everyone should be able to shoot everything.
 

don't ye guys agree that its unfair that we cant shoot navy and eitc, and our enemy's cant shoot us? don't you guys agree this should be lifted? i cant believe that they said it was part of the pirates code. that's so cheap, especially when you see pirates shoot enemy's and they shoot pirates like 24/7. if they are worried about little kids and violence, how come they lets us burn then, curse them, slice them, make them explode, etc. navy guys don't even use their guns, just their bayonets. worried about how they will see their avatar get shot? well, us pirates get sliced, exploded, what ever you want to call what rages ghost do, impaled, and burned and cursed and whatever. WHY did they not let us shoot things, and let us get shot? its so freaking cheap! this has just drove people away from the game. who's with me?

While I agree with you that it really doesn't make logical sense.... can you explain to me how it has driven people away from the game and where you got this evidence?

It hasn't drove people away, but I believe it is a problem. I mean, kids can play Grand Theft Auto, but not shoot sailors. I don't get it.

Would be interesting....And graphic in a way.

well... if you go to a lvl 23281736276382547234765237657235472354752374527354 72635472374652365472653476237465237654273654723654 76523475623745237542736547265342345273654273654723 65427354762374652763457236547263547263547652734652 3765472534765234652736426390
and use a lvl 1 pistol, wouldnt that navy guy die? xP

Swordshot beat me to it XD.

Honestly, I think there are two reasons behind us not being able to shoot them.

First off, if they allowed us to shoot the Navy, I'm fairly certain the game's rating would be kicked up to T, maybe M.

Secondly, how many shots can a human being take from a gun, assuming it hits them straight in the chest? No more than 2, I'm sure.

M? T? I doubt it. I can imagine T, but doubt it. No blood or really graphic details should keep it E. And also, how many hacks from a sword or explosions or attacks from skulls on fire can a human being take? I'm guessing a lot less than it does in POTCO.

the action of shooting a human like character...has more emotion and realism to it...than the other things. So yeah, it should stay the way it is....no shooting navy or eict.

they carry bayonets u should be able to shoot navys!

not sure about eitc

Skeletons are humans, just bone. Same thing with Tormentans. :P

every thing hould be able to shoot everyone
 

well, there isn't a lot of emotion to shooting expressionless NPC. if there is, there's a lot of emotion of slicing, burning, killing NPCs.

I understand that Disney does not want to encourage us to shoot people in any case (being the family-oriented company that they are), but I agree that it makes zero sense when I can burn them, explode them, slash them, throw knives at them, etc. The message is there... but for pistol only.

1) Disney doesn't want the game to simply become a firefight free-for-all and loose their rating.

2) The code is used on the fiction side to keep the confrontations between pirates and the Navy from becoming outright war. Remember the timeline for the game is set BEFORE Beckett's War on Piracy.

Saw Jack Sparrow used a gun and SHOT someone in a video game trailer.


Video Game: Pirates of the Caribbean At world's End.
See around 0:24-0:27

Yes... but that's a separate game from POTCO, even though it's on the same subject.

Disney has prevented this from happening, for two main reasons, in my opinion. Firstly, if we could shoot everything in sight, virtually every pirate would be unstoppable. If I could load my Blunderbuss with rank 5 steel shot, run up to Neban the Silent and defeat him in three shots, heck yes I would. But that ruins the challenge, doesn't it?

Secondly, shooting in video games is already a very, very, VERY controversial thing. If you don't think that game companies have to deal with dozens of complaints that their kids have become "more violent than usual" because of a game, oh how wrong you are. In some cases, things may escalate to local... then regional.. and sooner or later, NATIONAL attention. Then here come the lawsuits, lawsuits backed up by other lawsuits, and continuous amounts of money being lost by that game company.

I don't know if any of you remember the incident that went on with the Grand Theft Auto games a while back, but rest assured, Disney will take no chances in letting anything relatively close to that happening in their realm of ultra happiness. If, forbid it, that anything occurs with a gun involved, and that kid just so happens to play a game that now allows you to shoot everything, made by Disney... the media will have a field day.

