Pushing Back

Pushing Back

Why? Violent and pornographic movies are fine because they're intended for adults. Videogames with violent or sexual content, on the other hand - and we're not even approaching the level of either that can be found in everyday movie releases - apparently are not; the obvious implication being that even after all these years, videogames are still "for kids."

Permalink

Yeah, you know what? How FUN are those pronographic or violent video games?

I can't take this sort of nonsense anymore. I don't care about 'moral decency', I care about playing a game that's FUN. There are many games out there that has no violence, no porno, nothing at all, instead, focusing on gameplay rather than graphics, storyline instead of 'cheap thrills'.

Do I really need to see blood to know I killed someone? Do I really need to see me having sex to know that my girlfriend loves me? No. We don't. If you really have to see "blood" or "sex", go on Youtube. You play a game to entertain yourself, mostly by pressing buttons in order to acheive a goal and complete it. So instead of wasting time ensuring that the
OMGZCONTERVERSY scenes look right, why not devote the time to fixing the stuff that makes our games overly complex and utterly forgettable.

Well, you know what? I can't take letting people defend stupidity any longer. We must move beyond violence and sex, and try having games that can dig deeper and actually might be important. Peacemaker, Hidden Agenda, Balance of Power, whatever. Even Zuma is better than most junk FPSes out there.

Yes, The Escapist, I am pushing back too.

What?

SilentScope001:

Do I really need to see blood to know I killed someone? Do I really need to see me having sex to know that my girlfriend loves me?

Still, imagine where other entertainment would be if they took that same approach. Right off the bat: no Sopranos.

"I suppose it's easy to be cavalier about censorship when it's applied to something you dislike or just don't care about, but the game's quality is absolutely irrelevant."

I agree totally in theory, and I agree totally that people shouldn't want to see any game get censored regardless of quality, but let me give a different take on the issue in terms of real-world strategy.

Think of the days of the PMRC. We all got lucky in that Dee Snyder was an articulate and thoughtful witness, and out of the blue John Denver came in to defend freedom from misinterpretation.

Maybe some of the relief is because Manhunt 2 and Rock Star games are no Dee Snyder and John Denver. Maybe some of that sentiment comes not from the conclusion that this game isn't worth defending, but that this game is indefensible. That this is some of the most unfavorable 'ground' to fight this 'battle' on one can imagine.

You don't need to see blood to know you've killed someone or sex to know you with your lover but thats what actually happens in real life, if you shoot someone or have a girl friend.
All i'd like to for games to actual sometimes reflect the harsh reality we live in, not this kid mentality that everyone has green blood when they get shot :P

I usually like Fox News, but only one person in this story seemed to have half a brain (the last guy at the table). Even the "video game expert" from Spike was retarded. Of course, this story would've probably played out the same way on any other major network.

Anyway, I have not played Mass Effect nor do I watch much network television, but I'm guessing that EA was right when they said that Mass Effect is no worse than most prime time television shows. +1 to them for using their pedestal to shoot back. They need all the help they can get in my book.

eh the article as where i know talks about why the games are so... blamed and all that when we see stuff like the movies saw or hostel going into the cinema without trouble

TheNecroswanson:
What?

++

@jedimario: That you usually like Fox News makes me want to ignore you outright, but maybe my view of Fox News is skewed, since I only ever see clips shown me by The Daily Show. They've got to be cherry-picking, to find that many outrageous, ridiculous items, even from a 24 hour news network. So we'll put my prejudice aside for the moment.

I agree that the last guy to talk made sense, and while I disagree with his root assumption that the media is full of horrible things that your children need protecting from, I wholeheartedly agree with his solution: it is up to the parents to take the initiative in their children's lives.

I would be interested to know why you think Geoff Keighley was "retarded"? To me, he seemed to handle having blatant lies thrown at him pretty well. He didn't devolve into name-calling (as, I think, most of us would), he simply held his ground that what they were saying was simply untrue, and called them on their ignorance.

[sarcastically inflammatory]And, lastly, I will be happy to accept that this story would've played out the same way on any other major network, as soon as you point me to a video of another major news network playing a segment with blatant disregard for fact-checking, and intentionally inflammatory headlines across the bottom. Go ahead, I'll wait. (I'll be patient, as I've been told that reality has a well-known liberal bias.) [/sarcastically inflammatory]

Malygris:
Howling about injustice on gaming forums and Facebook may be cathartic, but it doesn't amount to much in the real world; that kind of demographic impotence, real or not, can spur individuals, organizations and even governments to reckless and agenda-driven behavior, based entirely on the belief that they can act with impunity.

