Censorship in games: Whats your opinion?

SS4Brolly

SS4Brolly

CAGiversary!
With Take Two's recent censorship of Vice City, what is your opinion on this? Should certain things be not allowed in games? Or should the companys produce games as they wish?

Edit: Fixed a typo and a stupid mistake in the poll.
 
in my personal view,censorship kills creativity.

If I wanted something uncreative, I wouldn't have to pay money for it -- any idiot can make something bland and politically friendly -- but would it be worth playing?
 
edit: Errors fixed. Thanks, Brolly!

Anyway, it doesn't matter to me what companies put in their games, so long as they offer sufficient warning. For example, if a new volleyball game came out and the developers decided to add topless players, as long as there is a warning that that game contains partial nudity and should only be played by people 18 years or older, fine. But, if they leave that warning out, then I see a problem.
 
Let the companies make the games as they see fit. Bring the ESRB more in line with MPAA/CARA. Let the parents screen the games their children play.
 
I actually have to do a debate for school on Tuesday on "Violent and Sexually Explicit Video Games Should Be Restriced From Minors." I am the affirmative and am arguing that stores should contine to require parental permission before a child under the ESRB suggested age minimum for a game can purchase a game. I will argue that this should be law, not just a voluntary action by stores. There was a law being passed in St. Louis County (where I live, as a matter of fact) to enforce the ESRB ratings, but it has been put on hold by a judge. I still need to do research, to fill me in on anything I missed or screwed up. I am not saying that Mature and Adult games should be banned from minors, just that anyone under the age requirement should need parental permission, like movies.

Like others here, I think game companies should do as they see fit without government intervention of the content of games. Just that more maturely-rated games should require parental permission for kids to purchase.
 
[quote name='dan7532']I actually have to do a debate for school on Tuesday on "Violent and Sexually Explicit Video Games Should Be Restriced From Minors." I am the affirmative and am arguing that stores should contine to require parental permission before a child under the ESRB suggested age minimum for a game can purchase a game. I will argue that this should be law, not just a voluntary action by stores. There was a law being passed in St. Louis County (where I live, as a matter of fact) to enforce the ESRB ratings, but it has been put on hold by a judge. I still need to do research, to fill me in on anything I missed or screwed up. I am not saying that Mature and Adult games should be banned from minors, just that anyone under the age requirement should need parental permission, like movies.

Like others here, I think game companies should do as they see fit without government intervention of the content of games. Just that more maturely-rated games should require parental permission for kids to purchase.[/quote]

Exactly. From my experiences, the problems come when parents buy their kids Mature-rated games without having any idea of what the game's content is like. It doesn't matter how badly your nine year old son wants Manhunt - just check it out online to see if it's appropriate, and refuse to buy the game if it's not. Unfortunately, most people aren't smart enough to do this, and are more content to buy now, bitch later.

"Our children shouldn't be playing violent games!"
If you stop buying them the games, they won't be able to play them as easily. Problem solved.
 
Penny Arcade posted a day or 2 ago that ESRB should change its ratings to P, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 so parents couldnt say they didnt understand the system.

Anyways, they should only be censored if something big happens and would cause too much trouble. Something like in a game due out in a month where you play as terrorists and have to assinate the Vice President, and it actually happens, then it needs to be removed.

But I really wish Take Two just said "See you in court", because I honestly dont believe they even have a case. I would bet 95% of the people playing dont even realize that Hatians are people from the country Hati. I didnt until someone brought it up.
 
[quote name='SS4Brolly']Penny Arcade posted a day or 2 ago that ESRB should change its ratings to P, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 so parents couldnt say they didnt understand the system.

Anyways, they should only be censored if something big happens and would cause too much trouble. Something like in a game due out in a month where you play as terrorists and have to assinate the Vice President, and it actually happens, then it needs to be removed.

But I really wish Take Two just said "See you in court", because I honestly dont believe they even have a case. I would bet 95% of the people playing dont even realize that Hatians are people from the country Hati. I didnt until someone brought it up.[/quote]

Gamespy also had an article the other day about that and how when the rating system was getting started their request to use that system was rejected...

My take on this deal: censoring is bad! You can say whatever you want of course you just can't do it in a video game... right...

That being said, 3 year olds don't need to be playing Manhunt or GTA. Parents NEED TO FRICKIN PAY ATTENTION. It's right there on the bottem of the box and on the back, there are posters everywhere (at least at my Blockbuster, Best Buy, Gamestop, etc.) and if it has a guy with a frickin gun on the cover, it might involve shooting. Most places also already ask parents if they want their kids playing it and tell them whats in it. I think now its in the hands of the parents as game companies and retailers have done enough to make it knowen that a game is "bad".