Yes you can. But please remind me when you knew somebody who has a cutlass that can shoot lightning, or a pack full of grenades.

I guess you're right, but I only really "agree" with the very last part. One thing I do CONSTANTLY tell people when they complain about violence in video games is this: DON'T BUY YOUR KID A GAME RATED "M"! Especially if it is called something like Grand Theft Auto, or has armed men on the cover. GTA in particular, event though kids don't play it THAT much (At least multiplayer...) and the Call of Duty series especially. Every time I play a match on CoD, I hear young voices. I can usually "guesstimate" them between 10-13. That's not to say that older, more mature players DON'T play, because the majority of them are mature. I constantly hear adults complaining about violence on TV and movies and games, but a solution is to stop sitting around and watching them play it and DO something about it if it bothers someone enough. Catch my drift?

EDIT: Sorry if it seems hostile, I was just bringing up a point.

I got an idea. how about we give guns a huge advantage at long range, but make them suck at close range, and make them more inaccurate, because the whole point of a gun is to shoot them before they get close. this would remove any huge advantage of having a gun, plus our enemy's have guns to.

I dont know what you guys are saying about the violence affecting kids minds. there would be no gore, plus if we have maul them with our other weapons, why cant we use guns to? if is a pirate game, well duh there is going to be shooting and violence. thats what pirates do. its not our fault that some parent would let a 5 year old play a E 10+ game, so why should we suffer, for lack of a better word.

Because this is Disney, and Disney does not make video games that are too violent. People in the real world that you and I live in use guns, and shoot people. Shooting people is bad. If DISNEY has a game where you can shoot people, that sends a bad message. They are a company more directed to children, even though there are adult players. Just because a bunch of teens and/or adults want us to be able to use guns, doesn't mean they should allow it. Using guns will make parents complain, I'm sure. Thats my 2 cents.

every thing hould be able to shoot everyone
 

But my point is, we are allowed to slice them, impale them, burn them, curse them, explode them, and on and on and on, but we cant shoot them. if they dont want to game to be violent, why did they make rage ghost, who can kill masses of players?

I don't think anybody has a voodoo doll that can burn people.... or a grenade just lying around...

What I'm saying is is that the pistol is a realistic and real life scenario, D does NOT want to be sued for having players being able to shoot people and having that action influence real life actions.

And Davy's point is that shooting is realistic. Sure, while you can go out there and buy a sword or something and go hacking away at people with it, it is not common. Grenades? You're not going to find those very easily either. A voodoo doll and a staff? Please, I don't think many of us are going down to New Orleans to find one of those and throw fire at our enemies, which, in the voodoo we have in this world, is completely far fetched. It's different than finding Daddy's hunting gun and thinking, 'Hey! I've used this on Pirates! I know how to use this!' and then causing an accident. That is why we don't shoot people. They're being proactive.

They can't be sued, just so you know.

There are policies set in place so that consumers can't sue for actions they think were caused by playing a video game.

There are thousands of violent video games out there today, and every once in a while some weirdo will do something in real life that they did in the game. Can they sue? No, because it's them doing the crime, not the game. That's why there are ratings put on games, to keep people from being influenced by games. That's why game makers strongly encourage parents not to buy M rated games for a six year old boy, because he's not mature enough yet to understand that what you do in a game is not something you do in real life.

Anyways, simply put, POTCO doesn't need gore. We don't need to see navy getting shoot, besides, in the movies there's the pirate code where navy and pirates won't shoot each other. If you haven't seen the movies, then it's confusing to you, but if it'si n the movies, I understand why it's in the game, too.

