|
|
Post by darkbulb on Jan 12, 2010 15:19:18 GMT -5
Are there areas/topics that video games should stay out of - or is anything 'fair game' (pun intended)? The one example I can think of is the "Super Columbine Massacre RPG" (see gameplay video here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4l0qeWlURM ) that to ME is really, really twisted and something I would never play. But, people have made comments about - what is the difference about a game like that and games about WWII, assassination games (Assassin's Creed, Assassin, etc, etc) where you also kill people - sometimes for your country and sometimes for money. I'm curious to see what people think. |
|
|
|
Post by ausdoerrt on Jan 12, 2010 16:36:01 GMT -5
I think the games have as much right to portray things as any other medium. Most of the so-called "controversy" is forced, either by the silly parent groups, or by extremist religious groupings.
Actually, I find it much more objectionable when game designers give in to self-censoring and value "political correctness" over realism, which in the end does nothing but damage the gaming experience. The tightening of such censoring is also the reason why we can't get a game with a decent moral conflict in the story for a quite some time now.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllenSmithee on Jan 12, 2010 16:57:53 GMT -5
I with Ausdoerrt, for the most part. Every medium should have freedom to include whatever elements it enjoys, as long as it isn't incuring hatred (ie an antisemetic game). There's a difference between a game where you kill a Jew and a game which says Jews are terrible! A very large difference!
For example, in a game I wish to someday make there are characters of all varieties during WWII. It was inspired heavily by Inglourious Basterds, if that tells you anything, but just like that there is Jewish characters, and you fight them. An idea I had was that in arcade mode, if a Nazi character wins, it will say "THE NAZIS WIN THE WAR". There is nothing wrong with this in my mind.
But if I made a game where the point was to dehumanize Jewish folk then it would be different. If the specific purpose of the game was to create hate against Jewish people, then it would be bad.
The part where I worry is this: One of the ideas I had was that one of Nazi characters really hates Jewish people. He would be portrayed as a villain of course, but one of the ideas is that there is a Bear Jew/Shounen Bat inspired character, hailed as an extremely strong Jew, so this guy wants to prove himself to the SS, and if he takes him down it will be a strong item on his resume.
But some people might think that is trez terrible, especially since it is a game...
|
|
|
|
Post by darkbulb on Jan 12, 2010 17:29:01 GMT -5
I think the games have as much right to portray things as any other medium. Most of the so-called "controversy" is forced, either by the silly parent groups, or by extremist religious groupings. Even though I fundamentally agree with you I can see some arguments for why a games - as media - somewhat different to a movie, painting, etc. In a game you take decisions and actions yourself. Depending on how open-world/ended the game is you can control your actions and how 'moral' you are (think Fable as an example). I can't think of any other 'media' that puts you in direct control of the story (and with 'games' I include tabletop, D&D, Video games, etc). I also think that makes games extremely interesting and I also wish that there were more games out there where you had a wider range of moral choices in terms of how you wanted to act. A recent example of this is the very good free MMORPG "Runes of Magic" where you can 'go evil' and other players that are 'good' will hunt you down and kill you. I expect more of that type of game play in the future but I also don't know, in regards to my initial post, if there is such a thing as games taking it too far. How about content where you rape, kill innocent and use drugs (wait...that's GTA IV...), etc. Should certain content be off-limit? |
|
|
|
Post by Ascended Mermaid on Jan 12, 2010 19:02:08 GMT -5
In short... no. Absolutely anything and everything should be fair game. If movies can do it, so can games. I don't buy the whole "games put you in control, so they're different from movies"... no, as fantasy escapism goes, games and movies are on EXACTLY the same level. If you're a crazy dude, you can be inspired just as much by a MAGAZINE ARTICLE as you can by a game. Censorship is the bane of all existence. I hate it, in all its forms. -Tom This. You've read my mind and copied my argument perfectly.  |
|
|
|
Post by schlagwerk on Jan 12, 2010 19:48:24 GMT -5
I'm going to say yes, but it really comes down to a case by case basis.
Offensive is a very subjective term. As far as portrayal of sex, violence, and profanity, the social norms of what is acceptable shifts constantly. I do believe a game can go too far in bad taste. Taking the Super Columbine Massacre RPG as a start, if it was released like a month or 2 after Columbine, that would've been too much. Done years later as a commentary on the hyperbole surrounding the shooting and to see if people'll still react.. that's a little different. Probably to the families who lost anyone in the shooting, there is no difference. See how it changes to those involved?
How about an RPG where a hero steers an airship into 2 large towers of an empire that has been portrayed as oppressive and possibly evil, killing many inside? Oh how that grey area grows.
I think if you say anything is fair game, you are being inconsiderate to other people and society as a whole. No need to be overly PC about everything, but just being aware of other people is a good thing.