As much as I totally agree with your position in this piece, there's definitely an appreciable irony to the fact that you're preaching to the choir right now.

And while it is nice to see an industry entity stand up and speak like a respectable adult for once, I hunger for a direct avenue of action myself. But how do we get the world to listen? Major news outlets don't have as much interest in what Thaddeus: Video Game Geek and Freelance Writer has to say about how gaming is just a "new" form of art/entertainment, no more crippling than any that came before.

I guess the thing that sickens me most is seeing people swallow this cultural policing line that politicians so love to pitch. Censorship makes my skin crawl to a nearly embarrassing degree. Honestly, I pay more attention to this issue than I do to what I'm told are serious social problems, like drugs and violence.

What can I say? I see it as thought-murder.

If people want to keep their kids away from violent video games, why not just... oh, I don't know: pay attention to what their kids are doing? And I know they don't. I've worked retail. I've seen parents not care.

But I'm just choir-preaching, too.

Maybe we should start an anti-censorship viral campaign.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about with the supposed threat of anti-videogame legislation. I've said it before, videogames make far to much money, and are the profit instruments of too many enormous companies, to ever see significant legislative restriction.

Ten or fifteen years ago the prospect of legislative consequences against videogames was far more real than it is today. The industry was relatively small and vulnerable. Now the videogame industry is thoroughly vested in the interests of shareholders at large. We will see more games become "examples", but this will not slow consumer's demand for the GTA's of the future, nor will legislators have any desire to impede fuel for the ever important consumer economy.

Also Americans shouldn't be too concerned about The Manhunt 2 ruling in Britain. Britain's censorship standards are notoriously fickle such that a movie like A Clockwork Orange can be banned from the screens for decades. Americans have seen some effects of the moral majority with the current conservative administration, particularly in the aftermath of "nipple gate". By and large though censorship has largely remained untouched. The porn industry, expecting a crackdown of Reagan administration proportions, retains Clinton era regulations. The Supreme Court, with a decidedly conservative lean, essentially struck down laws regulating sexual acts between consenting adults. All this is to say that, despite a political atmosphere that could've have created significant reinterpretations of first amendment rights, censorship in the mass entertainment media remains largely unchanged.

I can't take this sort of nonsense anymore. I don't care about 'moral decency', I care about playing a game that's FUN. There are many games out there that has no violence, no porno, nothing at all, instead, focusing on gameplay rather than graphics, storyline instead of 'cheap thrills'.

Your comment is pretty irrelevant; You seem to be missing the point of free speech. Allow me to summarize:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire (not really - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire#Misattributed )

The author even specifically says in the article, the quality of Manhunt 2 (or any other "shock" game for that matter) isn't relevant. It's the fact that some people don't even have the legal right to obtain such materials. I find that a disturbing state of affairs in the UK. In the US, no matter what the ESRB and retail stores say, you can always sell it yourself via downloads or mail-order or whatever. Correct me if I'm wrong about the UK.

But how do we get the world to listen?

Apparently we have to pick a relevant book and give it the worst reviews ever on Amazon.com in order to get some attention. :) The article references EA's very unthreatening letter directed at Fox News, but Fox News has done NOTHING to apologize for such crappy reporting. The retraction was from the author, who clearly did so because her book was not likely to sell with 95% 1-star ratings after 400 ratings.

It really depends on the source, though. When its a news program, it's probably a program that gamers don't watch (eg Fox News), so we can't do anything (like stop watching). When its Jackie boy, he gets his money from the grieving family members of psychotic teenagers, so there's not much we can do there either. I think what made this different was that the source of the lies was someone who we could indirectly target, via Amazon and other book review sites, as a group.

We should try that again sometime :)

I've said it before, videogames make far to much money, and are the profit instruments of too many enormous companies, to ever see significant legislative restriction.

I would think Manhunt 2 is empirical evidence to the contrary. Would you say being prevented from releasing a AAA title on schedule due to some bureaucrats' opinions on family values is not a "significant... restriction"?

As I said, some games will become examples, but they will be few and far between. And the occaisional game that becomes a politician's example, will not have an effect on the overall liberalization of game content. I think that more often than not games that will have publicized censorships will have received that treatment because they were looking for negative attention as a sales tool. Mass Effect wasn't looking to stir up controversey, and as a result it has been successfully and publically defended, in spite of mainstream criticism. Likewise Bully never received attention for its most subversive act, the option for male on male kissing, because it simply wasn't marketed for that feature, nor is that really the point of the game.