You know, to tell the truth I don't exactly mind not being able to shoot them. It never bothers me. Only time the code ever bothers me is during a Muertos Moon, when I'm undead and wanting to shoot a living guy. Otherwise it doesn't bother me

its pretty simple
1 a sword who has one of those laying around in reach of children
2 dagger dangerous everyone has knives in the kitchen but looks to difficult to do so not replicated as often for that reason
3 voodoo doll you can get one but it doesn't do anything
4 grenade very hard to get
5 same as voodoo doll
6 gun found in many houses seams easy to replicate easy to get very easy for it to get out of hand in reach of small children or (in the case of handguns) it would have no purpose
so u can see shooting the undead thats nothing they aren't alive not something someone would replicate also the trailer lied many times ignore it.

^You seem to be thinking of all the worst case scenarios, and that's assuming that the 'child' around these objects isn't old enough to understand right from wrong.

By ten years old, most kids know right from wrong. A game can't be held responsible for the actions someone does in real life.

every thing hould be able to shoot everyone
 

Has there even been a case where some kid has shot someone because he was playing a violent video game? i am not sure, but someone i doubt it.

Juvenile violence is at a 30 year low. Maybe violence takes too much energy? Either way, we can't shoot everything because POTCO is rated E-10. To keep that rating, gun violence is out.

E-10 allows a certain amount of mild or fantasy violence. So voodoo violence is fine. Swinging what amounts to a magic sword is OK. Same with knives. No one has been killed by lighting cannonballs lately. Grenades? I don't know how they fit in except that you can't get them at Wal-Mart. Guns are just too real.

Oddly enough, according to the ESRB, simulated gambling should earn a "T" rating.

What about daggers? people are stabbed in the back if they cant afford a gun.

I don't know about you guys but i haven't seen someone get shot with a magic 1700's gun.

No. They aren't. But I am really not arguing. Just analyzing.

I know people use knives to commit crimes as well but the numbers are very, very low in America. The truth is that shooting someone is very real and very ugly. Disney has chosen to keep the game at E-10 and to keep the "gun violence" confined to the Undead and the monsters. I have no problem with that because I know that if I want to play a shooting game, there are plenty out there.

By asking the POTCO developers to include living-on-living gun play, we are really asking them to raise the ESRB rating to "T" and that is simply not in Disney's best interest because, face it, it's a kid's game.

:th_smellie_pirate:

This may be a wee bit off topic, but I just want to take a moment to analyze what I think gets games there ratings.

First, we have EC, which stands for early childhood. I'm guessing this is stuff like Dora the Explorer and baby puzzley games and stuff.

Then we have E, for everyone! This is pretty simple. Maybe a little bit of action, but it is usually pretty animated. Overall, it is pretty clean.

E10. Everyone 10 and up. This is pretty much like E, just a little more action packed, with maybe more fighting and violence. However, it is still not too much.

T for teen. Most of the games I play are this rating. These are usually very action packet, with perhaps some blood, mild language, and realism.

M for Mature. This is extremely action packed, likely with blood and/or gore, mild/very foul language, realism, and other items that may not be appropriate to post here.

There is also Adult Only, but I won't go into that.

Right now, our game falls right on the border between E10 and T. Personally, I think it is ok at E10, because the alcohol reference is just rum, which is something that could be worse. The simulated gambling isn't too bad because we are gambling gold rather than real money. That is probably what keeps us from going up to the T rating. Now, if we added guns in, that would add to realism and violence, which would for sure kick it up to a T rating. If we were to add blood to that, it would become M, but that will never happen.

Please forgive me if I strayed from the topic a little. Also, what I define as those ratings may not be the same as what you do.

every thing hould be able to shoot everyone
 

Would it be raised to teen if you shot at someone and it looked the same as if you attack them with a sword? i mean that flash of light would be the same.

Yes, it would. Because it adds realism. Again, shooting is a reality. A kid can actually take Papa's huntin' gun and go around shooting things, but its unlikely that the family keeps a sword or voodoo staff.

This is the same logic of why hand-to-hand combat won't be added. I do fully agree with no including direct gunplay.

