Comparing the censored and uncensored versions of No More Heroes
by David Hinkle 
{ Feb 5th 2008 at 4:00PM }
Spoiler alert: This is the first boss fight in the game.
If there's one thing we can't get enough of right now, it's No More Heroes. Suda's masterpiece (yeah, we went there) came in to our video game collection and proceeded to decapitate every single other game in its pursuit to be the top title of our library. We're so smitten, we've cuddled with the game's case every night in bed, clenching it tight against our chest like our teddy bears of old.
But enough about our rampant love of the game. One of the biggest concerns for Europeans is how the censored version would stack up the bloody affair that is the U.S. release. One gamer was kind enough to do just that, taking video of each death scene in the game from both censored and uncensored version of the game. So, if you're beaten the game or just don't care about spoilers, hit up the link below. For the rest of you, go play No More Heroes already!
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Andrew Yoon @ Feb 5th 2008 3:19PM
The blood really does add so much more to the visceral style of the game. Great comparison vid.
Andy @ Feb 5th 2008 4:10PM
I'm surprised this didn't go by here state side..I guess everything that isn't made by Rockstar....God i hope I didn't give Hilary any ideas X.x
Kai Cherry @ Feb 6th 2008 5:10AM
Furthermore...
What Jaxx said was this:
"The censored version gets the point across without feeding the animals.
Mod me down, but it's the fact."
What part of this is...not factual, exactly?
If you watch both videos, the point was rather clear...someone was taken out. Definitively. There is no doubt about this.
So, while you may prefer the more gory version, the censored one does not leave the player/viewer with the impression that the objective was not achieved..there is no sense of "what just happened here."
Or maybe we were watching some other video...
Jaxx @ Feb 5th 2008 4:22PM
As a father of two boys (and a gamer myself), I'm convinced the graphic nature of games affects behavior in a negative way. The censored version gets the point across without feeding the animals.
Mod me down, but it's the fact.
James @ Feb 5th 2008 4:30PM
Actually, it's the *opinion*.
danny. @ Feb 5th 2008 4:59PM
As a father of two boys you should be aware that they are not the target market for this game. Suprisingly, they may not be harmed by people like me playing this game.
I don't have children, but I assure you when/if I am convinced to one day have them, I will not place the burden of forming their ethics and behavior on popular culture.
You are probably a very good parent and I'm not trying to insult you. Just as you would send them to bed if you want to watch Soprano's or Kill Bill, break out the No More Heroes at an appropriate time (or don't) and enjoy it knowing that you are old enough to not be influenced to turn into a killer yourself.
If your worried about other kids having the game and exposing them, be proactive and make other parents aware of the ESRB system that you surely are aware of yourself.
Rocketboy @ Feb 5th 2008 5:39PM
As a responsible person, I will keep this game out of the hands of children so us adults can enjoy the game. I will also mod you down, because my decision to enjoy NMH does not affect your children in any way. You want to force what's good for your kids on me, affects me.
b00k3 @ Feb 5th 2008 6:51PM
I personally wouldn't so much as rent this game in its uncensored format. I find it disgusting. I like being around people who value a similar definition of what's decent. I believe that entertainment like this promotes a poor view of what is decent. To me, it's not artistic. It's not "style". It's gross. I'd rather my 6 year old grew up in a neighborhood where it wasn't sold, bought, played, or valued. I didn't buy it. I doubt you're surprised. I'm not surprised I'm not changing anybody's mind by saying so, either.
I find the downmodding of opinions like the one above almost as disturbing as the content. Fight opposing views about censorship with.... censorship? Is the irony lost on everyone but me?
Mod me down too if you like. But you'll be doing it to a Zack & Wiki fan.
fluffbox @ Feb 5th 2008 11:32PM
Maybe it would not have been modded down so quickly if it wasn't stated as a fact. It can sometimes be insulting to hear someone assert opinions as facts because of how ridiculous the assertion generally is.
LaughingMan @ Feb 5th 2008 11:54PM
It's not censorship to mod someone down, especially he stated his opinion as fact. It's an expression of popularity.
