Crossing the Line

[ThePlasmatizer]

This is NOT a Modern Warfare topic. I am using the content in Modern Warfare as an example.

In the wake of a certain games release and the controversy surrounding an airport level (which has the player take part in or at the least witness a terrorist attack), it started me thinking about where games cross the line, or if there is even a line to cross at all.

It is the case that games are most often able to get violence past game rating systems but games with political messages or strong sexual content will often be critically reviewed by the people who are rating the game to see whether it's acceptable. If a game isn't rated the developer will then change the game to meet the criteria necessary to get it rated and then released.

So at the moment the rating systems have drawn a line in the sand telling developers if their game crosses the line. What system do the people rating it judge it by? they rate it by what's socially acceptable at the time, back when video games were new they found blocky red squares to be controversial, today I wouldn't be surprised to see a child playing games with high res red blobs. The question is can our views on controversial things like terrorism, sex, violence and drugs become more and more liberal than what they are now? there are now many games which let the player carry out the darkest parts of human nature, so its becoming the trend for everything to be acceptable for developers to put in their games.

In the debate now the people shouting the loudest are the game censoring lobbyists and the regular gamers. I find both sides at fault, with the lobbyists believing blindly without evidence (an example is the Mass Effect controversy) that controversial content has negative, effects and the gamers who firmly believe that their chosen hobby doesn't affect anyone. While it's obvious lobbyists have their own agenda it's the same with gamers who want to be able to play the next big release. While being slighty biased as a gamer I tried to think broadly about it from different views.

In my opinion I came to the belief games should have minimal censoring. Does this mean every game can push the boundaries of what is acceptable? yes, does it mean the developers should? definitely not. I feel we have free speech, so free expression in video games is natural, but there has to be self-restraint so people who have a valid right to be not to be offended aren't. We can't just carry on with games pushing that line saying "it's just a game" and "it's not real" because it still has the potential to cause people suffering.

There ends my rambling thoughts Sorry it's a bit of a long post lol, but I was wondering what everyone else views were on this matter.

 

[Jodah]

The only line I see is when a game starts to tell people what to do. When I see a mass killing game say "Kids, please try this at home" we have problems. Until then it is up to the consumer (this can be the parents or the gamer depending on the situation) to decide what is appropriate.

Perhaps a legitimate rating system is required but that is different from censorship. I'm sure most here are aware that the ESRB is a joke with no real power. Let them set up a real rating group with strict guidelines that run across games. Let them rate the games but not censor them, that is up to the developer to decide who the target audience is.

In summary : There should be no censoring, just a better rating system.

 

[quiet_samurai]

Asking people politely to hold off on their own creativity is the beginning of censorship. Maybe make a more accurate rating system. Peronally I think the current one is not al all doing it's job very well .

If you are afraid of being offended by something don't buy it or associate yourself with it. Just don't go around trying to ruin everyone elses fun just because something you could have easily avoided makes you uncomfortable. You obviously sought out your own torment, others shouldn't have to pay for it.

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

Im in the UK and we use the PEGI system which goes by age ratings exactly like movies, so I think it's clear enough for everyone but it must be enforced by law imo. Also as far as I know it's not illegal to sell them here but most game retailers opt not to sell to children who aren't old enough to play it.

I can't concede the idea of no censorship or banning whatsoever though, as I can see extremist groups such as Neo-Nazis and race hate groups taking advantage of the open door.

 

[Dark Knifer]

My guess is a game that involves killing children with no censores would be banned, since no-one to my knowledge has made such a game.

 

[Carlston]

I don't see the airport scene in crossing the line. I mean everything can be saved with some partental lock feature or foolishness the kids won't use anyway.

The level is nothing as bad as say the postal games, or just and GTA where someone just wants to blow up everyone they see.

I am more offended that they think the Russian would find a US solider, have video of it (and make the player not pertake in the killing without triggering the red dawn attack) But russians would want to know wtf and we'd say, hey he was a plant...Oh yeah we do that to...well make up a story and cover it.

 

[Quaidis]

There are lines that can be crossed and things that developers cannot touch. This will never change nor will it become entirely lenient. Time is also a reason behind 'censorship' due to the insensitivity it may cause. That may have something to do with people being upset over the plane level.

For example, if a game developer made a gory farming sim called Krystal Nacht over how you're Hitler and you have to crop and kill the Jewish with a fps mini-game to see how many you can gun down or gas in a brief period of time, lines have been crossed. This will never change. There will never be a 'lenient meter' that will be strong enough to let someone develope this without some serious repercussions, even under the 'make believe pixels' excuse.