Many of you that are not kids are viewing this from a child point of view which i like but this game has enough safety and uninfluenced reasons of crimes which it cant be the reason why pirates cant shoot at everything. you guys are taking the shooting thing to literal. I don't expect children to go kill someone with a gun as many of you mentioned because we are allowed to use blades in this game to kill any enemy and a blade is a very common household item(knife) therefore blades should have a greated effect than guns in influencing kids but it doesnt.

The real reason why pirates cant shoot at everything is because thats how the game started and it was added as part of the pirate code. It would be nonsense to change that because its something that will change many parts of the game so in my opinion its useless to argue on whether guns should be able to human beings in pirates online because i dont think it will ever be changed.

I agree with Eliza here. Think of all the other things that could be worse, and more common than guns. Hand to hand is something everyone can do, even dogs. If they added it, the kids would think that since their pirate can do it, so can they.

thw govwnor person who opened the door in the movie got shot by a member of the black pearl!

every thing hould be able to shoot everyone
 

Eliza, the pirates code can be changed.

That is true, but thats not what we are debating. We are debating whether or not it should be changed.

Let me point this out. You say that we can slash, blow up, drown, poison, burn, and do other horrors to our Navy friends, and now you want to shoot them aye? But, why would you want to shoot them when we are already able to slash, blow up, drown, poison, burn, and do other horrors to them. Its like wanting more money when you already have a bazillion dollars. I honestly don't even think we need to. If I use my gun, I go blow up Darkhart, and I'm sure he appreciates the company.

Also, let me point this out again. A normal human being can only take one or so shots from a gun! Now, before you counter with how many slashes from a sword one can take, think of it like this. Instead of health, their HP points are more like defense power. As you continue slashing away, their defense power decreases, and then once it's low enough, you take that final slash which is the ONLY slash that actually hits them. See what I'm saying? And nobody, unless your some uber awesome speedy master ninja guy, can block a bullet, or group of bullets if your using a blunderbuss.

The Black Pearl guys were undead because they were cursed of Aztec Gold.

every thing hould be able to shoot everyone
 

Okay, i get what your saying. i think of it that way sometimes to, but i never thought of how skeletons being able to take more than one shot. thanks for posting here.

This is actually a very good debate...as we all know, there are far, far worse games out there that are incredibly brutal and violent...and what's even worse is that many parents still buy these games for their kids...yes kids... what's worse is that lil 10yr olds, etc go to mommy & daddy and say "buy me this for XBox or w/e console" and they do it because the console is the new babysitter of today...

We as adults have the knowledge to know what's right and wrong, and can distinguish fact from fiction whereas kids, even thought they should know better by now, can also still be influenced...the thing is to teach them what we already know...it's not real life, it's a game...

Now, as for this game...we've all seen the movies, we've seen that while yes it is a Big D movie there is still violence in it and yes we do see soldiers firing their bayonets at Pirates...we saw Jack Sparrow pull his gun on Will Turner, we saw Jack shoot Barbossa, heck we saw Jack's father Captain Teague shoot someone...and we saw Beckett pull a gun on Jack as well...

While the Pirate's Codex is "merely a set of guidelines", they still for the most part honor it as much as they possibly can...which is why we should honor the game as it is and not change it...we have plenty of things to shoot at with our guns...and I'm sure that if Disney ever wanted to up the level of realism then they would add it to the game...

Plus if you think about it, weapons of that time were terribly inaccurate...yet in this game we have the ability to hold steady and charge up before firing...in real life that would not be...

I think that while it would add a bit of realism to the game, for now I think we should just let it be...

Guys, the GUN part of the code thing is merely contrived convenience to keep the game from degrading into a mass shoot out.

Logic being logic, why shouldn't a group of Navy come running, muskets blazing when down one of their compatriots? Don't question the realism - ITS A GAME.

I see a lot of good points on both sides, and agree with parts of both. I am for the most part though glad we can't use guns on humans. Skeletons and Tormenta guys look enough not like humans that those are fine. Anyway, technically they only used to be human. It would add a little much realism yes. Which, I suppose is why, like others have said, there's no hand to hand combat. I'd say leave it as is. (Though I would love to see a weapon added at level 40. Off topic yeah I know lol.)

