What if Generals 2 had a incresed rating to ESRB 17/PEGI 18

[Plrsvek]

I played the first C&C games when I was like 8 years old, I always liked how they appealed to the masses. Just have a great and easy gameplay, thats all.

I don't mind getting an increased rating trough.

[Plasticz]

I don't think an 18+ rating is necessary for a good game. It just limits the potential sales of the game. I think teens should be able to play this game.

(And before you ask, I'm 18.)

[Zarmageddon]

You wouldn't really see ESRB 17 or PEGI 18 on a video game unless it has a ridiculous amount of gore, or sexual content. Victory can make the game as dark as it can get, and I don't think it'll be rated 18+.

[CyborgBanana]

I don't think an +18 age rating is required for Generals 2. It's not like the player is controlling a man going around New York shooting police and running down innocent people, or a soldier blowing-off alien heads.

The player is a general of an army with mostly fictional weapons, and going by how much blood and gore is in recent C&C games, it won't require a higher age rating.

[Palmpilot]

The rating is not a big deal to us older players that have been playing the C&C series since 1995 (when I was 35) - one thing our generation will not tolerate is games with an agenda (& higher rating) in terms of promoting alternative lifestyles - i.e. the Gay/Lesbian characters. I want to play a game for entertainment and not be subject to a political correct agenda which also includes global warming. EA needs to focus on producing another great game and leave our personal sexual preferences private. Also, the day EA puts a game exclusively on Steam is the day I stop purchasing EA games. My generation was not educated under the current socialist government schools for the past decade so we value our rights in everything we OWN - including my computer/software (Origin is pushing the limit/ Steam has crossed over it!). Ratings should reflect violence, gore, language, & nudity (if it’s truly needed) only – not a political agenda.

[Commander32]

I don't think an 18+ rating is necessary for a good game. It just limits the potential sales of the game. I think teens should be able to play this game.

(And before you ask, I'm 18.)

Yeap, a good name is not all about the violence and other graphic content, its about the acually performance of the game and if it can appeal to the masses.

[CNCGeek101]

Today, it doesn't matter what the rating is. Parents will still buy the Mature rated games for their kids and BFBC2, BF3 and COD games are living proof of that.

[Prestb_97]

I don't see what's so bad about 10 year olds playing Generals 1/2. I played the first one since I was about 7 if that...luckily I didn't know how to play online back then. Which brings me to this, as long as little kids who play this game don't know how to get online, then we're fine. Teens like my self though...well, that's a whole different story I suppose.

Back to topic, it'd be interesting to see some blood, but no gore. As much as I support 'realism,' it just isn't the same style that Generals was back in '04. And I mean gore like arms flying off and such (with the exceptions of suicide bombers perhaps), but it would be pretty awesome to see someone literally melt away from toxic tractors and such.

[ConKid66]

You guys are to be aware some countries(Australia, Germany for example) ban people from playing 'mature' games so its sure to hurt sales overall... :/

Actually, Australia now has an 18+ rating, so we should be fine.

[Plasticz]

Actually, Australia now has an 18+ rating, so we should be fine.

Yeah, but an R-rated (Australia's 18+) RTS just doesn't seem to make sense to me. RTS games are not that popular anymore as it is, let alone limiting the market.