In today's standards, if a developer made a Hi Def game about how you have to get through security at an airport and hijack a plane with the intent of crashing it into high towers or monuments in an attempt to kill as many people as possible for points, not many would shed a tear at it being banned. Only spoiled children that should not be anywhere near the game would cry foul over censorship. Depending on how everyone views the 9/11 incident years from now will probably depend on how lenient or numb people become to the issue of whether or not such a game would be acceptable, but I doubt it would happen.

As for games that cross borders but are not too insensitive about it, GTA is a good example. GTA crosses borders, but there is no 'kill the president' mission. There is no 'steal a plane and crash it into the Penthouse' mission. Why? I am certain you can come to your own conclusions. I am sure in the future that GTA may cross the line or have to cut something out in order to get a sensible rating. But even if the rating system was upgraded, you would never find it as E for everyone.

edit - revamped the post. I am very tired and apologize if I either made no sense or went a step too far. If I went too far, please remove the chunk of my post that did so.

 

[squid5580]

My guess is a game that involves killing children with no censores would be banned, since no-one to my knowledge has made such a game.

Dante's inferno is coming with it's Bad Nanny achievement (slaughter X number of babies).

Lets be realistic here for a second. How many virtual genocides are you personally responsible for? How many virtual innocent creatures have gone extinct because of you (until you reload of course)? Are the lives of those virtual citizens at the virtual airport any more important than that poor blue slime that you just turned into a stain with your lvl 50 character? Did you even consider for one second that he may have had a virtual wife and virtual kids waiting for him? That he was just on his way home from his virtual job? Or do you just not care about that poor blue slime because he doesn't look like you?

Lets end the virtual racism!

 

[Kollega]

Well,unless games ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE mass murder and tell us to try it IRL,i think we won't have problems. But i,personaly,think that there should be a line to cross,and only those who truly want must cross it. I wouldn't be okay with Saw-level violence,constant sex,"fuck" inbetween every word,and racist agenda in EVERY GAME EVER - that would just get tiresome and disgusting,don't you think? Plus,as people above me said,no-one should dare make a game (or film,or comic book) supporting Nazis/religious extremists.

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

My guess is a game that involves killing children with no censores would be banned, since no-one to my knowledge has made such a game.

Dante's inferno is coming with it's Bad Nanny achievement (slaughter X number of babies).

Lets be realistic here for a second. How many virtual genocides are you personally responsible for? How many virtual innocent creatures have gone extinct because of you (until you reload of course)? Are the lives of those virtual citizens at the virtual airport any more important than that poor blue slime that you just turned into a stain with your lvl 50 character? Did you even consider for one second that he may have had a virtual wife and virtual kids waiting for him? That he was just on his way home from his virtual job? Or do you just not care about that poor blue slime because he doesn't look like you?

Lets end the virtual racism!

I don't think gamers can continue to hide behind the arguement "it's not real", just as a movie has the capacity to offend so do videogames.For example, I don't believe any video game which glorified the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and 7/7 is any less offensive because it's virtual.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

It probably wouldn't be knowledgeable to model game situations too similarly to sensitive issues in real life. That will be sure to offend people, if only because it's so touchy. However, it's really shouldn't be as big a deal as it is when it comes to content in media. It should be completely obvious (sadly, it isn't to some) that children have absolutely no place playing games like GTA. With that logic, you can make a case against people who let their kids get a hand on those games in the first place, and also against the people pushing censorship too far because they keep saying "think of the children." The children really have no business playing mature games. Yes, their minds can be tainted, but responsible people would have easily prevented it. Censorship shouldn't be controlled by lack of responsibility. It should be defined by what's acceptable in the current world.

Specifically about the MW2 example: I don't really think it was pushing the limits that far. It definitely falls under "touchy subject" for some people, but IW had the sense of mind to warn players and make the mission optional. IMO, it really doesn't carry the impact that it should have (though they did try). It doesn't completely give the sense that you're doing something horrible. Jaded or bloodthirsty players can just play the level to rack up a body count when it should have instilled a sense of "What have I done?" Granted, if they achieved that then it would probably be even more offensive to those who are already uncomfortable, but it would be more justified if they could make the players uncomfortable as well. I was more stunned at your character's nuclear death sequence in MW1.

 

[Evil Tim]

The only line I see is when a game starts to tell people what to do.

