South Park Game Censored On Consoles Outside North America 221
RogueyWon writes "South Park has long been vocal in its opposition to media censorship from any source, launching scathing attacks on everything from 'think of the children' moral crusades to the censorship of religious imagery. In a curious twist, therefore, Ubisoft, the publisher of the upcoming video game South Park: The Stick of Truth, has decided to censor certain scenes from the game's Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 versions from release in Europe, Australia, the Middle East and Africa. American versions, as well as the European PC release, so far appear to have escaped the censor's pen."
Damnit Australia (Score:2)
I dare say that it's a result of Ubisoft lazily deciding to produce and test only a single version for the quote-unquote international market, and having to meet the lowest-common-denominator levels of creative expression permitted in the Middle-Eastern and Australian regimes.
not their fault (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if a publisher "removes" content from a game, that he himself is publishing, without any legal interferrence from a government or more precisely law or court, then it is not censorship, but his own decission, for whatever reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
You mix up 'The Censor', the person doing it, with the law making him do so. ... pretty simple.
Without a law or institution enforcing censorship, there is no Censor and/or censoring
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, is your english that bad?
You cited from Merriam-Webster what a "censor" is, not what "censorship" is.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you want to define it like this. That is your problem.
Half of the world however will disagree, especially that half that was oppressed the last 50-75 years and suffered gravely under censorship.
If at all you can argue that media outlet or and individual is performing self censoring/censorship. However self censoring is not the same as censoring.
Finally: I don't realy care what wikipedia writes, it is mostly half wrong ;) E.g. check the article about fiat money ...
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to google yourself or stay ignorant.
We are here in an "international" forum. Your narrow minded US standpoint is only: narrow mined.
Which simply means: it is not the universal truth.
If you want to define Censoring like you do, fine :D
We here define it different.
Re:Damnit Australia (Score:5, Funny)
The Middle-Eastern version will just be a character sitting around in a empty room, sipping tea. And several imams will STILL condemn it as blasphemous.
Re: (Score:3)
Tea is a symbol of the imperialist British empire.
Re: (Score:2)
Tea is a symbol of the imperialist British empire.
That must be why it's so popular in Ireland.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you sure that the US release wasn't also censored in some way?
Here's how it works: US companies submit their games to US ratings boards FIRST, then they remove shit the US censors don't like, and once the US censors approve it, they sent it to ratings boards in other countries, who sometimes remove OTHER stuff.
However, we, the consumers, never see the ORIGINAL version before the US censors make their cuts, because the game companies don't bother trying to put those things in non-US versions.
When the Australian classification board said no to a few things in Saints Row IV, a big fuss was made, but Volition have mentioned in the past that US ratings board said no to a few things, and there was no outcry.
From this, we learn: People are fine with censorship in the USA, but if it's allowed in the USA it should be allowed everywhere.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, what we learn from this is that you are an idiot. Modifiying your own work to meet your business goals (get the rating you want) is not censorship, no matter how you try to spin it. Having to modify a work because some of the content is illegal is censorship.
I have no idea if they modified the other version because of laws (censorship) or because of business reasons (not censorship), but your 'lesson' is beyond idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
But is modifying it because "it won't be carried on store shelves because it's rated X" a business reason or a censorship reason?
Businesses aren't the government and therefore what they do technically isn't censorship. But what else do you call refusing to sell a creative work based on the offensiveness of its content?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not the original meaning. (OTOH, the original censor was a Roman governmental official. Later it was a Papal office. Other governments came later, and were named by analogy to the church office.)
Re: (Score:2)
So the well-established phrase "self-censorship" (and the valid concept it expresses) either (A) doesn't actually exist, or (B) is used by experts in the fields of self-expression rights and chilling effects because they're dumber than you, Anonymous Coward.