To ban the sale of a game is something totally different. If you don't want your son to live in a place where this game is sold, MOVE. Move out of the country if you have to, but don't infringe on my right to play this game. Your opinion doesn't count so much that it overrides the free speech of those who would create the game, and those who would consume it.
Gonzo @ Feb 6th 2008 12:27PM
"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant."
-HL Mencken
Unless you want to start paying my rent too, don't you dare decide what I can be entertained by.
That said. Your kids aren't missing much. NMH is probably one of the crappiest games on the system so far. They should be glad that you're uptight. Now they won't have to play a shoddy game that was only half made.
So when you consider that the only fun thing to do in this game is to chop guys in half and watch funny cutscenes (everything else is painful to play), there really is no reason for a European or Japanese person to buy this game.
This is one of the few cases where censorship worked out for the consumer since it will probably drive many away from the game so they can buy one that's entertaining. I still can't condone censorship, especially since they probably censored out the only entertaining parts of the game.
And Wiifanboy writers-
Aren't you afraid that by encouraging people to buy this broken piece of crap of a game, it will eventually scrape away any credibility you may have had? I can't take any of you seriously anymore with all the praise you've been laying on this junk.
It looks like the only reviewer I can count on to call overrated pieces of crap for what they are is Yahtzee with his Zero Punctuation.
Hopefully he's doing NMH today. I can't wait to see him tear it up.
Rocketboy @ Feb 6th 2008 1:44PM
b00k3... Ironically enough, I don't want to live anywhere near your spoiled brat of a kid either.
Gonzo.. you're an idiot. Yes, you've posted that you don't like NMH like 20 times already. Give it up. Your hating the game won't change anyone's opinion. It won't make it go away.
Damian @ Feb 5th 2008 4:29PM
It reminds me a little bit of Kill Bill (the movie) and i dont think it should have been uncensored because blood is so bizarrely shown that its is not as impressive as it is funny so it doesnt seem real at all, which goes great with the game sthetics, I have the uncensored version and seeing the blood pouring out is hillarious.
Fantus @ Feb 5th 2008 4:31PM
I was looking forward to this game and will still buy it when it gets released here. But the blood was a nice feature that added to the game.
But I gusse with the manhunt 2 banning it sacred the company releasing no more heroes.
Manhunt 2 didn't interest me one bit but this game did, oh well.
danny. @ Feb 5th 2008 5:01PM
your v. you're... damn
Perverted @ Feb 5th 2008 5:08PM
Uh....I've been looking forward to this game for ages....seeing the two side by side.....I'm not getting it anymore(unless I grab it on the cheap).....It just looks downgraded....The blood added so much more.....They should know that this is an action title with swearing in it, kids ain't buying it, adults are, keep the over the top awesome blood!
If I see no cheap option I'm waiting for what I call the "real" version.
Mr Khan @ Feb 5th 2008 5:11PM
I really didn't think it would make much of a difference, but, wow
Censorship sucks. Sorry, not-North America
Moose @ Feb 5th 2008 5:23PM
As the father of a 6-year-old, I can say my son does not and will not even know this game exists until he is at least in high school and I feel he is mature enough to play a game like No More Heroes.
But, damn, it is fun murdering people and watching their blood splatter.
Rocketboy @ Feb 5th 2008 5:43PM
Wow, that's just crippled. I hate to say it, but it does take away from the game. W/o the blood, it really dumbs it down, and takes away from the 'over the top' nature of the game. Which really, almost seems like the whole point. What else did they change? He now rides a vespa, can only have 10 t-shirts, and only 'kinda likes' anime?
Carlos @ Feb 5th 2008 6:00PM
i'm sorry but i won't buy this game until i get myself an US Wii (which seems impossible) or there's a way to play imports on pal Wiis (other than chiping them, i don't want to, yet). It's clear that this game was meant to be stupidly bloddy and i want it like that.
NeverSage @ Feb 5th 2008 6:08PM
I don't even get it... in the UK version, does Heavy Metal still have his arms? Lame!
Jay @ Feb 5th 2008 10:03PM
I'm surprised that anyone would want their games to be censored. Can't you do your own censoring by choosing not to buy it?
I mean, I do my own censoring by choosing to mod you down. See how that works? I made a decision and I modded you down. You could make a decision and not buy the game. Same thing.
