Question of the Day, October 5, 2010
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
I have a list of games I want banned, for certain reasons, but the list is very small.
Only if they are in bad taste.
Only if they are in bad taste.
I am shocked at the number of people that voted ANYTHING other than a resounding NO.
Who decides poor taste? What if their decision runs counter to yours? THAT is why there cannot be censorship of ANYTHING, only choice. You, the consumer, CHOOSE what you want......not the government.
Who decides poor taste? What if their decision runs counter to yours? THAT is why there cannot be censorship of ANYTHING, only choice. You, the consumer, CHOOSE what you want......not the government.
Sure, but theres only a few subjects that cannot be put into games, like child porn.
But some will say:"But Mattttherman3, it's not real so no harm done!" Well eventually fantasy isn't enough for some people, and that type of stuff might give some sickos some ideas. Rape games also goes along these limes.
Torture is also in bad taste, but it depends on what kind(theres the extreme of cutting limbs off and stuff like that.)
On a lighter note, unfinished games should be banned...
But some will say:"But Mattttherman3, it's not real so no harm done!" Well eventually fantasy isn't enough for some people, and that type of stuff might give some sickos some ideas. Rape games also goes along these limes.
Torture is also in bad taste, but it depends on what kind(theres the extreme of cutting limbs off and stuff like that.)
On a lighter note, unfinished games should be banned...
The 200 or so morons that voted "only if it's in bad taste" should really think about life and what gets shit done and not what is or isn't right, I mean tell me honestly does this sit well in a photo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg ? no? then it should be banned for poor taste because children might see it, right? No and to be frank neither should any game with any possible subject (including taboos and things which are currently illegal), why? because it helps raise awareness, that photo is strong, a video game which depicts torture in the right way (IE not in a way which makes it morally or ethically good but in a realistic way) ,hell even child porn, is strong, it only depends on us what we make of it, that photo won a Pulitzer because it showed the REALITY of war in all it's gory detail. If a game makes it ok to be a rapist, molester, or any other kind of depraved individual without offering anything more than that (IE if it lets see both sides of the coin without making one better than the other but just lets you see reality as it is) then they should be banned because they are nothing more than products of a depraved set of individuals and not art of any kind but if however they show you everything (action, reaction, consequences) then why should they be banned? raise your kids don't ask the government to do it for you (watch what they play, inform them honestly about reality, don't shelter them when the time comes, trust me you won't be doing them a favor if you do shelter them).
As a final note I would like to submit for consideration a game which is seen as being borderline illegal named Rapelay. I know it is in essence a rape simulator made in Japan but consider the message which is hidden in the story, what the consequences for the protagonists actions are. Now consider the type of country Japan is ( there is at least one documented case of a cannibal which ate women and confessed to it being let loose back into the population plus countless cases of murder rapes, Rapelay not only brought attention to the state of their society but also made the world take notice, maybe that wasn't the goal but that little game caused enough of a ruckus to get dozens of documentaries made about the subject in Japan and raise global awareness on the matter which in turn may not have helped much... but it still did help a little).
As a final note I would like to submit for consideration a game which is seen as being borderline illegal named Rapelay. I know it is in essence a rape simulator made in Japan but consider the message which is hidden in the story, what the consequences for the protagonists actions are. Now consider the type of country Japan is ( there is at least one documented case of a cannibal which ate women and confessed to it being let loose back into the population plus countless cases of murder rapes, Rapelay not only brought attention to the state of their society but also made the world take notice, maybe that wasn't the goal but that little game caused enough of a ruckus to get dozens of documentaries made about the subject in Japan and raise global awareness on the matter which in turn may not have helped much... but it still did help a little).
No never that is just stupid it's like banning movies or books it should be against the law to ban games
If it's in bad taste like say a game based on the 9/11 attacks then yes they should be banned.
If it's a tiny thing like the team names in multiplayer are based on actual enemy forces like the Taliban then that shouldn't be a huge issue. (looks at medal of honor with an angry face)
If it's a tiny thing like the team names in multiplayer are based on actual enemy forces like the Taliban then that shouldn't be a huge issue. (looks at medal of honor with an angry face)
Oh yes definitely.