Riiiiight.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
/sigh
Here's how it works: US companies
Like Ubisoft?
submit their games to US ratings boards
The ESRB is a private industry group, and participation is entirely voluntary.
then they remove shit the US censors don't like
The ESRB doesn't care one way or the other. The "American" publishers tend to seek to avoid an AO ("Adults Only") rating, for marketing reasons, and will try to bring things down to an M ("Mature") rating so that certain big-name retailers will consent to carry the game. But games that get an AO rating are certainly free to keep that rating and have been published in the past, and publishers are free to skip the rating process entirely (e.g. I've seen more than a few localized Japanese H-games that don't bother formalizing the AO rating they'd obviously get).
However, we, the consumers, never see the ORIGINAL version before the US censors make their cuts, because the game companies don't bother trying to put those things in non-US versions.
Publishers don't sell an "unrated" version of a particular game in North America (ESRB includes Canada) because they know that not enough customers will go out of their way to find retail channels that will carry AO/unrated games to make the the prospect financially viable. Conversely, publishers don't sell an "unrated" version of a particular game in Germany or Australia because it would be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't make shit up.
Also games can sell without ESRB raitings (Score:2)
There have been a few games I've seen that didn't bother with the ESRB, they just got a PEGI rating and that keeps the retailers happy. Civ 4 was such a title. No ESRB rating, even in the US, just PEGI. Kept Target, BestBuy, etc happy. Retailers don't seem to be that fussy about the rating system used, they just seem to want one. So supposing the ESRB were being dicks, but PEGI was being reasonable, a company could use the PEGI rating instead and that would work just fine in the US.
Of course on the PC side
Re: (Score:3)
You are confusing the MPAA with the ESRB.
In any case, this game is rated "M" - anything goes.
Technically, none of this (even the MPAA) is censorship to begin with, because none of these entities are government related (at least in the U.S.) - the reason the studios have their films rated by the MPAA is because of commercial considerations (many theaters refuse to show unrated or even NC-17 films), same as the ESRB (the latter being so inconsequential that no chain or store I know of refuses to stock M-
Console qualifications; crucifixes (Score:2)
here is a difference between 'remove this content or you'll get an M/T/AO rating' and 'remove this content or we will outlaw your product.'
If a product is not censored down to M or lower, then Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony Computer Entertainment will outlaw it. Console makers don't want AO games on their platforms, and national legislation implementing the WIPO Copyright Treaty outlaws going around the console game vetting process.
Bethesda got in trouble with the ESRB for omitting a graphically wounded hanging corpse when submitting Oblivion for review.
I'd bet a lot of films submitted to MPAA and video games submitted to ESRB fail to declare the same thing, especially given the habit of displaying an image of Jesus of Nazareth nailed to a cross among members of cer
back that up a step (Score:2)
1. Be anti-censorship and control
2. Have Ubisoft make your game
I take it EA Games was busy that day? What the actual fuck were they thinking?
Think of the children... (Score:2)
They censored a game because of content? Ug, "think of the children."
The children now deprived...
Abortion reference a problem? (Score:2)
In Canada I can see it being "hate speech" (Score:2)
We all know how envious South Park is of Canada.
Successful Slashvertisement. (Score:2)
I'll have to watch an episode of South Park all the way through though. The couple I've seen bits of are funny enough for that to possibly be worth the effort.
will it be available on Wii? That might encourage me to actually use the thing.
I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything to incite civil unrest against a group of people(no, the government doesn't count) and lies to discredit people.
That pretty much means NO criticisms against religion - especially Islam.
The things that are done in this World in the name of [insert religion - including Buddhists ] is appalling. The religious fundamentalists, unwilling and unable to adjust to the modern World, are bullying everyone else with violence, lobbying and other political maneuvering and outright lies - like Creation Museums.
There's a point when you just have to stand up to the bully. Those people need to be told - shouted down - that they are backwards, full of shit, and if they are going to live among us, they need to STFU.
Or compromise like the Amish do in the US. I highly respect those folks. They stick to their values, they don't try to force them on others, and they found a way to live peacefully and well with the modern World.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if he's serious, but it *is* worth remembering that very few people have bothered to actually look at what the creationists are presenting as evidence. I haven't, for example.