Why should everyone have to suffer for your preferences? The game was meant to look over the top. I mean, it's an artistic expression and I doubt that, if you find the over the top blood offensive in the first place, you'd even understand the point of the entire game at all. There is a lot to the story - and part of it is Touchdown's uncanny lust for violence. The whole message seems muddled when you censor it. It would be like cutting out the blood in Passion of the Christ - I mean the whole point of that movie was to bring torture porn to the conservative masses. Without the gore it's just another "jesus gets crucified movie". Gore can be an expression if used properly.
This game uses it artistically (and cartoonishly) to send a message. Manhunt did not.
Either way, I suppose the actual gameplay of the game is the same, but the story and artistic expression takes a major hit in my opinion.
If you're on the fence, I say you should still buy the cut version. The best part about the game is actually playing it - the art design is a close second in my opinion.
Kai Cherry @ Feb 6th 2008 5:00AM
"If you're on the fence, I say you should still buy the cut version. The best part about the game is actually playing it - the art design is a close second in my opinion."
You'd think that, this being a game for a Nintendo system...a system whose fans purport to be the arbiters of All Things Gameplay Trumps All, wouldn't you?
I guess not having blood spatters all over the place totally nullifies the story, art direction and gameplay mechanics.
Who knew?
LaughingMan @ Feb 6th 2008 12:06AM
I'm so glad I picked up this game in the US. The game has a fantastic Tarantino-esque character to it, and the censorship really takes away from the character of the game.
The people who want games like this to not exist are probably the same people who think that guys like Quentin Tarantino peddle smut and should be arrested for putting his films out. It's fair to dislike guys like Quentin or Suda51, dislike their movies, and refuse to see them or buy them, but it's NOT fair, nor constitutional to prevent adults from doing so.
The fact that a game like this can come out in the US on the Wii, in such a fantastic blaze of glory, honestly makes me proud to live in the US and to have the freedom of speech.
ruzkin @ Feb 6th 2008 1:38AM
Damn shame. I'm an Aussie who was hyped through the roof for No More Heroes, but that just looks LAME.
It's not just censored, it's neutered.
Kai Cherry @ Feb 6th 2008 5:03AM
No...I think the problem is that you people without kids seem to think your wants and needs are more important than others.
Look, its great that you are 20 or whatever, but guess what?
Video game systems are essentially TOYS. They sell them in TOY STORES and department stores in the TOY SECTION.
Yeah, yeah I know.
Its like I told Sony about their fabulous Handheld Multimedia System in San Fran a couple years back when I was in a meeting with them:
"It doesn't MATTER what YOU think it is...Moms shopping at Walmart think its a toy for children and it will be judged appropriately. It is too fragile and costs too much."
Certain things have no ambiguity about them...alcohol...cigarettes...strip clubs. Other things do not have such a clear distinction.
In the minds of adult family consumers, video game consoles are toys, and have been since before a lot of you were nothing more than your Dad's prom night ambitions.
While I as a parent understand the ESRB system, parental controls and all of that technical crap, it doesn't mean sh*t to a tree.
That is to say, the mental connection between video game consoles and children's playthings isn't going away...it is what they HAVE BEEN for over 20 years in the mainstream.
And the connection between violent games and children expressing apathy towards violence or being desensitized to it isn't a new notion based on Jack Thompson's ramblings, so modding or shouting down anyone that dares to mention this isn't a public service.
There is more than enough research out there that points to *non-interactive* violent imagery and multimedia being more than marginally influential in certain people. Video game content should get a "free pass" because you boys like games that let you pretend to be gang-banger or a super soldier?
A little naive I feel.
So yeah, I guess its OK to mod down dude because no one has "proven" that video games have a negative effect definitively, but it doesn't take that great a leap of faith to believe that they could, given the mountain of evidence about every other goddamned form of media known to do so.
Please note that the above paragraph was sarcasm...
Rocketboy @ Feb 6th 2008 1:50PM
No, My wants and needs are just as valid as someone who has kids. The problem is that I'm not trying to restrict their wants and needs, and they are trying to restrict mine. Also, I have no idea where you shop, but everwhere i've gone to Video Games are sold as Electronics, not between Candyland and Hi-Ho-Cherry-O. Behind glass even.