I don't agree with the people who say a game can't be sued. That's not entirely true. No, they can't bring a criminal suit against them. But so far as I know there's no reason someone couldn't file civil suit. Also, while it's not a video game but a movie, I'm sure there are those of you on here who remember the Matrix Defense? Years back someone committed a crime, and used the defense the Matrix made them do it. Yeah, there's a difference between a game and a movie. But I can guarantee there are people at Disney who remember that. I think they are covering bases by not letting us shoot people.

Speaking personally I say leave well enough alone. In the long range of the game, the ability to shoot or not is minor. Anyway, if they have to develop shooting humans into the game then they'd probably want to do reworking of quests and such to fit that, particularly the pistol quests. Something tells me they do not want to add to the pistol quest, Defeat 8 Navy Soldiers using a pistol. Besides, any development on this would take away from whatever they are currently planning. I would far rather see a story chapter than the ability to shoot Navy and Eitc. (No, it wouldn't take near as long to do the later, but that's just how I feel.)

I have heard of teenagers shooting cops, then the media connects it to them playing Grand Theft Auto... Not because they played it, but the media will have you believe that.

And are you making fun of my family? :laughks2:

I like to think of it this way, Pirates didnt have a lot of guns back then. It was a little rare to see one and the guns back then were very inacurate. There are kids on this game and kids are easly manipulated. Go watch T.V. and look how many shows have guns and people shooting each other, they are not stabbing each other with knives, so in this day and age guns are little more popular and cooler thats why they have to be "monitored". I think, even though im one for guns, Disney is doing the right thing and trying to avoid lawsuits and stuff.

Plus even in the movies you dont see blood and guts even when people get killed by the sword you dont ever see it. I dont think its a very "family fun" movie when Disney would show all those little details.

Kids are impressionable. If they have a bad memory or such, they'll be affected by it more than a good memory; if they see someone doing a bad action, they'll think it's okay to do too. It doesn't matter if it's a game, having people shooting guns at each other in a kids game is not recommended. Sure, there is some older people that play this game that may want to shoot the Navy and EITC, and younger players who also want to do that, but it just wouldn't work. Like Eliza said, the game would just become a shoot-out. This part of the "Pirate Code" has not driven players away, and if it has, then it is that player's own fault. All because you can't shoot two types of enemies, you'll quit the game? I am sure there is other games where you cannot shoot certain types of enemies - isn't this just the same thing? They have implemented it into an easy-to-understand part of the game's "Pirate Code."

Disney, no matter what you think or what statistics you have, intended this game for younger kids, because Disney's aim is to enterain and let kids have their own imagination. Of course there is adults that are entertained and follow Walt Disney's dream. But I think the team of POTCO realizes that shooting a gun is something much more realistic than stabbing someone with a sword, or attuning someone with a voodoo doll. A lot of kids these days are already rude because it is "funny," ignorant because "You're not the boss of me, I don't care how you feel," arrogant because "I'm smarter than you and there's nothing you can do to make me stop,"and violent because "how come my favorite TV show character is allowed to do it?!" All of this comes from something the kid has seen, therefore being impressioned or imprinted on.

So now, think about it. Disney tries to avoid this in every way; so why would it seem wrong to them, or in this case, us, for them to not allow us to shoot two different types of enemies, out of the many kinds there is? It is not like it is hypocritical; the Navy and EITC soldiers don't come after us with pistols, repeaters, and blunderbusses. In fact, no enemy is able to shoot a pirate. So why should we be able to shoot any enemy at all? We shoot skeletons, alligators, crabs, wasps, bats, anything of Jolly Roger's army you can think of. That's a lot of kinds of enemies. And then there is Navy soldiers and EITC soldiers. The only two types of enemies we cannot shoot with gun-based weapons. It's only two and there is a big commotion over it. I am absolutely sure you can find another game that has something similiar to this; you can't shoot a certain type of enemy. And if you think not being able to level shooting on the Navy/EITC is a problem, they have bayonets for a reason. Honestly, I think this is a great decision that the POTCO team made.