Finally, people will say that GTA San Andreas never marketed, nor even really made available, its "hot coffee" sex minigame either, but it proved to be an explosive issue because the game mixes violence and illegal activities in such a way that the minigame becomes a gratuitous exercise in an already controversial and violent atmosphere.

And they ban us from paying for this, yet i can type in "Brutal rape" Into google and get a bucket full of illegal stuff, and yes that is illegal, and if they aren't putting a stop to it on the internet, then why go out of their way to stop a business that has only scratched the surface of the perversion scene it seems like they should be spending their time doing something useful instead of filling peoples minds with false and biased information, and then writing their opinions as facts.
That annoys me, Either stand up and say, hey this is my opinion, i'm not telling you to accept it but at least consider it, instead of what they are currently doing which is, hey, this is my opinion, but also fact, now swallow this bull crap and do what i tell you.

And developers do need to stand away from that sort of thing, they shouldn't rely on "40 seconds of side boob" to sell the game, they should rely on the game play aspects and if the game is not a steaming pile of feces to sell the game.

its starting to feel to me that the legistlature feel that this is a easy win fo them. Its been annoying me for a while now we know the truth about videogames, its just telling everybody else thats the hard part. Video Games are awesome.

Video game sexuality is just creepy anyway. Most who think otherwise needs to lay off the hentai.

It usually doesn't add anything to the game that couldn't be done just as well w/o it. I'm tired of "because we can" being a supposedly good reason for this stuff.

I always find it a bit funny when people tend to go up in arms about such things, but seemingly seem to have little knowledge of a neighboring country, namely Germany, which actually has a sort of screening (more like censorship) bureau just for these type of games. During my years growing up there plenty of games had been banned, only available "behind the counter," or altered in some fashion in order to garner that much wanted store shelf space. Zombies in Carmageddon and cyborgs in the C&C games, anyone? Yes, it was pretty dumb.

Well, I haven't lived there for the last ten years, but I'm pretty sure that institution still exists. Talk about taking away a gamer's freedom to play what he or she wants to play.

It, however, is a person's own right to decide what he/she wants. That is stated in this thread before, but i am just saying it again to make it clear.

tendo82:

games that will have publicized censorships will have received that treatment because they were looking for negative attention as a sales tool

You say this, but then immediately acknowledge that for the major instances of the last few years it was not the case. In San Andreas, Mass Effect, AND Bully, I saw no advertising for sex by the company that made the game. I'm not saying its necessarily false, but next time you make a contentious point and follow it by examples, the examples should probably illustrate the point, not contradict it. You appear to be confusing a multi billion dollar industry with your local radio media-whoring shock jocks. Game developers are in it to make money, not get sued and make gaming look bad.

deadly.by.design:
Video game sexuality is just creepy anyway.

I'd agree for most games, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. I'd like to point out Fahrenheit as a game with two very tastefully done sex scenes. I didn't feel they were gratuitous, they took maybe 2 minutes of a game that takes hours on end to beat, and since the game focuses a lot on your characters' emotional state, the scenes really mesh well with the story, and isn't just tacked on for the hell of it.

The bit I saw in Fahrenheit was still creepy, considering you can increase the "pace" by pushing buttons. (Indigo Prophecy, the US version, doesn't have this)

So what if it's "creepy?" I agree that most games have a sophomoric take on sex at the best of times, but that really has nothing to do with the point at hand. The Witcher is a great example of a game that's really polarizing players over its sexual content and depiction of women; both Corvus and Yahtzee had major problems with that aspect of the game (and found the game sufficiently unlikable that they gave up on it in relatively short order) while I find the prevalence of boobs and floozies a bit embarrassing at times but sufficiently relevant to the setting and characters that it's acceptable as just part of the game.

Who's right* isn't important at all; what is important is that we can judge and debate the matter for ourselves, rather than simply being told by some faceless Minitrue that it's not good for us and therefore we can't have it. We're not talking about keeping inappropriate games out of the hands of children - we're talking about across-the-board censorship. It's unacceptable, and it's dangerous, and while the argument that the industry has by now accumulated sufficient mass to be immune to legislative efforts may be true, it's way too presumptuous to assume that's the case.