The problem is when the parents DON'T take an interest in what their kids do. Why do you think Chris Hansen has no lack of volunteers for his To Catch a Predator shows. Because of the large number of unsupervised children that the parents take no interest in. If playing 'violent' video games is the worst of your worries as a parent, you're either a lucky parent, or blind to what your child is doing.
Kai Cherry @ Feb 6th 2008 2:09PM
You don't know me, so at minimum you are reaching.
OK, so you are saying that extended exposure to violent media has NO EFECT WHATSOEVER on impressionable minds?
Is this your position? If it is, you should probably educate yourself, as this information has been widely documented and available for at least 50 years. Jackie T didn't make it up.
Do you work in the mental health field...or know someone that is a child mental health professional? No?
Hrm.
You are saying that the majority of adults that have been alive longer than yourself do NOT consider video games essentially child's playthings?
Furthermore, Jaxxx did not posit banning anything, and as per usual, like folks do on the Interwebs here, you seemed to skirt the actual issue with some notion of Games Behind Glass.
Look, while I understand your position...it is flimsy at best.
Games designed for adult exclusive use are NOT SOLD in the same way other things designed for adult exclusive are.
This is essentially the issue.
But of course, the "they wanna take my pimpsim away!!!" crowd refuses to acknowledge even this simple point, and thus, come across as crass and irresponsible.
BOTH SIDES have their points and merits. There are severe penalties for selling porn, liquor and smokes to kids.
Video Games...not so much.
See why some people have...concerns...yet? You claim to be an adult, discuss and debate the issue like one by examining the merits of both sides of the issue.
LaughingMan @ Feb 7th 2008 1:17PM
Kai. Chill. The last 3 times I bought an M rated game, I got carded, and I'm damn near 30. I get carded more often for buying a video game at Gamestop than for buying booze now. I'm not exaggerating.
I'm all for places like Gamestop being more proactive since there are a lot of kids wandering in with their parents money but not necessarily WITH their parents.
That's some ways away from the government forcing censorship of games like No More Heroes by interfering with the way the games are made.
Kai Cherry @ Feb 7th 2008 1:26PM
Ah yes...
I did not imply or infer at any point that I was a proponent of *censorship* at all.
I am curious as to why you drew that particular conclusion.
Rocketboy @ Feb 7th 2008 10:09PM
"You don't know me, so at minimum you are reaching."
Ironically enough, you don't know me either. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Are you trying to pick me up?
"OK, so you are saying that extended exposure to violent media has NO EFECT WHATSOEVER on impressionable minds?"
Not to well adjusted and properly raised 'impressionable' minds. If it did, then we would have all died out in the Bonanza inspired "Cowboys and Indian" massacre in the 60's. There are always 'bad' influences on children, regardless of the medium. The bible is FULL of violence and rape. Heck, even playing cards and dice were once considered the work of the devil. Just because it's a form of media that is finally hitting maturity does not mean it's any more dangerous than any other form of media. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can have an effect on 'Impressionable' minds.
"Is this your position? If it is, you should probably educate yourself, as this information has been widely documented and available for at least 50 years. Jackie T didn't make it up."
No, and I don't think even Thompson opponents would ever say that there's no chance ever of anything ever affecting anyone. The debate is not about that. Anyways, CAN does not mean ALWAYS DOES. Good music CAN make me want to move around, but not ALWAYS. A sunny day CAN make me want to drive fast, roll the windows down, and turn up the radio, but not ALWAYS.
"Do you work in the mental health field...or know someone that is a child mental health professional? No?"
And you accused me of making judgments against you without knowing you?
"You are saying that the majority of adults that have been alive longer than yourself do NOT consider video games essentially child's playthings?"
Again, no. Your argument that they are sold as toys and were always found in the toy section was false, unless you live in some part of the world that video games are sold in toy sections. And unless you think Diapers are toys, the fact that video games are in 'Toy Stores' does not mean anything either. I have never witnessed full fledged gaming systems past, oh, Playstation 1, sold in 'toy' departments. Yes they might be with the games/entertainment in catalogs, but in department stores, they were (to the best of my recollection) in either electronics, or back in the C=64 / Atari days, sold in seperate sections by themselves.