About the whole AO issue: if you want to make a really bad game, make it. If it gets AO and no one sells it, it's YOUR fault for making a game that bad. Moral of the story? There are limits and you shouldn't pass them. Not that the AO "punishment" is ever really used but its still there as a threat, maybe a semi-meaningless one, but still a threat none the less.
 
parents are stupid!

At least the uninvolved ones are.

remember back when shadow hearts, kingdom hearts, and dual hearts were released at approximately the same time?

Well I had the misfortune to be present in the bestbuy gaming section waiting for a clerk to get a game from the back for me while another clerk was helping this mother who asked for the Disney game she had read about called shadow hearts

The clerk got off the rock for her and explained it was the game she really wanted.

No go.

She knew what she really wanted, as she wasn't going to let some buy $5. 5 0 dollar an hour clerk try to sell her the wrong game.

She came for shadow hearts ,and by golly,she was going to get shadow hearts-- she told everyone within hearing distance!

now most clerks being the younger type with a low threshold for aggravation would have just handed her shadow hearts and let her find out the hard way, but this was an older moralistic type, and he just wouldn't let her have what she wanted -- which was a good kick in the teeth at this point in my opinion,, but I digress ;-)

I finally ended up walking out without my game the scene she created was so bad, so I'm not sure how it ended.

I can tell you however that the little kds I saw with herwere probably scarred for life by that scene she created far worse than any videogame could ever do to them ;-)
 
[quote name='gamefreak']About the whole AO issue: if you want to make a really bad game, make it. If it gets AO and no one sells it, it's YOUR fault for making a game that bad.[/quote]

I'd like to see a developer with the balls to make an AO game. Wow, Wal-Mart will refuse to sell it. Big deal. Im sure it will sell just as well as other games. Atleast when BS rises about it being too ____, they can say "This game has been rated for adults only, and can only be sold to adults. Its your problem." With the M rating, nearly anyone can buy it. A retailer might question an 8 year old about buying GTA, but definatly not Onimusha, Max Payne, or Devil May Cry. I dont think I've ever been denied a game. Most people will just say "Fine, Ill go the EB/Gamestop at the other end of the mall and buy it there" and the retailer is out $50. With AO this wont be happening.
 
Well, I don't know what the limit should be, but certain games should be able to be censored. But, The games should also be put out into their original form also. I guess the only reason you should censor something is if a game is rated higher than the mature rating(im tired and cant think of what it is right away). But I am against government regulating what the game is and isn't allowed to express. I think it is horrible that video games aren't protected by the freedom of speech.
 
Ya like for some PC games (most notably the SOF games) come with an option to install a gory or a semi-edited option. Alot of other games come with an option for this too (MGS2 I think...?).
 
i am against censorship in all its forms. but its funny how much video game violence upsets people. recently ive been low on cash and have been tradeing them in, for new ones. however, not grand theift auto 3, why? im not crazy about the game although i did play it to completion. its because its a piece of history, this game has pissed more ppl off than any other b4 it. i know another will come along in time, but i havent herd a game being disscussed so much by none gamers since dooms (involvement) in columbine.
 
Your question is completely meaningless.

Until a game is released, it's a work in progress; a multitude of ideas is considered and thrown out on a daily basis.

Surely you're not suggesting the development company shouldn't have a say regarding the content - they're generating it.

Surely you're not suggesting the publisher shouldn't have a say regarding the content - it's their money, their image, their risk.

I think you meant to ask something like "should any government body have the power to force game companies to censor their content?"

At least that point is debatable.
 
[quote name='SS4Brolly']Wow, Wal-Mart will refuse to sell it. Big deal. Im sure it will sell just as well as other games.[/quote]

Do you have any idea how much sales Wal-Mart generates? How a contract with it can make or break a company?

Just because you don't buy your games at wal-mart, doesn't mean it's not one of the country's biggest (if not the biggest, period) game-selling channels.
 
[quote name='eldad9'][quote name='SS4Brolly']Wow, Wal-Mart will refuse to sell it. Big deal. Im sure it will sell just as well as other games.[/quote]

Do you have any idea how much sales Wal-Mart generates? How a contract with it can make or break a company?

Just because you don't buy your games at wal-mart, doesn't mean it's not one of the country's biggest (if not the biggest, period) game-selling channels.[/quote]

No, I had no idea at all.