OTOH, it's also worth remembering that few people have actually looked at the evidence that the evolutionary folk have presented. There's too much of it.
Re: (Score:2)
... it *is* worth remembering that very few people have bothered to actually look at what the creationists are presenting as evidence.
I've tried, but all too often I cringe when confronted with circular arguments and the dreaded square brackets [to emphasize what was really meant] in a passage, so as to prove something - the Quran Project did exactly this in an advert in our local newspaper, it was littered with square brackets where the publicists had filled in what the prophets had "really meant" but clearly felt didn't need to be described unambiguously at the time of writing.
As for the Creation Museum, they have displays showing dino
Where does TFA mention religion? (Score:2, Informative)
Per TFA the game is being stripped of two abortions and five anal probes, allegedly to gain access to the German market. Have no idea where your rant on religion has its basis.
Re: (Score:2)
The things that are done in this World in the name of [insert religion - including Buddhists ] is appalling.
Do you have any sources on horrible things done in the name of Buddhism? I'm not denying anything, but I'm not aware of anything either. Just looking to learn something.
Re: (Score:2)
Myanmar. 'Nuff said. Look it up. The Buddhist right wing clergy are being assholes.
That's disingenuous. Those assholes are dressing up as monks for fun and for profit, not "in the name of Buddhism" (even if that's what they say), and despite the great incentives in that country for assholes to dress up as monks, many of those monks are genuine Buddhists.
Despite Buddhisms many wrong notions (like reincarnation), meditation is immensely powerful. It's like martial arts for your brain. It significantly improves concentration, focus and clarity as well as being a tool that can readily create
Re: (Score:2)
Despite Buddhisms many wrong notions (like reincarnation)
We do not know that, and neither do you. We live in a mystery in that regard. All we can do if we want to be truthful is admit we don't know what happens after death. We simply don't know. That's the truth
There's lots of evidence that thinking and consciousness require a functioning brain, therefore it is reasonable to believe that you cease to exist if your brain decomposes. At this point, if you want to believe in an afterlife, you need to propose a mechanism for transmigration. The wikipedia page on Bardo [wikipedia.org] says "The intermediate being ...existence is demonstrated by the fact that it cannot have any discontinuity in time and space between the place and moment of death and those of rebirth, and therefore it
Well. you should keep in mind (Score:2)
Well. you should keep in mind this is THEIR world. The various flavors of religious folk do outnumber us all across the planet. Maybe we should be grateful that at least they still let us live here. Well.. most of them do.. for now anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the episode on Muhammed get censored?
AFAIK there's been no specific episode 'about Muhammad', but he's appeared in a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
You can criticize any religion except Islam or Judaism.
Because South Park never pokes fun at Judaism....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I disagree (Score:5, Informative)
or scientology
Not true, South Park have poked fun at Scientology more than once. Example: http://www.southparkstudios.co... [southparkstudios.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And lost a cast member over it (Isaac Hayes [spscriptorium.com]). They Parker and Stone say "no sacred cows," they mean it.
Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (Score:5, Funny)
Those should be disallowed.
And also, Canada, whose citizens I irrationally blame for this entire mess! Especially you, Scott!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
sounds like a real dick to me
Re: (Score:2)
Hate speech should be protected. Inciting a riot, ill give you that one.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that the mere innocent mention of certain Prophets can incite a riot, I don't think even that is a good criterion.
Doing otherwise gives the most irrational types a trump card on what constitutes free speech.
Brett
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, the threatened riots(and death threats) with regard to South Park and said prophet were by a trolling organization dedicated to making American Muslims look bad. I don't doubt that there would have been some very angry people over it, but the cited reason Comedy Central actually pulled the segment was internet trolls. It's like if we took AC posters on slashdot seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Its about intentionally setting the crowd off down the road with a command to go riot. If people choose to riot on their own after a speech, no matter how heated it may be, well, that is the way it goes.
Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (Score:5, Insightful)
Inciting a riot, ill give you that one.
Wouldn't it be better to make rioting illegal, rather than speaking?