(*I am)

Ok. This whole "Videogames are for Kids" concept is so full of shit I can smell it up here in Canada. The statistical average age of a gamer is 33 according to THESE GUYS, who actually did a study into the matter. On top of this, even in the case of younger gamers, it would be a person over the ages of 17-21 (depending where you live) who would have to buy a kid the game. Find me a 9 year old with enough cash to buy an $80 game, and a GameStop clerk dumb enough to sell him something like Manhunt. Some of the bigger stores are now finally enforcing the age restrictions on game ratings, so lil Timmy isn't going to be able to buy "Keith Richard's Corpse Snort-athon" or "Barely-Legal Phuck Phest starring Ron Jeremy" without Mom or Dad's OK on it, and if the parents say OK, then who the f**k are you to say otherwise.

Censorship is a crime, and in a world full of freedoms, we seem to have an overabundance of 'tards who wish to pick and choose which freedoms to take away. It's an all or nothing deal when it comes to rights. If we have the right to free speech and expression, but then you limit what we can say, then there is no free speech.

oneplus999:

tendo82:

games that will have publicized censorships will have received that treatment because they were looking for negative attention as a sales tool

You say this, but then immediately acknowledge that for the major instances of the last few years it was not the case. In San Andreas, Mass Effect, AND Bully, I saw no advertising for sex by the company that made the game. I'm not saying its necessarily false, but next time you make a contentious point and follow it by examples, the examples should probably illustrate the point, not contradict it. You appear to be confusing a multi billion dollar industry with your local radio media-whoring shock jocks. Game developers are in it to make money, not get sued and make gaming look bad.

Not to say that I agree entirely with tendo82 on this, but your response leaves out the possibility that the company in question placed sexual content in the game, knowing full well that it would attract the attention of various social critics, thus banking on the free publicity the criticism would bring. Just because the advertising is not blatant, doesn't mean that it wasn't intended to have the same effect. From tendo82's examples, I would probably leave out Mass Effect, because I didn't get that impression from their marketing of the game (though the potential for sex was well publicized by the games media, so I can only assume that EA's marketing people made the knowledge available in pre-release material), but Rockstar frequently gives me the impression that they are aiming for exactly the kind of attention their games receive.

Geoffrey42:
your response leaves out the possibility that the company in question placed sexual content in the game, knowing full well that it would attract the attention of various social critics

Yeah, that did occur to me afterwards, but as a computer programmer, and having played the hot coffee mod, I submit the following opinions:

1. The hot coffee scenes, though clearly unpolished, might have actually been worth playing. They were not just there to be controversial. The dialog in it was funny, and it was supposed to add more depth to the development of an in-game relationship. Did you ever notice how, in the non-modded game, you got +5% relationship rating just for going in and doing nothing? That's because you were supposed to have to work for that 5% by beating the minigame, not just watching a pseudo-cutscene.

2. The most sensible way to remove the content would have been to disable it, not to delete it. When you program something, if you decide you aren't going to use some code, you don't just get rid of it. You often face design decision changes and you want to be able to easily make adjustments, so you define it by a parameter in the config files. This is nothing unusual. For example, in GTA3, you can edit the parameters of the game so that the gangs never attack you.

Though its possible that it was part of a stunt, it's also very coherently explained as a feature that was removed, but not deleted. If it was just supposed to be a stunt, I don't think they would have sunk so much effort into developing the mini-game. It went so far as to feature voice acting used exclusively in those scenes. It was more likely removed because it wasn't a particularly fun mini-game, since its pretty repetitive! It just sounds like a conspiracy theory on way too many levels over at Rockstar for the stunt-story to be believed.

Who's right* isn't important at all; what is important is that we can judge and debate the matter for ourselves, rather than simply being told by some faceless Minitrue that it's not good for us and therefore we can't have it. We're not talking about keeping inappropriate games out of the hands of children - we're talking about across-the-board censorship. It's unacceptable, and it's dangerous, and while the argument that the industry has by now accumulated sufficient mass to be immune to legislative efforts may be true, it's way too presumptuous to assume that's the case.

The problem is threefolds:
(1) We only got a limited amount of time to live in the world, so we can't afford to go and campagin for EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. This isn't the censorship of The Satanic Verses, this is censorship of a small part of a game that some people dislike. Games are for adults, but games are meant for fun, and we are sort of forgetting about that. The more time we go and vent and waste time campaging against this sort of thing, the less time we have actually playing the games and having fun.

