Question of the Day, October 5, 2010

[The Cheezy One]

There is a line, and it portrays gamers in a bad light if we cant see that

Couldn't have said it any better. 99% of games are fine with me, but I honestly fail to see the artistic value in Postal or Manhunt, for one (but then, I don't see any merit in gross-out flicks like Human Centipede or Srpski Film, either).

And then, of course, there are those poorly programmed titles/mods which let you murder Jews in concentration camps, torture women and children, or commit acts of terrorism against innocents (I'm not talking about No Russian, by the way, since that did put the whole thing in a context). I'm not sure why such disgusting stuff needs to exist, either.

The difference between games and other forms of entertainment will always be interactivity. Reading about doing something disturbing or repugnant does not necessarily make you party to that act - however, in games, it is you who control the action. In a book or movie, you are not made to do anything other than pay attention and either approve or disapprove, but in games, nothing happens unless you make it happen. In a certain but very real sense, you are doing that stuff.

So there IS a difference. When reading about some islamist shooting at a school bus, that is not you. When watching a movie about Auschwitz, you're not doing anything. In fiction, you will rarely find that the character doing such things is the one that the audience is supposed to identify with (well, there IS Hannibal Lecter...). But put those scenarios in a game, and it becomes something else entirely.

And there are boundaries which really shouldn't be crossed.

I thought you said you couldn't explain it better

 

[Jesus Phish]

Individual games, sure. I don't think you can put all video games under the umbrella of "art". Some of them (probably most of them) are not "art".

There are movies that are not considered "art," but these aren't banned. Because once you start banning one part of medium because of the subjective quality of "poor taste," you open the floodgates to having everyone with power jump on banning games based on what they find to be their own "poor taste." It becomes a mosh pit of restrictions, and the medium is choked and dies.

Games (and all art/forms of media) that set out to promote hate and violence towards a race/creed/gender/etc should be banned. Games like Ethnic Cleansing. The game has very clear views and is obviously aimed at a certain type of person, but it promotes nothing positive and I doubt its artistic merits which I'm sure some people would try say it has.

No, even games like this should be protected. The snowball effect is often a hard one to see coming. And besides, like Jedoro said;

If something's truly in bad taste, the community won't buy it and developers won't make it anymore.

Problem solved.

You go ask the guys who made MW2 "Did you do the No Russian level out of racism". They'll say and mean no.
You go ask the guys who made Ethnic Cleansing the same question and be prepared to hear racist white supremacy speechs for a few hours.

There's poor taste (movies like Mum and Dad) and then theres racist propaganda and when a medium goes from poor taste to racism, thats when it crosses a line and should become bannable.

 

[BlindChance]

While I chose 'never', I'd like to observe that I do believe that games (as well as films, photographs, etc.) that in and of themselves are created by crime (see child pornography) should be banned. Because, y'know, duh.

 

[smithy_2045]

There are a handful of games that have no redeeming qualities. They should be banned.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

If you don't like a game, don't play it. I'm against banning nigh anything.

I do wish the media would be more tasteful in what they cover though.

 

[Agayek]

I would argue that nothing should be banned ever, excepting those actions which directly harm another's person or property.

 

[Digikid]

Only MMO's should be banned....like WOW.

 

[SultanP]

I was about to vote no, but the thing about works of art not being banned made me not vote instead. I don't think games should be banned, but I don't believe in art, and as such I try my best not to support any talk of it.

 

[Simalacrum]

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.

It saddens me that so many people here (like this guy) are not in favor of free speech.

There's a thing called responsible free speech mate.

Even in America, a country which is supposedly for 'the free', you will get arrested if you purposefully spread racism and hate.

 

[ottenni]

I believe it is possible yes.

Games are at large a medium for entertainment, so not all games can claim the magical shield that is the label of art. And at some point entertainment as a medium has its limits. As much as i love the concept of free speech, what is important is the substance of the subject and not the rule you wish to govern things by , after all if i where to do otherwise i would be dealing in absolutes, making me a sith!

Also some games are so terrible that they should never see the light of day, like shovelware.

 

[DarkSpectre]

No for 99.99% of games, yes if the game actively advocates things like violence against real people. Basically ban only games that legitimately don't fall under free speech. Like a game which legitimately and actively encourages you to go out in the real world and copy your in game behaviour and that in game behaviour is something horrid like rapping young girls and then eating them. Which is a game I don't think will ever happen, but like I said only 00.01% of the time I think you should ban it. Not for poor taste but actual criminal advocacy.