Contributory rioting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "inciting to riot," and yes, it's been a crime for decades. Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you use garbage as an analogy?
For one thing, in what way do you consider Sony v. Universal garbage? For another, alleged garbage is the law of the land.
Perhaps people should take responsibility for their own actions
Perhaps it's about protecting the public from people who would have reasonable grounds to plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect [wikipedia.org].
Incitement (Score:2)
in what way do you consider Sony v. Universal garbage?
You'll find that I disagree with many laws and do not think laws are necessarily moral.
So on what grounds do you disagree with the reasoning applied in MGM v. Grokster and other cases that establish an "inducement" or "incitement" legal theory?
Perhaps it's about protecting the public from people who [could plead insanity]
That makes no sense to the topic at hand, which is about free speech.
I was referring to riot-related speech restriction. Let me reword it to tie it into the topic: Some people might not construe free speech to cover knowingly speaking in such a manner as to incite undiagnosed insane people within earshot to riot.
Re: (Score:2)
Your not allowed to say anything that would set off a crazy person.
Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (Score:4, Insightful)
Inciting a riot, ill give you that one.
Wouldn't it be better to make rioting illegal, rather than speaking?
Encouraging people to commit a crime is also, generally, a crime. Speaking with the intent to cause a riot? Criminal. Speech that happens incidentally to cause a riot? Not criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to even debate this -- this is a pretty fundamental disagreement in ethics.
If A should be a crime, then intentionally trying to cause A to happen should be a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you incite a riot without physically assaulting someone?
Draw a cartoon of the Prophet, of course!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/19/muhammadcartoons.ameliahill [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Some speech poses a clear and present danger of violence, when you have the attention of an angry crown. "That one over there, he don't look right to me, get him up against the wall!" Specific calls for immediate violence against available targets are really the only place where "prior restraint" makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about blame, it's about responsibility. When you can avoid people being killed by choosing a better time, place, or manner in making your point, that's a reasonable expectation. Conspiracy to commit murder is certainly a crime, and it doesn't matter whether it a friend or stranger that you convince to murder someone you don't like, it's still quite reasonable that it's illegal.
We're not talking about publication and censorship here. We're talking about telling people directly to go kill someone
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really saying that "conspiracy to commit murder" should be legal? That if I convince my friend to kill you on my behalf, as long as he does the actually killing then I'm just "exercising free speech"?
Again, this isn't about publication and censorship, it's about something far more direct.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really saying that "conspiracy to commit murder" should be legal? That if I convince my friend to kill you on my behalf, as long as he does the actually killing then I'm just "exercising free speech"?
Yes. The murderer is at fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, really, not both? Well, I've never heard of a legal tradition that worked that way. Sounds iffy to me. I like the idea that the rich aren't just paying people full time to murder everyone who annoys them (hmmm, when I put it that way, I guess that's feudalism, so it has been tried!).
Re: (Score:3)
Is where you lose your logic. Just because the world has unreasonable people that I know will react violently to the truth, does not mean I have to shut up.
For example: It might be unwise to tell a Russian that the best evidence has Vodka being invented in Poland but it should not be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I've never heard of a legal tradition that worked that way.
You'll find that I have a mind of my own and am not a slave to legal traditions.
I like the idea that the rich aren't just paying people full time to murder everyone who annoys them
Since when is giving money to someone speech? I don't consider it so. Just asking someone to murder someone would be speech, though.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fighting words" are one of the specific exceptions to free speech in US law. It doesn't come up much these days, because people are more restrained, but it used to be a big deal. Saying something that "everyone knows" will provoke violence means, legally, you started the fight, even though the other guy threw the first punch.
You also don't have the right to speak though a bullhorn outside your neighbor's window at 2 AM. It's not the content of the speech, it's the time, place, and manner.
Again again, th
Re: (Score:2)
There are Russians who would consider anything critical of Vodka or implying a non Russian origin for Vodka fighting words. I'm surprised one hasn't spoken up.
No court would buy it.