(2)Suppose we do defend these ugly games with bad gameplay, and allow them them to keep ultra-violence and ultra-sex scenes. What do you think the game developers will do? They will assume, possibly rightfully, that people WANT ultra-violence and ultra-sex. After all, if they didn't, then people wouldn't have campagined for them. Therefore, more games will have them, even when they are usually not necessary...and we will suffer a lack of quality of the gaming experience, especially with very, very bad gameplay. Moral decency will go down the tube, and frankly, I know most people don't care, but when we have to deal with even more mind-numbing stupidity, my god...

(3)Related to Number 2, if we aid the gaming industry in defending THEIR free speech, we end up being tools for the gaming industry lobby, assisting them in producing whatever junk they got. That's the last thing I want to do.

I am in full defense of free speech (even the free speech of Fox and other anti-gaming advocates), but we have to be realistic and put this in prespective. If a game is in fact terrible, then expecting me to go and defend its freedom of speech to the death is rather presumptous. If the designer wants to protect his free speech, he can do so, by himself, but I have the right to tell the designer that he must stop using 'sex and violence' to sell games, and rather use gameplay and story.

Basically, pick and choose the battles that actually matter instead of rushing in and wasting your time, and in the process, not have fun.

There is no analog scale of freedom. You either have free speech or you do not, there is no such thing as "free speech within boundaries that the majority decides are reasonable." The same goes for the audience, why should I not get to make my own viewing decisions just because some amorphous "the children" are apparently unable to think for themselves? Should restaurants stop serving steak just because babies can't chew them?

SilentScope001:
The problem is threefolds:
(1) We only got a limited amount of time to live in the world, so we can't afford to go and campagin for EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. This isn't the censorship of The Satanic Verses, this is censorship of a small part of a game that some people dislike. Games are for adults, but games are meant for fun, and we are sort of forgetting about that. The more time we go and vent and waste time campaging against this sort of thing, the less time we have actually playing the games and having fun.

(2)Suppose we do defend these ugly games with bad gameplay, and allow them them to keep ultra-violence and ultra-sex scenes. What do you think the game developers will do? They will assume, possibly rightfully, that people WANT ultra-violence and ultra-sex. After all, if they didn't, then people wouldn't have campagined for them. Therefore, more games will have them, even when they are usually not necessary...and we will suffer a lack of quality of the gaming experience, especially with very, very bad gameplay. Moral decency will go down the tube, and frankly, I know most people don't care, but when we have to deal with even more mind-numbing stupidity, my god...

(3)Related to Number 2, if we aid the gaming industry in defending THEIR free speech, we end up being tools for the gaming industry lobby, assisting them in producing whatever junk they got. That's the last thing I want to do.

I am in full defense of free speech (even the free speech of Fox and other anti-gaming advocates), but we have to be realistic and put this in prespective. If a game is in fact terrible, then expecting me to go and defend its freedom of speech to the death is rather presumptous. If the designer wants to protect his free speech, he can do so, by himself, but I have the right to tell the designer that he must stop using 'sex and violence' to sell games, and rather use gameplay and story.

Basically, pick and choose the battles that actually matter instead of rushing in and wasting your time, and in the process, not have fun.

So basically, you're saying, "I'm against censorship, unless they're censoring something that I don't like."

oneplus999:
It just sounds like a conspiracy theory on way too many levels over at Rockstar for the stunt-story to be believed.

Even not having played the game in question, I agree with your analysis of this one example. I don't think Hot Coffee was ever specifically intended to be part of their secret ad campaign.

I wasn't pointing at anything in particular when I made my comment, just to the possibility that companies could do what I described, and on that point, you and I seem to be in agreement.

EDIT: Fixed poor verbage, didn't mean to imply absoluteness, just potential.

There is no analog scale of freedom. You either have free speech or you do not, there is no such thing as "free speech within boundaries that the majority decides are reasonable."

Sure there is. Try screaming "Fire!" in a movie theater. Or walking naked in a store that prohibits people being naked in public.

I am against those restrictions in principle, but those restrictions exist because the majority do fine them reasonable, and there is no way I'm going to overturn them. So, I am better off fighting the battles I know really matters. If the game designers want to protect their right to free speech, they should do it by themselves.

SilentScope001:

Sure there is. Try screaming "Fire!" in a movie theater. Or walking naked in a store that prohibits people being naked in public.

Those restrictions are there because they have the potential to cause harm, either mental/ pschological (fear, panic, etc.) or physical (trampled on the way out of the theatre).

Violent/ sexual games don't cause either of these things. And if they DO end up causing mental or (somehow) physical harm, they're doing it to someone who WILLINGLY ENGAGED in the act of playing the game.

