Question of the Day, October 5, 2010

[Candidus]

I haven't been able to answer, because although I believe that games shouldn't ever be banned, I wouldn't have used the phrase "works of art". I find artsy attitudes repellant.

Beginning and end of the story: The idea of a censor of any media aimed at adults, a demographic not just characterised but *defined* by the capacity to choose for themselves, is vulgar and offensive in the extreme.

So as long as the audience is 18+, no game, no matter the subject, should ever be banned.

 

[MurderousToaster]

It really does depend on content.

In, for example, a game whereby the entire objective was to rape and murder small children with knives, I'd be perfectly happy to see that banned and wouldn't see it as a stifling of creative freedom. There's a fine line between a provocative work of art and something that's wrong.

 

[Nietz]

I chose "No, works of art should never be banned." Simply because its the answer closest to my view on life.

Games(and all forms of art) are like ideas and people. One cannot forbid an "impure" thought, and one cannot forbid an "impure" person. No matter how bad, offensive or disgusting a thought, a person or a piece of art is, it still has a right to exist. Freedom of mind and body, and freedom of what ones mind and body consumes and creates, is a corner stone in the human condition.

I will never sympathize with Neo-Nazis. I will never read a Bible(again). I will never play Uncharted. But I will never stop any of these things from existing, and I will never forbid anyone from taking part of them. Because I will never let anyone tell me what to not think/be/enjoy.

 

[icyneesan]

Instead of banning a video game, wouldn't it be easier if people were just educated about it. Everyone seems to jump the gun when they hear a game that mentions some modern day evil.

As always, I blame the parents

 

[2xDouble]

Didn't a certain video already go over this?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech

Don't forget about this one: http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/video-games-and-sex/222381.

 

[Squilookle]

The artistic merit of any piece of work should be decided by the people after experiencing it, not by the censors beforehand.

 

[The Great JT]

Only if it's incredibly poor taste. There are some places where games are never going to be allowed to tread (as long as the misinformed anti-gaming political jerks are around) such as games where there is outright racism and the like.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

I refuse to vote on this one, because my opinion is "No, they simply shouldn't be banned"

and yet the only options are "as long as they are educational" or "They are works of art and should not be banned"

1) I could care less if my videogame is educational. I'm playing it to have fun, not learn. Don't impede my ability to have fun.

2) I am So. Fucking. Tired of the "videogame = art?" debate that I throw up in my mouth a little bit each time I see it

 

[8bitlove2a03]

I voted "No", but I need to qualify this. Some games are art, and they are interesting and relevant and emotionally challenging. If someone made a game about being locked in a basement and constantly abused by your kidnapper, ultimately ending in your death just as freedom looks closest, lots of people would be concerned about that. However, a game like that could be a work of art. On the other hand, games that are controversial as a sales pitch are not art. So let those games be banned, and let art stand.

 

[Keava]

No. But not because of the 'works of art' bit. Plenty of games there ain't art and never pretend to be. Simply nothing should ever be censored unless the makers of given product wish to do that. The whole institution of censorship is just bad practice in general.

 

[Chris Jensen]

I can think of 2 games that involved pedophilia. It was meant to be a joke, but I only found "Escape from Neverland Ranch" to be funny for about 2.5 sec. So, that taboo has already been covered. I cant count the times I've committed virtual genocide (aka a "holocost") in turn based and RTS'. Sometimes I would play past the point at which the game says I won for the sheer joy of turning the map all one color and declaring my supremecy. There has been torture in several games, so what's left? Rape? I cant think of a game I've had 1st hand experience with, but now that I think about it, I bet you can "role-play" it in one of the many virtual sex "games" out there or even in 2nd Life.

Rule #34 may be in effect here... IE if you can think of it there is a game or part of a game that has been made that has it, and if not just wait a day or 2.

 

[C95J]

no, they shouldn't. There doesn't seem a good reason to ban them.

 

[JWAN]

No, because its a form of expression, We aren't nazi, communist terrorists. We dont need to ban stuff just because it goes against what some people believe. Thats just immature.

 

[JWAN]

For the 124 people who voted "Only if it is in incredibly poor taste.", who decides what that is? It's too easily abused.

The people who would choose to ban video games are the same socialist, politically correct enforcing jackasses who want to get them banned now.

 

[Ewyx]

No, nothing should EVER be banned. Not just when it comes to games, when it comes to any form of expression.

If we ban things that are deemed inappropriate, people will never be able to learn how to differentiate good from bad things on their own.

 

[Ewyx]

No. Freedom of expression. Nothing should ever be banned, not just games, but books, movies or any form of information. Freedom of information, and freedom of expression.

Also, if you remove things that you deem inappropriate, this will just isolate people from something. People need to learn how to differentiate what is good, and what is bad, if we keep banning things, people will never learn.

Ultimate freedom of expression is required, if we as a society want to move forward. Only when everything will be seen as 'appropriate' at that point people will be able to fully form their own opinions, without being weighted down by some non-existing standards, that some politicians might have.

 

[Formica Archonis]

Banned? Why? It does no good, particularly not in an age where information can be spread so easily. Years ago, I was shocked to read Canada's list of blocked imports and found that I'd recognized fully half of the books on the list's first page from discussion on a European site I frequented. (And more shocked that I didn't find them particularly banworthy.)

But even before that: With all their power, did the Catholic Church placing heliocentric works on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum] work so well that we still think the Earth is the center of the universe the way Godthe Pope intended? (Also, the placement of De Monarchia shows how stupid they were, particularly to anyone who read The Divine Comedy. But nothing written in such a common language as Italian could possibly be worth checking over, right?)

As much as I hate some of the stuff people say, might as well let them say it. We have to protect all speech, since I've found the majority's taste in speech (glances at successful reality TV shows) to be lacking, to say the least.

Of course, if I were dictator I'd just have everyone involved shot.

 

[Neofishie]

Personally, I don't agree with any of those choices.

I don't think any media should be banned for its content, unless someone was harmed in its creation (child pornography is an example).

Otherwise, live and let live.