To answer this:
1. I actually do own a sword and it is in reach of children although you're right it is fairly uncommon.

2. You're right kitchen knives are the closest you're getting to the real thing.

3. Correct.

4. If your in the military, then you have used these.

5. Ditto.

6. I don't know a single person who doesn't own a gun.

Yea, guns are the only weapons that are easy to access for some people, and are more realistic. I'll go over my opinion on each weapon as well.

Sword: Not too hard to get a hold of one, as some families, including my own, own a sword. However, if you have ever tried to hold a sword, they are really, really heavy. A young child will not be able to lift it very high, let alone stab someone.

Doll: As Countainer said, you can buy them, but it won't do anything unless you throw it at someone xD

Dagger: Yes, you can use kitchen knives. However, most kids have been taught not to "play with sharp objects". Most people never tell them to never play with guns, cuz they assume they can't get them.

Grenades: Ok really, nobody owns a collection of grenades. I'm fairly certain its illegal, and even if I'm wrong, I doubt a kid would know how to use it. Again, the only way you can get grenades is by being in the military.

Staff: Ok, closest thing is a branch from the tree outside. Only thing you can do with it is go whack whack whack. No voodoo spells.

Gun: Families do own guns. Animal control, police officers, former soldiers, these people may have kids, and their gun in their closet. Easy to get a hold of, and dangerous.

Also I'd like to point out that it is extremely rare for a human being above the age of about 8 or 9 to become influenced by a video game. The reason being is that they are taught by basically everyone around them that it is virtual and not the real thing and most parents teach their kids that basically anything done in a Grand theft auto game is bad.

No, kids of EVERY age are able to be influenced by what happens around them. It happens every day, and the world shows it now. Unfortunately, a lot of parents no longer care about what their kids see, or teach them how it may be bad.

Slouyx if you see a kid that has been influenced by a video game, JUST THE VIDEO GAME, not online interactions, then please recommend them to a therapist as any person who can comprehend right from wrong will not become influenced by video games. An example for you: I play Grand Theft Auto and I know a large handful of people who do, yet we aren't stealing cars from people, talking trash, or commiting any other crimes. My conclusion is that anyone who knows that Video games are not the real world, will not be influenced by a video game. ( And kids who have game related b-day parties or wear game related Halloween costumes don't count. )

So your saying that based on how you act, you can say that your actions represent the broad majority of children?

I have met children in this game as young as 6 years old. SIX. Would you be willing to give your six-year-old child your bills and ask them to pay your taxes? Would you be willing to give them a pocket full of cash and tell them to spend it on veggies, and then walk away? Would you give your six year old a bottle of poison?

What I'm getting as, there are children out there that have NEVER been taught right from wrong, are allowed to do whatever they want, and get away without knowing consequences might exist (Supernanny scenarios don't exist just on TV.) If we let kids shoot people in game, and in turn, they are REWARDED, then what would happen?

"Hey, daddy has one of those thingys! I can go use that like the pirates!"

Not every family is a perfect little clan, where everybody is responsible and cares for each other. So, we can't treat it as such.

[/soapbox]

Why should Disney care about 6 year olds playing this game? It's rated E-10 which means if a 6 year old sees a pirate shooting a Navy soldier and their mom or dad doesn't like it and tries to sue they'd automatically lose just because of the rating saying all content is directed to people ages 10+. Most if not all 10 year olds know what happens when you shoot someone and a large amount of them have shot an animal such as a deer, duck, squirrel, etc. That being said Disney is not responsible for a 9 year old or younger seeing something bad on this game. They are only responsible for the age group of 10+.

So it's ok if an accident happens, as long as somebody under the age of 6 was involved? This isn't a matter of lawsuits, this is a matter of caring about the well being of CHILDREN.

And no, I''ve never met somebody who is under the age of 7, and gone hunting. That's a very vulnerable age to be shooting something, IMO.

