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)
Pushing Back
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
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)
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)
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.oneplus999 said:
Yeah, that did occur to me afterwards, but as a computer programmer, and having played the hot coffee mod, I submit the following opinions:Geoffrey42 said:
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.
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?
So basically, you're saying, "I'm against censorship, unless they're censoring something that I don't like."SilentScope001 said:
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.oneplus999 said:
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.
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.
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).SilentScope001 said:
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.
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.
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.
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.