'Fighting words' don't come up so much anymore, not because people are more restrained, but because it's recognized that the 'fighting word' doctrine only protected popular opinion.
Otherwise anything critical of Islam would already make the speaker vulnerable to a legal ass kicking.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you trying to do here? You're not going to convince me of anything, as I believe in absolute free speech.
In any case, let's talk about what's inside the deepest reaches of your bare undies...
Re: (Score:2)
...direct speech -> violence...
There is no such thing! There is ALWAYS a man in the middle. The man who acts, and only the man who acts is solely responsible for his actions. "Following orders" is no excuse. You either control yourself or you don't. The law exists only as political expediency to protect authority.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is giving money to someone speech?
Giving it is okay. Taking it is the crime. The sinner is Eve, not the serpent :-)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're really in support of all those cases? Can't tell if you're trolling, but man, you should be.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's really not what "inciting to violence" is. I think people who object to the restriction are imagining cases where the law simply doesn't apply.
Re: (Score:2)
"Giving orders" is still a war crime, though, right? RIght?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, that's the Penny Arcade game, not the South Park game (the Mime Pope is an important boss fight in that game).
Re: (Score:2)
Inciting to riot is basically a conspiracy charge, however it's a special one because it's being done in public and so violence could theoretically be prevented by law enforcement in some cases (though in practice I doubt it).
Re: (Score:2)
No thanks. That just places political power in the hands of the first group willing to turn to violence or foment some sort of insurrection to get their way.
Your taking offense at something is entirely your problem. Not mine.
Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (Score:4, Insightful)
Anything to incite civil unrest against a group of people(no, the government doesn't count) and lies to discredit people.
Those should be disallowed.
Anything else should be free game.
The problem with that standard is that it gives anyone who chooses to act "incited" the power to censor anyone else.
That leads to a bad situation... (Score:2)
What you describe is political correctness. Where does it stop? Each one of us is a member in various groups of people: male/female, some race(s), social level, fitness level, etc.
PC is very bad for society because it stifles freedom of speech by creating polarised taboos. They're polarised in that, for any given topic, some people (usually the perceived underdogs) are allowed to speak negatively while others are not, regardless of the truth. Ironically, although PC tries to appear anti-bigotry, it is i
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Censorship is typically used by the powerful to maintain their power. This is no different in a democracy -- the power hungry simply jump through an additional hoop of stirring up many people to join in the censorship. These people happily re-elect said censor.
If this does not highlight the difference between freedom and democracy for those of you who think mass approval is the necessary and sufficient, indeed only, justification for wielding power, I don't know what will.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, WTF are you talking about?
I'm sure you can find the article if you look for it - I can't recall where it was at the moment - but this has all been known for many months and the publishers explained it at length. It's not "censorship", it's localization. Particularly when a private company is doing it on a consumer product.
The article went into each country and why they did it. And the graphic nature of the game was shocking even to me, who watches Game of Thrones and True Blood, LOL. Like, mini
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Dont like the laws, move
How? It's usually a crime to enter any country but the one in which you were born.
and/or get them changed
How would someone ineligible to run for office go about getting a law changed?
Re: (Score:2)
1. Don't like law
2. move and/or get them changed.
3. Reform!!
Re: (Score:2)
If you had any reading comprehension at all, i did say 'move' was an option. That would imply you move to where you dont disagree with the law. ( or in your case, your parents rules )
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody's blaming Germany, but the nature of the content that was actually cut might imply that the cause is elsewhere. Not that I want for a moment to excuse Germany's censorship policies, which are ludicrous.
But the cut content is basically - anal probe aside - mostly abortion related. The EU still contains some very, very Catholic countries. In Spain in particular, it's a real no-go topic. Also in the Republic of Ireland and Poland to some degree (though less so there than it would have been a couple o
Re: (Score:2)
What I want to know is why German gamers and other younger people (who are presumably sick and tired of getting censored versions of games and other media with e.g. robots replacing humans or e.g. suicide bombers who "run away" instead of blowing themselves up) aren't rising up and using some sort of political influence/lobbying/petitioning/etc to get the censorship crap removed...
