Electronic Arts has canceled the game that was to be played on the grounds that it was too violent, inappropriate, and offensive. EA was told that they couldn’t release the game due to this, and it seems to be part of a larger trend.
I have to say, this is rather disappointing news, and it seems to be coming from the same place that EA went with the game. I also wonder if EA is trying to send the message that they don’t care about game violence. Of course, I’m still waiting for the game to start making my gaming experience worse.
The game was to be released last year, but it never was. This news comes just in time, as we’re sure a lot of gamers will be very disappointed when they hear the news of their game not going forward. It feels like they want to keep the game from being released if they can, and that’s not right.
The game was to be released in early 2012, but EA cancelled it. The reason is that they wanted to wait a few more months to make sure the game received an approval from the ESRB, the US government agency that tests and reviews games to see if they are suitable for children. The ESRB told EA that the game was “too violent,” and that it would be too violent to be sold in the US. This was a huge blow to EA.
The game’s ESRB has been a controversial issue, and its controversial because of the fact that kids are buying it.
That’s a shame really. They could have been a bit more clear with their reasoning.
The ESRB is a bit of an odd duck – they’ve been involved in the controversy surrounding games like “Splatoon 2” that has resulted in the US government banning the game from the US for a period of time. Their reasoning was that some of the game’s violence was too violent for the kids to buy. Even the ESRB has said that they “fear for the safety of children” by banning a game that has already been banned in the US.
Their reasoning is pretty standard: games can be violent, but you shouldn’t play a game that you think is so violent, as kids will just be afraid of the game and the violence in it. The real problem is that ESRB’s definition of violent varies wildly, and they only have a very narrow definition of what constitutes violent.
In fact, the ESRB has ruled that games are not violent if they use “force, bodily injury, or threat of death.” That doesn’t mean that it’s not violent to kill someone, but it is not a violent game because it does not use force.
Games are not violent because they use force, bodily injury, or threat of death. In the case of ESRB, what happens is that ESRBs definition of violent varies wildly, and they only have a very narrow definition of what constitutes violent. In fact, the ESRB has ruled that games are not violent if they use force, bodily injury, or threat of death.