If a game is, for example, is in blatant favour of certain things, such as 'black superiority' or are in fact propaganda for hate, racism, etc, then such products should never be sold.
Fortunately, such games are so rare that they are virtually non-existent.
If games are used as tools to purposefully spread hate and violence, then they should be banned. Most games which are labelled as such (such as GTA) don't actually do this, obviously.
If a game is, for example, is in blatant favour of certain things, such as 'black superiority' or are in fact propaganda for hate, racism, etc, then such products should never be sold.
Fortunately, such games are so rare that they are virtually non-existent.
If games are used as tools to purposefully spread hate and violence, then they should be banned. Most games which are labelled as such (such as GTA) don't actually do this, obviously.
Splatter... define "bad taste" because for some that means depicting overly graphic violence and we all know how politicians love getting their shotguns out for "bad taste". 9/11 is a subject period, innocent people died, so? innocent people died in Vietnam, Iraq, the 2nd World War, etc and games are made about those almost every year, shouldn't they be branded as "bad taste" and banned? you should really get your world view straight my friend cause some of the russian soldiers you fought alongside in Call of Duty or similar games GANG RAPED GERMAN WOMEN and then(if the woman was lucky) killed em and that's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Scrap the term "bad taste" , scrap taboos (like the one based around 9/11) and instead introduce the term "ethically wrong" , not morally but ethically (ethics aren't linked to religion like morals so you can only get right or wrong by a long process of consideration and not a series of categories, labels or taboos)
I would have agreed with the first point, that no art should be banned. But I first have to define my definition of art. Art is something that stems from an individual's creativity and passion. It can be any infinite combination of media, but there is a line. Here is my problem with "art". The loose definition used to describe any form of media: games, television, music, photography, canvas, sculpture, etc. as art does not really limit the form. Is a toilet art? According to critics, yes it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp). I contest this example, standing on the fact that it is clearly defined as "found art" meaning it already existed and all the artist had to do was sign it. Does this not open up the whole world, everything that has ever been manufactured, everything that has ever been conceived to be called art? This cheapens the hard work that true artists do everyday. I would consider games to fall under the art category, but surely there are exemptions. When the definition of art becomes to vague, when the art itself comes pre-made only to be signed by the artist, then I begin to wonder is it truly art?
I said that there are some limits that publishers should not be willing to cross, but I supported EA calling the enemy the Taliban. Is that not their name? Are we that offended because someone decided to make a game with a hint of realism? I understand that it is a sore subject for those who have lost a loved one to the war! I myself have several very close friends that have been in multiple tours over there and I worry about them constantly. But I do not lose track of who they are fighting. The Hurt Locker, a critically acclaimed and Oscar winning film, did it have to shy away from saying who was at war? No, it was a fictional story about a bomb squad in Baghdad, disarming bombs that terrorist factions had planted. We don't call them the "Opposing Force". But when a game, a more interactive and influential medium comes out and says that they are going to have the Taliban as the enemy in a multiplayer game it's horrible. Do I think it was a wise choice? No. Personally, I don't want to have my gamertag be associated with the Taliban. But it's life. Life is not a padded room where everyone wins. Toilets should not be considered art. But game are art and are created in such a way that I believe they should be exempt from being banned and do I believe there are some subjects in the world that should never become games, but that most game publishers are intelligent enough to avoid having them be an issue in the first place.
So should games be banned? If they are decent enough to get a developer behind them, then I say it is up the customer to decide whether or not it deserves to be purchased, not a government to decide whether or not it should be sold.
