{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/9/2015 2:27:58 PM
1
Why not? Sure, it's a shooter, but there's absolutely no blood or gore, just a *poof* and the head of an enemy disappears.
No stabbing with the Hunter melee, for example, you really just punch them with your knife and it does damage. It's cartoon-ish violence, nothing graphic. Why shouldn't it be rated T?
English
-
It's not that aspect, it's the story and the missions, strikes, raids, that are too easy. The game rating is also for the complicity of the game I believe and, they watered down the whole game so younger age groups could play it (younger age gamers are also the only group that hasn't been exposed major titles as much)
-
Ah, so you mean to say that it was watered down and made less hardcore, so it would be accessible to a younger audience? Not ratings-accessible, content-accessible. That makes sense. I still think the "DLC's" being lopped off is due to Activision's influence, rather than your idea, but both make perfect sense. It could be a bit of both, Activision wanting to sell to a wider audience, and make more money.