P.S. I'm sorry if this seems like a direct rant, but I'm just trying to get a point across.

I'm not saying they don't care about them, I'm saying they aren't responsible for them.

So...no one under 17 has ever played GTA because of it's rating? The argument that ratings alone absolves Disney from lawsuits doesn't hold water. Even if they won a lawsuit, the damage is done.

Del's points are valid and well delivered.

But it's not Disney's fault. If the child is under the age of 10 while playing this game then it's the parents fault for anything the child sees. Also I didn't say no one under the age of 17 has played GTA, nor did I say no one under the age of 10 has played this because for one thing the ESRB ratings aren't the law, they are recomendations.

well dont you think if we would be able to use guns on navy soliders and undead, it would be easier to defeat them?

Why would it be? If a grenade can't defeat a Navy soldier in one explosion then it will take several shots to defeat them

That was my point. Very few follow the ESRB recommendations. Even if Disney isn't at fault, a lawsuit would damage their reputation.

I agree. If Disney ever got into a court case, it would look bad for them, even if they won the case. Seriously, nobody follows game ratings. I've seen 4th graders playing games that are Rated M. Now, there is something else you should look at with ratings. In my opinion, with the exception of the AO rating, they should be more based on maturity rather than age. If you can have a mature ten year old playing T rated games, then in my opinion at least, there is nothing wrong with that. On that same note, if we have some crazy, immature 15 year old playing a T rated game that may take his papa's gun out and go a shootin', thats bad.

In my opinion, if you are mature enough to handle something, then play it, otherwise you shouldn't.

Sorry, I think I strayed a bit there, just wanted to state my opinion.

This is a great point. But also it wouldn't hurt Disney's rep bad enough to make them lose any serious money. Also people do follow game ratings. No game store will sell you T rated game unless your 13 or have a parent, 17 or parent for M, and 18 or parent for AO.

Yes, or have a parent. Parents let their 4th graders have M games. Same with T. Nobody follows game ratings, at least where I live.

Also, building on that, wouldn't it take the same amount of swings of a sword to down a General or a Private?

it wouldn't kick the rating up much unless they added major blood to it, E games got violence in them most games now a days do it's commen sense now that most kids want the most violent video games

I agree with you but, the guns used in pirate days are less accurate, and powerful than today so yo may be able to take for than 2, but i do agree with you completely. (sorry if someone said this didn't read all the way through)

Not really, as the NPC is given a certain amount of health and a private would be given about 10 hp while the General is going to be given 1000.

Um why we can't shoot them is because of the code. Barbossa tells you this in the beginning.

I think POTCO could safely be T. I mean, most kids, even young ones, can play T. The only M game I play is Halo (all of them), and they could easily be T, as the aliens in Campaign give, like, blue blood, and you can hardly ever see blood in multiplayer.

Still, even with guns there is no blood. Lego Star Wars has guns, its E10.

True... but thats Lego lol. When you shoot a normal human human being and their limbs fall off, there will be blood, not lego parts sticking out.

And I have played Halo and the blood isn't that bad. Just a tiny bit when you are shot. Honestly, I've played T games that have worse animated blood. And I would agree with you about your thought of the T rating. It honestly isn't much different from E10, except it will usually be a bit more graphic.

I still; however, believe that you shouldn't be able to shoot humans. Too realistic, and it just isn't very Disney is it?

you should be able to but it will only do damage they will do no emote, just the bright flash & its done

I think that we should not be able to, it doesn't make sense....... if they are alive, it will take one shot to kill them, if it takes like 10 shots to kill them it wouldn't make any sense. The reason we can shoot the undead is because they are already dead.

Yeah, I don't think you should really shoot humans either. It's fine the way it is.

Oh yeah, many worse T games... The swearing in Halo could be an issue, but I've played Skate 2 (rated T) and there's at least twice as many swears.