I'm not for obscene censorship, but I am saying that video games, and all other forms of media, can go too far. It's a difficult to define line and ends up having to be judged on a case by case basis... which makes things even more difficult because any inconsistency in censorship brings outcries from detractors of it.
Regional censorship is another nasty deal. Terrorist attacks in the US, Nazis in Germany, Japanese treatment of Korea in WWII, all seem fine outside of their respective regions but are still understandably sensitive subjects in their respective countries. Hopefully as the world grows more global, society's norms will also become unified and global, but that is still a long time away since all the countries of the world are far from global right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by ausdoerrt on Jan 12, 2010 20:38:52 GMT -5
Subjective, you mean  Anarchy Online has had something similar, even more extensive, for ages. Ever play the original Fallout? All of that and more is present, but is not even there just for the sake of having "violence", it is necessary to create the dystopian atmosphere that the authors are trying to achieve. Censoring that would take away from the experience. But in the end, that's why we have game ratings! Why anyone self-censors M-rated games is pretty much beyond me. At this point, some people are so scared to create a "controversy" that no intelligent discourse in a videogame is possible. The "critics" grasp at straws - RE5 is racist, The Witcher is chauvinist, and the worst thing is that too many people listen to that crap. Thus far, one can only choose one of the pre-scripted options in the game. And even if the options are extremely realistic, as long as the game shows the adequate consequences for one's actions, I don't see how that's a problem. As for rape... Played Sengoku Rance lately? |
|
|
|
Post by schlagwerk on Jan 12, 2010 21:04:08 GMT -5
Subjective, you mean lol yes I actually had an original write up where I used subjective and then blanked on my second attempt. |
|
|
|
Post by Mutagene on Jan 12, 2010 22:02:55 GMT -5
I thought it would be fitting to post this here. In any case, I'm decidedly with wyrdwad here. Although, I'm pretty immature, so maybe that's a bad thing. :/ |
|
|
|
Post by Incog Neato on Jan 12, 2010 22:10:29 GMT -5
The one example I can think of is the "Super Columbine Massacre RPG" (see gameplay video here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4l0qeWlURM ) that to ME is really, really twisted and something I would never play. But, people have made comments about - what is the difference about a game like that and games about WWII, assassination games (Assassin's Creed, Assassin, etc, etc) where you also kill people - sometimes for your country and sometimes for money. What IS the difference indeed? Back during the Cold War, the Russians were the enemies in just about every form of media but now, it's just wrong and offensive. People just need to lighten up and to be educated. No one is pointing a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to play games like the Columbine one. If they're so worried about people copying the massacre then maybe they should stop writing about violence in books or showing violence in TV shows, movies, and the 6 o'clock news. 9__9 What we need is the Star Trek future now. |
|
|
|
Post by darkbulb on Jan 13, 2010 0:33:00 GMT -5
Freedom of speech, man. Once you start putting restrictions on it, you've just started down a very, very slippery slope. -Tom Start? I quote: "According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[26] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech".[27] Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation.[28]" |
|
|
|
Post by darkbulb on Jan 13, 2010 0:52:25 GMT -5
I'm not referring to the law. I'm referring to ACTUAL freedom of speech. Like, without ANY restrictions. Because that's what I believe in. I'm sure some forms of freedom of speech ARE illegal... but in my opinion, they SHOULDN'T be. -Tom I can understand your point and I'm not saying that I fully disagree. Maybe in an Utopian alternative reality - and/or full anarchy - it could work, but in a world where we are forced to deal with real-world issues and people I must admit that I am pro drawing a line for what should be allowed and not. Defamation, libel, race-hate, child-pornography, etc are examples of areas that I can't say should be covered and protected by something like Free Speech. I am however very aware of the issue that comes with limiting something like this. Who makes the decisions, are they tied to a certain era (banned now but ok in 40 years, etc) - as many of these cases might well have elements of subjectivity to them. But between 'two evils' I choose to believe that limitations administered w/in a Democratic system is the less of the two. Obviously to each his own (Disclaimer: English is not my first language). |
|
|
|
Post by ausdoerrt on Jan 13, 2010 1:04:07 GMT -5
Harmful speech can and should be controlled. Things like libel, for example. The so-called "hate-speech", on the other hand, is imo complete bullshit, because words only carry the meaning they are given and don't have an inherent power of their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by ausdoerrt on Jan 13, 2010 1:41:13 GMT -5
In short, yay for loli!
|
|
|
|
Post by tancients on Jan 13, 2010 2:30:56 GMT -5
The Chinese. Making money any way they can.
|
|
|
|
Post by HJ on Jan 13, 2010 8:39:20 GMT -5
The only good thing about SaGa games are the soundtracks.  |
|
|
|
Post by Incog Neato on Jan 13, 2010 10:46:27 GMT -5
Unlimited SaGa was offensive?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mutagene on Jan 13, 2010 20:44:38 GMT -5
Romancing SaGa 3 had an AWESOME fan translation, though, which made up for everything else.
|
|