"Furthermore, Jaxxx did not posit banning anything, and as per usual, like folks do on the Interwebs here, you seemed to skirt the actual issue with some notion of Games Behind Glass."
Again, the 'games behind glass' was in reference to your claim that video games are sold in toy sections. Also, my comment to Jaxxx was don't worry about what I do, because I'm not going to involve your kids. Also, what about the poster who stated that they would rather not live in an area where the game was sold or played. Someone what that type of attitude isn't going to alter their life to live that dream, but expect or worse, force, everyone to act in a manner that they would like you to.
"Look, while I understand your position...it is flimsy at best."
That's a gross misstatement. You've misjudged my position. My position is that keep your hands out of my entertainment, and I will keep my entertainment away from your kids. That's flimsy?
"Games designed for adult exclusive use are NOT SOLD in the same way other things designed for adult exclusive are."
Really? I can't go to Walmart and find R rated moves mixed in the bargain bins with movies of all types? That a child has never rented or purchased an r rated move?
"This is essentially the issue."
Now you're making sense. M rated games should be kept out of the hands of kids. Where's the argument that they shouldn't be? As a matter of fact, if you actually read what I had posted, my reassurance has ALWAYS been that you worry about what's in your house, I'll worry about what's in mine.
"But of course, the "they wanna take my pimpsim away!!!" crowd refuses to acknowledge even this simple point, and thus, come across as crass and irresponsible."
Do they? Again, your 'understanding' my point is a laugh.
"BOTH SIDES have their points and merits. There are severe penalties for selling porn, liquor and smokes to kids.
Video Games...not so much."
So, video games are now on the level of porn, booze, and smokes? That's a great analogy. Sitting on my couch engaging in an interactive medium is the same as something to help me get my rocks off in a graphic manner, something that alters my perceptions and is addicting, and something that, well, i've never understood the appeal of smoking, but someone who does enjoy a pack of cigs, you can fill in the rest here.
Now that's flimsy and crass. How about video games are more on the level of books, movies, and audio recordings. There's really not much 'severe' penalities for letting one of those forms of media fall into 'the wrong hands'.
"See why some people have...concerns...yet? You claim to be an adult, discuss and debate the issue like one by examining the merits of both sides of the issue."
Wow, It looks like I've already done that....
Now what was it you were saying about assumptions that I was making about you?
In addition, I'm not expecting you to change your mind. Just think before you start to get all high and mighty. Just because I'm not you, does not mean that I don't have a well thought out point.
Kai Cherry @ Feb 7th 2008 11:08PM
Let's zero in riiiight...here:
I said...
"BOTH SIDES have their points and merits. There are severe penalties for selling porn, liquor and smokes to kids.
Video Games...not so much."
To which you cleverly retorted:
"So, video games are now on the level of porn, booze, and smokes? That's a great analogy. Sitting on my couch engaging in an interactive medium is the same as something to help me get my rocks off in a graphic manner, something that alters my perceptions and is addicting, and something that, well, i've never understood the appeal of smoking, but someone who does enjoy a pack of cigs, you can fill in the rest here.
Now that's flimsy and crass. How about video games are more on the level of books, movies, and audio recordings. There's really not much 'severe' penalities for letting one of those forms of media fall into 'the wrong hands'. "
Look.
You don't want some sanctimonious Bible-thumping prude types taking away you "mature" and "adult" video games? You, like many others, bang the drum that "kids should not have access to games intended for adults" but you really don't want to actually do anything about it but shift blame to "irresponsible parents"...
Sell a kid a girlie mag...an adult novel (books) or a fine, fine Blu-Ray disc from Vivid Entertainment (movies) or "Guys on Gals on Tape" (audiobook) and your ass is GOING TO JAAAAIIIIL.
You might was well throw in a fith of vodka and a carton of smokes with it because, hell you are going down anyway.
Us responsible adults like that. We're *fiiiine* with that, unless we are maladjusted.
So much for book, movies and audio "media" clearly meant for adults getting a free pass, huh?
Movin' on...
OK, so if someone sells a kid booze, something CLEARLY meant for adults...what do we as a society do...since we figured out that banning booze was a bad idea?
