"Family" game?

[Wicht]

If the demographic was going to switch, it would have already in the last 20 years. But it hasn't.

However, just from listening to these boards, I think one thing is happening with 3e though that did not happen with the other two editions. Many of us are getting our spouses to play. And too, I personally have been playing for almost 20 years, but only now am I having children that are getting old enough to want to play.

 

[RobNJ]

Originally posted by alsih2o
rend attacks?

Stay abstract, just does more damage.

See, the problem I have with this way of doing things (the rend example illustrates it pretty clearly though there are other examples from your post) is that it takes all the storytelling out of the game. It winds up being, "you have taken 3 points of damage," rather than a description of what happens in the fight. The DMG often encourages you to be more descriptive, not less, to make it more immediate and less like a video game. Personally I prefer that much more.

I think you really are losing something by going more sanatized. Also, I think that sanatizing violence is actually more harmful than showing it in all its hideous detail. Bloodless World War II films, in my opinion, fail to pay respects to the dead or to really show how horrible war is. Any time someone falls bloodlessly in a combat scene, it's being irresponsible with regard to what the real implications of violence are.

 

[RobNJ]

Hollywood produces more rated R movies than any other rating, yet that rating is the lowest in box office returns. Years ago Samuel Goldwyn (movie mogul) was asked why he didn't produce rated R movies. His reply: "I would rather sell 4 tickets than 2." The public seems to still have this philosophy.

I would like to know exactly what this data is, and what the source is.

In other words, I don't believe it. I think it's a lie. Not that you're lying, but that you were lied to.

 

[Wicht]

I would like to know exactly what this data is, and what the source is.

In other words, I don't believe it. I think it's a lie. Not that you're lying, but that you were lied to.

Despite your disbelieve it does seem to be true. Studies have consistantly born it out over the years that PG movies sell more tickets than R movies. In a recent thread on the BoVD, someone did post several links to the highest grossing box office films over the past few years and very few were rated "R."

Perhaps someone can post those links again.

 

[RobNJ]

Despite your disbelieve it does seem to be true. Studies have consistantly born it out over the years that PG movies sell more tickets than R movies. In a recent thread on the BoVD, someone did post several links to the highest grossing box office films over the past few years and very few were rated "R."

Perhaps someone can post those links again.

Well, what are we talking about? Popularity? Gross income? I'd still like to see the proof, but I could at least see that being possible.

If instead the arguement is that increasingly adult content invariably leads to a loss in profitability, I don't believe that would be the case, if one accounts for the semi-legal marginalization of audience (MPAA ratings, TV ratings/standards & practices), etc.

Nevertheless, I would like to see any proof there is on this.

 

[barsoomcore]

Nevertheless, I would like to see any proof there is on this.

Go to Box Office Mojo and you can see stats on most films of the past few years.

Certainly the truth is that the top grossers of all time are almost invariably PG-rated. Not G-rated, mind you, but also not R-rated. PG is NOT a "family" rating. G is for all ages -- PG is not recommended for little children, and certainly I don't know that a film like, say Titanic, is appropriate for five-year-olds.

The other thing worth pointing out is that with very few exceptions, the top-grossing films of all time are also notable for being among the most expensive films of their times. It costs a lot of money to make that much money, and the list of films that spent similar amounts and failed to make it back is MUCH longer. Targetting the broad audience is risky because it requires a larger investment (in marketing and distribution, if nothing else), and the chance of making that big payoff is not always a good one.

More careful targetting DOES lead to lower risk -- though with the downside of a lower highest possible return. So an R-rated action picture, while it might have very little chance at making as much as Titanic, has a much better chance at making a profit. Because the picture is more tightly targetted, you have a much better idea of what your return is likely to be, and can manage your production to meet a well-predicted budget with greater confidence of profit than a broadly-targetted film will provide.

The same holds true with gaming products -- yeah, sure, Hasbro might make the MOST money with an approach that offends no one and appeals to EVERYONE, but is it the smartest play? Not necessarily. It contains much higher risk -- the risk that they may have miscalculated the entire market and are thus overselling the product -- spending more than the market will ever be able to provide. In that case, it makes sense for them to focus their market a bit, toss out some segments in favour of a tighter, more predictably profitable market.

I don't have any market data so I can't speculate (well I could, but even for me that's pretty self-important) but I hope that makes it clear that there are good reasons for either approach, both in the film industry and in the gaming industry. It's a question of risk versus returns.

 

[Wicht]

Well, what are we talking about? Popularity? Gross income?

IMO popularity of films and gross income are often related.

Taking a gander at the
Top World-Wide Box office movies of all time reveals that indeed, most of the top films are not rated "R." I may be mistaken but I believe you have to go all the way to #23 (Terminator II) before you get to a movie that is rated "R."