Poll: Which future of gaming censorship would you choose?

[slowpoke999]

You are doing whatever you do on a Sunday afternoon,suddenly time freezes and a man in a suit approaches you. He says that game censorship is about to change in a major way at any time(Monday the next day to be exact) and it's up to you to decide which direction it takes. You have two choices

1.Videogames are so badly censored ,games like tetris are rated M,cause if you have a dirty mind and think about it too long,the whole game is about sex. Games like Manhunt and Gears of War 2?They are rounded up and sealed in a vault which is thrown in the marina trench. Games must have absolutely no connection to sex or violence, for the mere thought of those being included in any game design progress is a federal offense. Infact if you sell Earthbound to anyone under the age of 15 you can get life in Prison.

2.Four years after the censorship change a new game has been released.Rapekill is a game in which you a psychotic 40 year old x-ophilic,*x being anything that can be followed by the prefix -ophilic, must do an ensemble of tasks in a freeworld environment to advance each level. Each level requires certain points to get to depending on the moral depravity of your tasks, for example in the first level you are able to kidnap a 7 year old girl,chop of her head and have sex with her decapitated body then feed them to the dogs, then rape the dogs,then eat them.This awards 500 points,you need 200,000 points to reach level 2.Rapekill has been classified M for Mature,in Germany.

 

[Enzeru92]

can i call for some middle ground ?

 

[slowpoke999]

can i call for some middle ground ?

Unless you replied one second after I made this thread when I accidentally pressed enter before i added the third option, then no.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Future 1. The only way such a future is possible would be if the entire world started to drop acid, and as the only sane person left, I could then conquer the earth with a staff and a glowing magic eight-ball. Who's gonna take me down, some cops hopped up enough to whack off to Tetris? Throw 'em a Playboy like in Metal Gear Solid 2, and they'll take themselves out for me.

Either that or go into politics, point out "this shit be ridiculous" and immediately be regarded as a national hero who personally siphoned the LSD from Washington D.C.'s water supply.

 

[FalloutJack]

Future 2.

With respect, the first one seems to indicate a world quickly traveling down the slope that can lead to horrible dystopian futures like in THX 1138. The second one still offers the line of "Oh, we get to have a choice.", which is fine by me. As soon as you decide to give up the power to CHOOSE anything, you have nothing. It's all over. The people who hate video game violence can fight as long as they like, so long as we still get to choose. So, go for the one where we still have a range of games that someone can keep trying to pin on real-life violence.

(Incidentally, I'll bet something like the game in #2 already exists in Japan.)

 

[justhereforthemoney]

I say Future 2.

If the game is that bad people wont buy it; however if they are all that bad then we'll just have to get used to it. Yay unbelievably/horrifically violent games *lack of emotion*.

 

[Erazor521]

Two obviously. I'd rather have the option of such a disturbing game available than have someone tell me it's not allowed.

 

[Caliostro]

So...Your options are:

a) Horrible dictatorship

b) Letting people be mature enough to know whether or not they want to buy a game

..Yeah, that's a difficult choice there... /sarcasm.

Censorship is bad. No exceptions.

 

[Mr.Black]

Future 2 is fucked up. I'll go with #1.

 

[badgersprite]

Future 2. Nobody forces you to play depraved games, and people have the right to create whatever they want, because we, in turn, have the right to call them out for making utter bullshit and not buy their shit. =3

(This feels kind of like a vs. thread oO)

 

[MGlBlaze]

Future 2. Nobody forces you to play depraved games, and people have the right to create whatever they want, because we, in turn, have the right to call them out for making utter bullshit and not buy their shit. =3

(This feels kind of like a vs. thread oO)

This.

Besides, Game Designers are artists and I am learning to be one, and I can pretty much guarantee that not many would be interested in making the games in future #2 all that often. We'd still have all the usual genres, and at the end of the say, you still have the choice of not playing the really violent and disgusting games that could come out.

Besides, maybe it'd get parents off their lazy asses and actually start parenting.

Future 2, please.

 

[HentMas]

the 2nd one sounds more fucking weird

but i would vote for the 3rd one where there is no censorship, just a rating system

 

[filecore]

Your choices are hopelessly naïve and narrow-minded. Life is all about shades of grey, not absolutes of black and white. There will always be people arguing for both ends and there will always have to be a compromise somewhere in the middle, because it's very rare to get everybody to agree on anything.

That said, I'd have to go with #2 (if forced to choose between these options) for the reasons noted above: choice and self-censorship rather than enforced censorship, any day. Don't you people read Yevgeny Zamyatin's "We" (or later novels like Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" or Orwell's "1984") in schools anymore?

Incidentally, your third option is a pointless non-option. You really should have included a middle ground.

 

[Eagle Est1986]

Well I don't have to buy 'Rapekill', I've still got my own morals to help my buying decisions. I'd rather have the choice to not buy it than to not have any choice at all.

 

[Beatrix]

No matter how gruesome you make a world of no censorship sound, I'll always pick it over one where we are not free to play good games.

 

[AtticusSP]

Future 0.

 

[Jandau]

Option 1 is prefferable.

Option 2 implies a great degree of personal freedom, not just in games, but in overall culture as well. Any society that tried to implement such a degree of freedom at the current stage of human development would tear itself apart.

As far as I'm concerned, it's dictatorship versus self-destruction.

 

[Kollega]

Future 2A. Let me explain.

In Future 2A,Rapekill exists,but is disliked by masses - most people understand it's a stinking pile of crap and random moral depravity. Only hyperactive ten-year olds play it,because only they find that sort of thing amusing.

In Future 2B,all games are mandatory gorefests. There are ONLY that kind of games - no intellectual 4X strategies,no cute platformers for relaxation,no nothing. Only violence and tits. It's effectively censorship in reverse,and it is as dystopian as Future 1.

So,in that radical situation i'm leaning more towards second,chaotic option,but only as long as it's not mandatory. If there would be no nonviolent games,that would be first option,just pallete-swapped.