We add a level of risk to the mix that makes it *very undesirable* for most resellers to do so.
This is what you call a "win-win"...but the problem is there are a lot of "adults" that cannot seem to grasp the concept that the idea is for them to be responsible, too.
Go on. Sell a kid some beer. Watch your life/business and reputation go down the tubes.
You want to stop content censorship? Even the odds for the people that have the problem, that you refuse to engage.
Or they and their elected reps will craft a solution that doesn't consider your position AT ALL.
Do you get it yet?
Look, the ESRB..the "industry self-policing unit" has lost credibility in the eyes of folks outside of this little hobby, and quite frankly, many within it, because their negligence has put a LOT of people at risk.
You want to pound your chest that stuff not for kids should be kept away from them *then treat the content that way*...
Otherwise its just lip service.
But really, it doesn't even matter. The current trends are showing that that market segment is shrinking by like 50% per year. Its a self-solving problem because no one will want to invest $100 mil and two years time-to-market on something that at the current rate will only sell to 1% of the market by 2010 anyway.
For the record, I am NOT a "ban blood" person. You want the Itty Bitty Titty Committee in your games? Good on ya.
But don't hop on the net and tell me in one breathe that "mature stuff should be kept from kids...just, you know, don't punish anyone for NOT doing this" in one sentence then say "oh but its not REALLY for adults" in another one and not expect to be considered disingenuous.
Rocketboy @ Feb 8th 2008 7:20AM
Yes, let's ignore the gross majority of what I said, because that makes things hard.
Let's look at the legal reasons that we CAN put restrictions around pornography, and substances. Lets go for booze and smokes first. As they are physical, easily defined objects, it's easy to say these paticular items are of a specific nature, and theirfor are restricted. When it comes to Pornography, there's a real simple test to see if it is full fledge pornography. Any sort of genital contact that's not in a medical nature is going to be considered pornography. Anything else is a grey area, and has a tendancy to fall under 'free speech'. Take a quick gander at Edwin Meese to see an example of this in play.
Ok, are we all set with that? Good.
Now let's move on to regular movies, books, and music. All things that do not have 'severe' penaltites. What we run into here is the same issue that we run into with the 'light' pornography. It falls under free speech. When something like that happens, well, the's no real easy way to restrict access, as many ways that access is restricted is illegal. A store might refuse to sell a young gall a romance book, but if they do, nobody is going ot go to jail. Why? How do you determine the level of 'filth' that you are going to consider only for adults? And what kind of 'filth' is worse than others? What context are you going to allow it? Yes, the bible is a whipping post, but it's a prime example. There are things in the bible that would make your hair curl. But people teach the bible to small children every day. Things that were considered OK to read (like the racist references in Huckleberry Finn), but now they are considered bad. At one time comic books were considered to only be for kids, and while containing some of the most racist and sexist images you could imagine, the focus was on what type of violence was shown, and who it was against. Do you see what sort of problem that you are running into? I worked with someone who was convinced that Pokemon would turn kids into devil worship. Does that mean it was harmful to children? No, it was that one person's believe because that's what their church told them. According to that church, the game should be banned (an ultimate form of restricting access). According to most everyone else, it's a harmless game. Who should decide what is 'legal' or not. This is where being a responsible parent comes into play.
And how the ESRB ended up losing credibility is that they try to be all things to all people. They try to let people know what's in the game so you can make an informed decision. And people don't bother to read or pay attention to the warnings. That, and the overblown Hot Coffee incident. Which again brings up the point, with who's to say what's the bad thing. Being able to club people on the street for fun, or a semi-clothed mini-game where you simulate sex between consenting adults?
Arinya @ Feb 6th 2008 9:48AM
Well you can't force your preferences on others. Personally I try not to play games that are really violent or gory. I just feel odd as a pacifist to use violence as a form of entertainment. Of course what is considered "very violent" is open to interpretation. But I like having an option and this should not be considered censorship. By the way would the Euro-version of NMH work over here in the states? Just curious.
Arinya @ Feb 6th 2008 9:48AM
Well you can't force your preferences on others. Personally I try not to play games that are really violent or gory. I just feel odd as a pacifist to use violence as a form of entertainment. Of course what is considered "very violent" is open to interpretation. But I like having an option and this should not be considered censorship. By the way would the Euro-version of NMH work over here in the states? Just curious.