I said that there are some limits that publishers should not be willing to cross, but I supported EA calling the enemy the Taliban. Is that not their name? Are we that offended because someone decided to make a game with a hint of realism? I understand that it is a sore subject for those who have lost a loved one to the war! I myself have several very close friends that have been in multiple tours over there and I worry about them constantly. But I do not lose track of who they are fighting. The Hurt Locker, a critically acclaimed and Oscar winning film, did it have to shy away from saying who was at war? No, it was a fictional story about a bomb squad in Baghdad, disarming bombs that terrorist factions had planted. We don't call them the "Opposing Force". But when a game, a more interactive and influential medium comes out and says that they are going to have the Taliban as the enemy in a multiplayer game it's horrible. Do I think it was a wise choice? No. Personally, I don't want to have my gamertag be associated with the Taliban. But it's life. Life is not a padded room where everyone wins. Toilets should not be considered art. But game are art and are created in such a way that I believe they should be exempt from being banned and do I believe there are some subjects in the world that should never become games, but that most game publishers are intelligent enough to avoid having them be an issue in the first place.
So should games be banned? If they are decent enough to get a developer behind them, then I say it is up the customer to decide whether or not it deserves to be purchased, not a government to decide whether or not it should be sold.
this just runs into the same problem as every censorship issue ever: who gets to decide what is or is not acceptable?
which leads to: What makes them qualified to judge what I see/experience?
that is followed up with: Why do people need an outside source to judge content for them?
which leads to: What makes them qualified to judge what I see/experience?
that is followed up with: Why do people need an outside source to judge content for them?
games like God of War: no
games like Rapelay: YES
(for those that don't know Rapelay is a Japanese game where you rape people, one of which being a little girl)
games like Rapelay: YES
(for those that don't know Rapelay is a Japanese game where you rape people, one of which being a little girl)
You should have the right to make a game, and the right to distribute it to an audience. Here's a quote that fits well: "The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion." ~Henry Steele Commager
Yes, people get offended by things. But those of us who don't get offended should be able to enjoy it. One person's boundaries should not be a universal truth. If you don't like a sick joke, don't listen. If you don't like a violent game, don't buy it. People should be able to sell whatever they own or produce. People could make Hitler diapers for all I care, and I'd still let them. It's not like they would stay in business for long anyway.
When it comes to games like RapeLay, all I can say is: People are buying it, which proves that there is some kind of market for it. Let them buy it. And don't blame the games when one of the thousands who bought the game goes on to rape someone. Just makes them human like the rest. (In which I mean, for every pack of normal humans, there is always one with the screws loose.)
Yes, people get offended by things. But those of us who don't get offended should be able to enjoy it. One person's boundaries should not be a universal truth. If you don't like a sick joke, don't listen. If you don't like a violent game, don't buy it. People should be able to sell whatever they own or produce. People could make Hitler diapers for all I care, and I'd still let them. It's not like they would stay in business for long anyway.
When it comes to games like RapeLay, all I can say is: People are buying it, which proves that there is some kind of market for it. Let them buy it. And don't blame the games when one of the thousands who bought the game goes on to rape someone. Just makes them human like the rest. (In which I mean, for every pack of normal humans, there is always one with the screws loose.)
I'm swaying between "no" and "sometimes."
I don't think games that practically have porn scenes, rape, etc. should be allowed. But overall, anything beyond that is okay, I think.
For example, when banned games come up, one of my favorite games comes to mind: Rule of Rose. It's been banned pretty much everywhere except the US for "sexual undertones" and cruelty involving young children. Sure, that sounds bad, but for anyone that knows the game knows that it's done very discretely and in good taste. They're nothing repulsive about it, and yet, it was attacked SO many times when it was released.
Shame, really. It's a beautiful game with an amazing story.
I don't think games that practically have porn scenes, rape, etc. should be allowed. But overall, anything beyond that is okay, I think.
For example, when banned games come up, one of my favorite games comes to mind: Rule of Rose. It's been banned pretty much everywhere except the US for "sexual undertones" and cruelty involving young children. Sure, that sounds bad, but for anyone that knows the game knows that it's done very discretely and in good taste. They're nothing repulsive about it, and yet, it was attacked SO many times when it was released.
Shame, really. It's a beautiful game with an amazing story.