But on the othere hand, if Wal-Mart refuses to sell it, it will make national news of "how bad it is" and whatnot. People will buy it, like GTA3, to see what the big deal is.
 
First of all game companies can do whatever they want - if they made the game they have the right to alter it how they wish. I don't think the poll was worded too well.

I am not for game censorship, but I also think that we need to be careful not to accept gratuitous sex, violence and other evils as the norm - there should be more to a game than just those things.

People may want to single out GTA as an example of this, but GTA is hardly gratuitous as the whole point of the game is to roleplay a criminal. It would be stupid to be a criminal who couldn't kill or steal, etc.
 
I believe that companies shouldnt have to censor their games but the parents that buy the games for their kids decided if it is appropriate enough or not.
 
[quote name='dan7532']I actually have to do a debate for school on Tuesday on "Violent and Sexually Explicit Video Games Should Be Restriced From Minors." I am the affirmative and am arguing that stores should contine to require parental permission before a child under the ESRB suggested age minimum for a game can purchase a game. I will argue that this should be law, not just a voluntary action by stores. There was a law being passed in St. Louis County (where I live, as a matter of fact) to enforce the ESRB ratings, but it has been put on hold by a judge. I still need to do research, to fill me in on anything I missed or screwed up. I am not saying that Mature and Adult games should be banned from minors, just that anyone under the age requirement should need parental permission, like movies.

Like others here, I think game companies should do as they see fit without government intervention of the content of games. Just that more maturely-rated games should require parental permission for kids to purchase.[/quote]

That law was overturned, since video games are protected by the first amendment. A law similar law was overturned in another federal case. Also, there is no law that enforces movie ratings.

Laws restricting minors' access to violent entertainment have always been struck down, but there's plenty of stuff on the books to keep them away from sex.
 
I don't believe in censorship in any form whatsoever. I feel very strongly that the loud protests of a few should not affect the content of entertainment (books, music, movies, plays, video games, etc.) available to everyone. I don't want to be denied access to certain entertainment because a handful of self-righteous conservative a-holes are offended by it. If you don't like something, vote with your wallet. If the majority of consumers agree with you, the "offensive" product will quickly and quietly disappear from retail store shelves.
 
The ESRB does have ratings for everything from virtual porn to sesame street. No games should NEVER be censored. Why should we make games to kids likings. Their are plenty of gamers over 18.
I truly get upset when i watch B/S protestors on the news because a game is to violent. I'll show them violence. And don't complain about your kids getting ideas from games like GTA because your the ass that bought it for them considering they cant buy it because of......wait for it........
THE RATING!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Yep, such bastions of intellect as some of those here who have been throwing out thier opinions are exactly why these people keep fighting it.

You do no one any good if you sound like a grade A moron when you try to voice your opinion.
 
[quote name='rickybee2003']And don't complain about your kids getting ideas from games like GTA because your the ass that bought it for them considering they cant buy it because of......wait for it........
THE RATING!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

Not that I disagree with your whole argument, but I have been able to buy a few M-rated games without a parent overseeing the transaction. Thankfully, my parents aren't the kind to go nuts when they see your character shoot and kill an enemy, but I could see how some parents might get upset if their kid buys GTA3 without their knowing or permission. In that case, they should go after the stores, not the developers.
 
Frankly, I'm confused by the poll question. It's only censorship if the government authority uses some sort of coersion to force a game company to change it's content.

So, the first poll option reads: should game companies be allowed to censor themselves. Well, yes, they should.

Second option reads: Game companies should censor themselves if the content is really bad. Of course, if they choose.

Third option reads: game companies should leave games as they are (i.e., do what they want). Well, yes, if that's what they want.

This doesn't make sense to me. It should be rephrased to read:

Should the government censor videogames?
1. yes
2. maybe, if it's really bad
3. no



In any case, I vote no, the government shouldn't censor games. They also shouldn't censor the airwaves, but that's a bigger story with more complications. It's the market's responsibility to determine what is socially acceptable, not the government's. At least in supposed 'free' society, anyway.
 
I 100% don't agree with censorship.

If over-protective parents don't want their kids to play it - fine. Keep them locked up in their little box all their life - no skin off my back.

Just don't mess with my games because you're a lunatic.