Arinya @ Feb 6th 2008 9:59AM
Well you can't force your preferences on others. Personally I try not to play games that are really violent or gory. I just feel odd as a pacifist to use violence as a form of entertainment. Of course what is considered "very violent" is open to interpretation. But I like having an option and this should not be considered censorship. By the way would the Euro-version of NMH work over here in the states? Just curious.
sonicinbrawl @ Feb 17th 2008 6:19PM
the esrb would rate the european version as rated T
Rocketboy @ Feb 6th 2008 1:53PM
Oh, and OH NOES! THERE'S BLOOD AND VIOLENCE IN A GAME THAT YOU PLAY AN ASSASSIN IN! WHAT'S THE WORLD COMING TO!
Sorry, even if you're an idiot who cannot understand what the ESRB rating means, read the back of the freakin box. Why, do you think that Travis Touchdown is going to 'kill them with kindness'?
Kai Cherry @ Feb 6th 2008 2:21PM
As I said...its real obvious in both vids that his foe was killed. Unkindly. Gore or no gore, you get the point.
Or are you going to debate that, too?
LaughingMan @ Feb 7th 2008 1:20PM
In my opinion, the uncensored version is vastly better. In the same way that watching a TV censored version of Kill Bill with no blood is pointless, and not to the vision of the director.
Rocketboy @ Feb 7th 2008 10:20PM
What's your point Kai? That it's much nicer that he died without blood, that it's better that his severed arms did not leak a fluid?
How about this for a mind-f**k. The large amounts of blood actually drive home the reality that you are killing someone. That although there is a laughable, over the top feeling when the television screen turns red with gory colored pixels, it also drives home the point that yes, you are killing human beings. And for what? Nothing. That gee, maybe the world that Travis Touchdown is in is really screwed up. Maybe within the context of the game, it drives home the point that violence is pointless. That thoes who drive people to kill are the biggest criminals of them all.
Naa... let's everyone dissolve in a puff of un-smoke, to reduce the human side of the characters. Heck, for all you know, you could be fighting robots. From space. Ya.. let's kill the robots from space! Yippie!
Kai Cherry @ Feb 7th 2008 11:18PM
How...old are you?
Seriously...and no, I'm not asking you for a date.
Rocketboy @ Feb 8th 2008 7:22AM
I'm old enough to realize that unless what takes place in my house does not affect what takes place in your house, why does anyone else care.
I'm old enough to make decisions for myself, and the people under my care, and not to expect a gov't agency to make the decisions for me.
I'm old enough to take responsibility for my actions.
Why, how old are you?
Ramizzle @ Mar 24th 2008 5:22AM
All this fuss about a great cult game. the idea behind a cult game is that its appreciated by some and hated by the majority. Living in Holland often makes people think about Crack, whores, windmills and the country that has a feeble harry potter for a prime minister, but even here there are social pros and cons. NMH being censored had everything to do with Manhunt and it's negative feedback. what people didn't realize is that any game by rockstar gets looked upon like that, because of the fame of their game, so to say. Suda51 wouldn't have gotten sh*t coverage if the bloody version came out here, because, well let's face it, they ain't rockstar. they didn't make postal, didn't make condemned, didn't make kill bill, didn't make Bull-*cough* carpus canem edit, didn't make Fear, turok, silent hill, or-any-over-bloody-or-super violent-game-that-ever-got-criticized-upon.
Killer 7 was a masterpiece, so is NMH. just one of the games people must've played sometime but never will. like ICO. or Sotc, or excitetruck :P
point is, there's this little thing called parental advisoty, and the ratings they give to it? yeah, that's for the parents, buying it or nor buying it for their children because of that. it's called responsibility. and you're afraid your children will buy it anyway? it's called: being interested in your children's personal life without being a spartan, so it won't hide things from you. atleast not something as trivial as a video game.
my opinion? should've put in an option like they did in the tony hawk games. And that's something i like to call:
Blood mode: on / off (parent lock) ?
I'm rooting for a sequel. Cuz damn, Silvia, you and the last piece of text in the game are contradicting each other,