I think the line would be better defined as when the game starts telling people how to do it. The scenario in MW2 is patiently silly; you and the others apparently just managed to waltz into an airport with automatic weapons in zip-up bags you got from, um, somewhere or other. When a game starts to not just depict deplorable things but describe means of replicating them in real life [in this case, that would be depicting workable instructions for bypassing airport security checks and scanners, converting weapons to fullauto and the like], that's going too far.

On the other hand, nobody has the right to not be offended. Putting up with things you personally feel uncomfortable with existing for the enjoyment others who don't is what you do in a free society.

 

[squid5580]

My guess is a game that involves killing children with no censores would be banned, since no-one to my knowledge has made such a game.

Dante's inferno is coming with it's Bad Nanny achievement (slaughter X number of babies).

Lets be realistic here for a second. How many virtual genocides are you personally responsible for? How many virtual innocent creatures have gone extinct because of you (until you reload of course)? Are the lives of those virtual citizens at the virtual airport any more important than that poor blue slime that you just turned into a stain with your lvl 50 character? Did you even consider for one second that he may have had a virtual wife and virtual kids waiting for him? That he was just on his way home from his virtual job? Or do you just not care about that poor blue slime because he doesn't look like you?

Lets end the virtual racism!

I don't think gamers can continue to hide behind the arguement "it's not real", just as a movie has the capacity to offend so do videogames.For example, I don't believe any video game which glorified the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and 7/7 is any less offensive because it's virtual.

Who is hiding behind it being virtual? If you find it offensive you don't have to buy it. If publishers find it offensive they don't have to publish it. No one can say it shouldn't be made because it goes to far though because that infringes on freedoms.

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

Who is hiding behind it being virtual? If you find it offensive you don't have to buy it. If publishers find it offensive they don't have to publish it. No one can say it shouldn't be made because it goes to far though because that infringes on freedoms.

You can't just let game releases go unchecked, there has to be safeguards in place. Before I made the example of someone who wanted to make a game which glorified terrorism, would that not be crossing a moral line? would it not be a bit cold and insensitive to people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks? Of course they don't need to buy it and publishers don't need to publish it but it might not stop it from being distributed and victims hearing of it and then being upset because of it.A little bit of consideration towards other people could make things a lot less controversial.

Developers will always go for controversy and entertainment value but I guarantee if they had a first hand experience of the worst atrocities they would not be so enthusiastic to put it into games.

 

[squid5580]

Who is hiding behind it being virtual? If you find it offensive you don't have to buy it. If publishers find it offensive they don't have to publish it. No one can say it shouldn't be made because it goes to far though because that infringes on freedoms.

You can't just let game releases go unchecked, there has to be safeguards in place. Before I made the example of someone who wanted to make a game which glorified terrorism, would that not be crossing a moral line? would it not be a bit cold and insensitive to people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks? Of course they don't need to buy it and publishers don't need to publish it but it might not stop it from being distributed and victims hearing of it and then being upset because of it.A little bit of consideration towards other people could make things a lot less controversial.

Developers will always go for controversy and entertainment value but I guarantee if they had a first hand experience of the worst atrocities they would not be so enthusiastic to put it into games.

Yes there is a moral line you, I and alot of others hope wouldn't be crossed. That people would have the common decency not to make. Although if they make thier own site to distribute it complete with age verification they aren't doing anything really wrong. Sure alot of people will be upset with it and they should but you can't ban it. You can boycott it, you can flame the shit out of the site. You can't expect any N/A government to step in to save the day though. That is unconstitutional.

 

[badgersprite]

I don't believe in censorship, because most of the time things like this become controversial out of context. For example, the airport level in MW2 - they included that level because you were supposed to feel horrible about what you were doing. The civilians fall down dead. Blood everywhere. Not moving. There is absolutely nothing fun about shooting them, and there isn't supposed to be. It was a strong, subversive anti-violence statement, and people who don't see that and think it's a training level for terrorists have grabbed the wrong end of completely the wrong stick and missed the point entirely.

There can't be a blanket censorship rule, because more often than not it ignores intent or irony. People on independent or government ratings boards are often not gamers, so they see what occurs in a game in isolation, without understanding the context. What people in the media need to realise is that the presence of content in a game isn't an endorsement of that behaviour. Violence isn't put into games because game developers condone violence, the same way TV shows or movies that are written about gangs don't condone drug dealing and murder. Video games aren't any different.

Anyway, I'm always going to come out on the side of creative freedom. Just because people don't like or don't understand a certain artistic statement doesn't mean they can have it banned. That's just ridiculous and immature. Besides, the system is self-regulatory - any games that do 'cross a social line' aren't going to get released in mainstream stores anyway, because it hurts stores to be seen to associate with something that offends a lot of people.