It worked in Australia and got the government to change the laws on video game censorship and classification with the addition o
Re: (Score:2)
The general rule is that EU censors couldn't care much about sex, but will grow very concerned about violent content. The US censors are the other way around - violence is rarely any type of problem, but even a hint of sex can invoke their ire.
The GTA Hot Coffee incident is a good example. Glorification of gang culture, player characters committing and rewarded for violent crime, gun fights, car theft, mowing down pedestrians for extra points and shooting police officers? That's all just harmless fantasy. B
Re:what the *beep* (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, we're generally much more prone to censorship here in Europe. Many of the countries in the EU have hang-ups on particular issues for historical reasons (eg. Germany on Nazi imagery and violence, France on the use of other languages). Many countries are also developing exciting new hang-ups and things they can censor, driven mainly by the three prongs of the Islamic far-right (pushing hard for new blasphemy laws), the authoritarian left (in thrall to both multiculturalism and radical feminism, both of which depend upon censorship) and an overbearing security culture (well... see pretty much 50% of slashdot's front page stories). And the general approach taken by the EU is to adopt the most draconian elements of each member nation's policies. If we get through the next German presidency of the EU without its ridiculous censorship standards being forced on the whole of Europe, we shall be extremely lucky.
Individuals and corporates in the US certainly practice self-censorship. But you are much more likely to encounter state-censorship in Europe - and it's getting more likely all the time.
But we're generally ok with swearing. So it's all absolutely fine.
Re:what the *beep* (Score:4, Informative)
I think you're overestimating the influence of the islamic far right in Europe while underestimating the christian far right.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about government influence, not random acts of violence.
But if you want to argue random acts of violence I think Breivik takes the cake.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We have no censorship laws in Europe ... you are mixing something up :D
Yes, I know what you mean, and that is not censor ship.
Read this field letter a soldier might write home to his wive:
Dear Anabella,
I'm xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and so far all is fine. The food xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. But it is all good. My friend Sebastian xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
and his platoon in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Love you and will be home soon,
Angel
The above, that is censorship.
Or trying to publish a book in Soviet Russia o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I did not say we don't have that. (And in fact we don't have, to adults you can sell what ever game or movie you want)
I said, that censorship is something very different than our parent claimed.
Re: (Score:2)
in thrall to both multiculturalism
Multiculturalism isn't the problem; the contradiction of cultural relativity [wikipedia.org] is.
That is something many miss (Score:2)
Most censorship in the US you see is self censorship of one variety or another. Like on TV, the only thing the government steps in on is over-the-air channels. The airwaves, belonging to the public, are regulated by the government. On cable? Do what you like.
So why then do cable channels censor/regulate various things? Well they internally decide what they want to show, what they are ok with. Usually this is based around what advertisers want and what kind of audience they target. But they are welcome to ch
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear...
The point about France was regarding the fact that the country has an official regulator for its language. A regulator which has quasi-legal (though thankfully no longer legal) powers to prohibit the use of languages other than French in public communications in France.
The blasphemy laws point has been an active point of debate in many EU countries over the last few years - ever since the mohammed-cartoons controversy. There was a major debate in the UK around the Racial and Religous Hatred Act 20
Re: (Score:2)
Usually it's the US version that gets censored. I guess it's a "nudity + drugs" versus "libel and hate speech" issue.
Re: (Score:2)
"History Channel."
Maybe the aliens are behind the censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be more tasteful; but I'm not such a wimp that I can't handle the low brow stuff they need to appeal to all those people who barely grasp the satirical parts of it... People who probably would think Colbert is real or boring. If you get over some of your touchiness you may even find some of the vulgar elements humorous on a different level; I'm surprised when it happens and glad I decided to be open minded.
Plus people who are willing to take on social mores and norms are usually going to take on s
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Get it on PC.
Re: (Score:2)
PS3 disc based games are not region locked, same goes for PSP, Vita and PS4.