[rant] The ratings RARELY stop the kid from playing them. Log on to Xbox Live or PSN, pop in GTA or RDR or CoD or Halo and listen to the voices. The average age: 13, but only because of the teenager in the lobby. But, what is in common with those games? The rating. All are rated M. The rating is just a recommendation or a warning to the parents, not a law. I bought GTA 3 at the age of 14 by myself back when it came out, despite it being rated M. Some kids can handle the violence and blood and swears, in fact, most can. It's nothing they don't see on TV or hear at school. But, the media picks out the mentally unstable teenager who shot up a high school and connects it to them playing M-rated games, despite the fact that the motive was already announced and had nothing to do with games. However, does this make buying your 8-year-old Red Dead Redemption ok? No, but it isn't as bad as it is made out to be. [/rant]

And as Davy said earlier, shooting people isn't very Disney, that's true, but then Armada of the Damned isn't much Disney is it? Company morals are situational. They tell the parents, "We care about your kids" and tell the kids and teenagers, "Check this out. Cool, huh? BUY IT." This isn't ripping on D, it's a business tactic and everyone does it. No need to get angry, it sells goods and moves our economy, but the company will still not have you believe it. It's just something to keep in mind about this issue.

i'm just say that theres shotting humans in disney's potc3 game no blood just damage still not sure where or how it will work just saying that they've done it before

Aye, but that game is rated T isn't it. ;)

I think that the POTCO team wants to keep the game rated E10.

There not that low my friend, approximately 2.5 million according to the US Census Bureau. Thats just in the U.S.A too...

I think we should ban guns here in america, if they did, people wouldn't need to worry about protecting them selves. And the murder rate would drop!

That wont fix any problem we have in America. There will still be terrorism, killings, stabbings, ect. If someone came up to you with a knife, you have to protect yourself thats why we have guns.

Uhh, lets stay away from that territory... some may consider it controversial, and its off topic from the original post.

Good point, but if someone came up to you with a knife, just get a kitchen kinfe. what i'm saying is if we ban guns, we wont have to worry about murder as much.

I'm gonna point you to a little thing called The Constitution, more specifically, the Second Amendment.

And Jello is right as well. It won't fix problems.

But back on to the original topic, it's all about what Disney wants the rating to be. Yes, kids will play games far above their rating. However, if Disney wants to draw more in, they can't have it too high, and therefore cannot let in shooting of real people.

Armada was "enough Disney" for it to be cancelled. I agree that "Company morals are situational" but Disney is pretty aggressive about protecting their properties and their image.

Cancelled, eh? I didn't know that. :P

I just saw coverage of it at E3 and said, "Hey, I wanna buy that!" Then I saw the Black Ops and NFS: Hot Pursuit trailers and it slipped my mind, so I haven't been following it.

Shame, I wish they would have at least let another company make it without the "Pirates of the Caribbean" title and tones. It looked like a rewarding RPG to me.

I don't see why they can't put it in game anyone that plays this game has most likely seen the movies... not saying everyone has cause ik a few that don't... but still wasn't Barbossa shot by Jack?

Have to agree with you. Armada looked like it could have been a lot of fun. I was looking forward to it...

Still don't think it's necessary to shoot people in POTCO though. Don't really need to when we can poison them, slash them, blow them up, drown them, chop them to bits, use black magic or whatever else there is...

I've seen a lot of good points. I don't think we should be able to shoot people. There are many reasons why.

1. We simply don't need to.Between slashing, stabbing, blowing up, burning, drowning, and everything else we have enough ways to kill them already.

2. Most people won't be influenced by stuff they see in a game, but Disney does have a public image to keep up.

3. If we could shoot them, fighting would be easy. I could blow Remington the Vicious and Neban the Silent to pieces. But that wouldn't be as much fun.
:laughks2:

I say shooting should be allowed because mainly everyone who plays this game has seen the movies. The POTC movies all have violence and cursing in them and shooting of humans. Therefore everyone who plays this game has been exposed to the violence of shooting, likes it, and would not be affected if slightly more violence was added.