more so then the fact that you *need* to have people urinating in the street.

[dragon wench]

@LD and Des,
I'm just curious about something. You both appear to enjoy the game Fable.
Fable encourages wife beating if you pursue an evil path... How do you feel about this?

[Celos]

My two cents, even though the question wasn't directed at me:

Along the same lines of logic, sense and purpose, encouraging the beating of your wife in a game is, to me, completely acceptable, when taking the 'evil' path. If it fits with the .. character of the character then omitting the possibility from a game would do far greater disservice to the over all feel of the game in my opinion.

Also it's curious that wife-beating would get a special mention in the violence section. I don't mean to say that hitting your wife (or any female for that matter) is or should be acceptable in any way, but I don't see how it is any worse then driving a knife through someone's eyeball (a nod to the favorite of many here - fallout).

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Celos

My two cents, even though the question wasn't directed at me:

The wonders of a forum - all can jump in, so never fear that in a public discussion