That phrase opens a whole other can of worms, but the point is that you're trying to compare apples to oranges here. Yelling "FIRE" in a theatre is a completely different act to producing/ selling/ playing a violent or sexual video game.

I am dissapointed that people still think of videogames as for children. I'm sorry, I just can't for the life of me figure out how to spell "dissapointed". Why don't people complain about movies. They are still targeting a young audience most of the time. People should not hold too much prejudice.

Malygris, I completely agree with you that censorship at large is a poor decision. I completely disagree with your assumption that videogames are more targeted than other venues. TV is completely controlled by media companies, the censorship happens before you could even come close. Nothing that goes beyond what they deem are the bounds of good taste will be aired. Movies suffer huge HUGE penalties for not going along with MPAA rating "suggestions" to avoid NC-17 Ratings which virtually guarantee your movie to have no audience. (Most theatres wont carry them - see This Film is Not Yet Rated as a primer). Look at how many books are banned / challenged on a yearly basis, some 500 or so in 2006 if I recall correctly.. BOOKS! (see the ALA's stuff on that for more)

No media deserves this type of censorship, certainly not videogames, but I don't agree with your starting premise that other mediums receive lesser censorship. I can purchase pornographic or superviolent videogames just as easily as I can purchase the same in books or movies. The issue isn't one of availability, the issue is that rating bodies stop you from receiving exposure, normally based on a matter of taste, frequently where two similar situations can be rated differently. (again, compare recieving an M rating and losing shelf space to recieving a NC-17 Rating and losing theatre place)

I'm not really going anywhere else with that, and really I'm completely in agreement that people should be forced to decide for themselves or the people they're legally responsible for whether or not something is acceptable for them. But it's not the job of any other person to decide that for me by force, I should be asking them for that opinion, not left with the results of it.

Important things to talk about. Just a couple of points from the game censorship investigation standpoint.

1. Games are targeted not just because they are easy targets for protect-the-kids political moves, but because there is an assertion and perception by the people who wish to regulate games that games are different from other media because they are interactive. They perceive that the element of *agency* in these -- the fact that you are taking action to instigate violence directly, rather than passively observing it happening to other people by "bad guys" on TV or the big screen, makes the impact on the psyche different. I'm not saying I agree with them, but I think this is something that needs to be investigated and addressed beyond the "hey gamers are actually people too" which I also support, but there are multiple dimensions to this. There is also the element that even people who make the most effective strides toward regulation don't necessarily say that they know for sure that games are harmful -- but the possibility itself is enough for them to take action "just in case" when they believe ultimately that they are talking about the future of society and what they perceive as potential "murderer training". Again, not my words, and there are arguments against it, but these are the more serious dimensions that need to be considered if the subject is to be addressed effectively, and I agree with you that it is very important.

2. It is good for the big players to come to the defense of games, but the larger companies actually do do this through their support of the ESA, which exists in part to fight things like this and game censorship in general. The problem is that no matter what EA or the bigger companies do, it isn't going to be enough and is going to have limited utility because those companies and the ESA will always be accused of having a biased perspective and a level of self-interest that makes them untrustworthy in making these arguments.

What we really need, in addition to a greater grassroots public videogame PR movement (which argued for recently at the Montreal International Games Summit), is to support outside analysts who are saying that games are safe. If you guys haven't read it you may want to check out my recent interview with Gerard Jones ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/insidejob/2752-Inside-Job-Voices-of-Sanity-An-Interview-With-Gerard-Jones ), pardon the self plug. We really need guys like him and need to direct more media attention in his direction, because the more doctors and analysts we have separately addressing these issues, ones that cannot be accused of profiteering, the faster we will see change.

We are forgetting that children are introduced to nudity in places legitimately with no restrictions by anyone just because of educational purposes. For example National Geographic Magazine can easily be found in school libraries with pictures of topless tribal women, on the History Channel on TV, art in a museum, and in some educational videos which the schools show.

Nobody says anything in regards to that, but if they slip a nipple, in a movie, a game, or by accident in an awards show people are up in arms furious and want censorship or an extreme rating put on the content eventhough there was no sexual intention involved.

So what is the difference bewteen the two? I just feel that people just want to complain just because something is popular. Education just comes off as a boring niche subject so no one complains.

Also as far as I concerned the majority of the people who want censorship don't understand that they are punishing society as a whole and not just the people that they want to protect. There is a ratings system in place so let it do its job.

Do I believe in censorship? No I don't I'm against it. Do I respect their decision that some content should be censored? Yes as long as it doesn't interfer with my view and lifestyle concerning it.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here