Censorship and political correction are banes of society. Especially American society.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I think we can live without sex in video games.[/quote]

True, but can you make that judgment for all gamers. I for one don't mind the sex so much, but definitely want an edgy game not some turpid GC fare. Imagine TV or movies without sex. All we'd be watching would be Fox Familly Channel or Disney movies. I think all those politicians are forgetting that the medium grows with its viewers, as gamers or viewers get older they want entertainment they can relate to more or less (apologies if this has been already said in one form or another). Its not even all about sex though, I remember when Xenogears was released in the US, it was censored due to religious themes. You take a great deal out of the designers' vision for the experience by censorship. If you are paying $50 for the video game, then it better be damn well complete in all aspects.
 
Well my opinion, is that newer systems should be made with parental lock out, like the dvd setting on the xbox, i dont know if the ps2 has one. And just encode it in the rating in the game, or for certain games that can turn gore on an off have it default to off if the settigs are pg13 or whateva. Even though some parents would be ignorant of it, and would benefit those parents who try to set approatiate material for their kids.
 
Censorship is when the government says 'You may not say/print/write this.' And originally, the biggest right protected by this was the right to speak out against the government. It's not when the government says 'You must be 18 to see this,' and it's certainly not when a company makes a decision to edit their own topic. Whether or not Rockstar or whoever should have changed the line in GTA can certainly be debated, but it's not censorship. I do find it somewhat disturbing, however, that out of everything in GTA:VC, they pick one line that happens to mention a specific cultural group and harp on that. It's okay to kill cops with a flamethrower, but don't mention the Haitians.

That said, I do believe ultimately the responsibility lies with parents: firstly, to vet what their children are playing/reading/watching; secondly but more importantly, to teach them right from wrong, and reality from fantasy, so they know the 'real-life' impacts of the things they see in fantasy [games.]

I also am not a fan of gratuitous sex and violence--don't get me wrong, I don't mind sex and violence at all, but when it's gratuitous, ie, only there for the titillation and not for any characterization or plot purposes.
 
Sometimes the plot IS the sex and violence, just like some movies, TV shows, books, or comics. It doesn't need to have a purpose or artistic merit, it sometimes IS the purpose. There's nothing wrong with gratuitous sex and violence for it's own sake, if that's what you want to watch.

Unreal tourney and the like is just basically a slaughterfest with cool explosions. You really can't get more gratuitous than that, and I don't have a problem with any of it. It's pretty insulting when someone calls something I like indecent and wants to deprive me of the right to be entertained by it because of their perverted sense of moral superiority. Censorship sucks, period. In a free society, you have to tolerate the tastelessness of others to savor the flavor of freedom.
 
Sometimes I wonder what entertainment and games the next generation will have when they're my age. There's such an outcry towards our generation - the wanton sexuality, piercings, violence, disrespect for this or that, etc. - that there's calls to censor almost everything that makes us unique. I really hate to think what is going to come in the future that we are going to be disgusted with and how we are going to react.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Sometimes the plot IS the sex and violence, just like some movies, TV shows, books, or comics. It doesn't need to have a purpose or artistic merit, it sometimes IS the purpose. There's nothing wrong with gratuitous sex and violence for it's own sake, if that's what you want to watch.

Unreal tourney and the like is just basically a slaughterfest with cool explosions. You really can't get more gratuitous than that, and I don't have a problem with any of it. It's pretty insulting when someone calls something I like indecent and wants to deprive me of the right to be entertained by it because of their perverted sense of moral superiority. Censorship sucks, period. In a free society, you have to tolerate the tastelessness of others to savor the flavor of freedom.[/quote]

That's true, and again, I don't have a problem with that--when I play Quake or Unreal or The Suffering [haven't yet, but will], I know I'm in for extreme violence. I also won't play those around my son, or let him play them yet.
My easiest-to-remember example of gratuitous sex was in the movie 'Nightfall', loosely based on a classic Isaac Asimov short story. The story was incredible, the movie sucked, *and* added in gratuitous sex scenes that added nothing to the plot or characters. However, in A Clockwork Orange, one of my favorite movies, the sex and violence is inherent necessary, and provides a pivotal function in the film.

I also agree that the decision should be mine and my family's as to what to watch/play etc, but I believe the company producing it also has a right to decide what they want to produce, based on their perception of their audience. That doesn't ocnstitute censorship, technically. I also wouldn't mind seeing some sort law enforcing the ratings of movies, games, and music [be consistent], because I'd rather see that than 8 year old kids buying GTA or Manhunt. I don't understand how that's a 'free speech' issue, but i do believe that the ESRB ratings are basically voluntary [or at least third party, non-governmental], so that might have something to do with it.
 
I think there is merit for laws requiring age limits on buying certain rated games. You wouldn't want your 12 year old to be able to buy cigarettes at the corner store and you wouldn't want your child to purchase a porno movie either. The same goes for mature video games. Free speech may be guaranteed, but there is precedent for restrictions on minors to exposure to such products. When your society, or county, or state collectively decides to restrict minors' access, it doesn't restrict the freedom of speech of the producing companies. I think we should be able to take care of this on the local level, not federal, though.
 
[quote name='rickybee2003']I TRULY BELEIVE THAT ANY1 THAT PROTESTS SHOULD BE KILLED ON THE SPOT. NOBODY WANTS YOU HERE.[/quote]

Type "tiananmen square" in you search engine, asshole.
Protesting is necessary for free society, and if it was illegal we would be no better than those communist fuckers in China.

DISCLAIMER:
The Chinese commie fuckers I am refering to is the government, not the people. I like the people and wish them a successful revolution and hope they get human rights laws.
 
I don't think protesting is necessary, per se, but the freedom to protest is necessary for a free society. The 'protestant act' is also known as 'free speech', as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of another individual.
 
Let the game companies produce whatever they want. There are endless sources for game previews and reviews. Anyone concerned with content can research a game before purchasing or allowing a purchase.
 
But they should adapt the industry standard movie ratings of G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, and porn, and everything above PG-13 should require an ID and stores should not carry pornographic games.
 
People do need to educate themselves as to what is out there, especially parents.
Having a standard of ratings, and *sticking to it*, and making that known, would be very helpful with that. And I believe the MPAA/videogame rules are actually voluntary, so it's not censorship.
I think the ratings on video games now are pretty clear, but the average consumer [that is, Little Jonny's mom] probably doesn't understand it real well. It actually offers clarification as to *why* the game got rated a certain thing [Fantasy Violence, Alcohol References, etc.] which is neat.
I don't know if any 'pornographic' games actually exist, but if they do, I think they should be carried by some stores, based on what market that store serves. IE, I wouldn't expect WalMart to carry them, but an adult-bookshop or other adult-themed store, I don't have a problem with them carrying them.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']But they should adapt the industry standard movie ratings of G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, and porn, and everything above PG-13 should require an ID and stores should not carry pornographic games.[/quote]

No.

The packaging should reflect the CONTENT, but should not make a judgement as to the age required.

Let's look at one of my European Dreamcast games, shall we? The European Shenmue 2.

ELSPA rating: 11+
USK: Geeignet ab 12 Jahren
aDeSe: 13+
Pour Tout Publics

So a game appropriate for everybody in france, is only OK for 11 year old British kids, German kids 12 or older, and Spanish teenagers.

Are French kids that much more mature than their Spanish counterparts? Or maybe it's that, you know, kids are DIFFERENT, they grow up at a different PACE, and the rating system is ARBITRARY?
 
:roll: Parents that want to shield their children from the outside world already have game RATINGS (started by Sega), and DESCRIPTORS (added by the ESRB). What more could you possibly want? If you're going to make a game, then edit it, just be sure to make both publically available.

:idea: Sega did this with Virtua Fighter 2 for Saturn, but it just goes to show how stupid the ratings can be. In the TEEN version, Shun has a flask (inferred as being alcohol), that he takes a sip of upon winning. In the K-A version, the flask is gone; and the descriptor doesn't say Use of tobacco and alcohol. Otherwise, the game is exactly the same. :!:
 
There needs to be some clarification here about what we mean when we say 'game companies.' On video game systems there are currently a mere three companies who make the final decisions on content: Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft. They can simply refuse to publish anything they feel is beyond acceptability.

Chances are a sequel to the scatological PC Engine shooter 'Toilet Kids' is never going to appear in the US. The three consoles manufacturers would never go for it regardless of how sincerely the third party publisher believed in the title's market potential.

Capcom could decide that a hentai Street Fighter would rake in a billion dollars (Chun Li and Cammy in hot girl-girl action like never before!) but unless they go into the hardware business for themselves they'd be limited to selling it as a PC game and face a very limited retail channel.
 
[quote name='Zenithian Legend'][quote name='bruce_pwns_j00']Censorship is bullshit, how many times do you see censorship in dvd's?[/quote]

you can't argue with that[/quote]

Yes you can, but the entire argument would fall on deaf ears, so it's about as practical as urinating into the wind. (Not to mention you'll get the disgusting splash-back in both cases.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top