BAAAAN

[Tale]

Do games shape the way people think? If so, then we must recognize that games influence society and that people have a "right" to be concerned. If not, then we should stop talking about "serious" games because it's all just mindless entertainment that can't possibly affect us in any significant way.

 

Personally, I'm willing to entertain the former in order to prove the latter. If games can affect the way we think, then that makes the medium all the more powerful and therefore meaningful to develop in. If not, then we might as well stick to shallow crap in an effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator, since no one ever takes games seriously anyways.

 

Of course, just because games have an effect on society, doesn't mean we should endeavor to ban the unwholesome among them. Take books, for example - we know that they affect society in a deep and profound manner, but banning a book because we disagree with its contents is an act of censorship that most of us would consider wrong. The same should be true for games.

I wouldn't make the judgement call of saying it's wrong. I'd say it's socialist. Which means it's the wants of society over the wants of individuals. I'm more of a fan of personal freedom, but I recognize that could be because of my upbringing, not my morality.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Tale

[Volourn]

Tale admits to supporting book burning. Cool.

[Tale]

Tale admits to supporting book burning. Cool.

If it's Stephen King's Eyes of the Dragon, you're damn straight!

[Walsingham]

I'm no fan of censorship, but the BBFC don't hand out bans willy nilly, it must be a pretty bleak game.

I was going to say the exact same thing. You must be a genius.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Is there also a ban in the UK for movies like Se7en, Saw, Hostel, 8mm etc.?

 

If not, why is a game which has much less impact, imho, getting banned? I'm guessing the argument is that by controlling these characters as they commit these violent acts it has a worse impact on the psyche of the viewer/player than simply watching it. I personally disagree as I find myself much more unfomfortable watching live action violence than controlling 3d video game characters.

 

I find myself disapointed with this ban simply on the basis that it will make Jack Thompson happy.

Edited June 19, 2007 by GreasyDogMeat

[Hurlshort]

I would like the game industry to take more responsibility for the content they are putting on store shelves, but I still think the lion's share of responsibility belongs in the hands of the parents. I'm confused how they can keep an 18 year old adult from purchasing this game, but I'm not familiar with the UK's censorship rules.

[metadigital]

SENSORESHIP! SENSORESHIP!

 

They're probably all a bunch of old foggies who still complain about rock and roll music and yell at children to get off their lawns.

You are such an idiot.

Don't judge me!

Ender ... is that you?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The parents of a Leicester schoolboy who blamed the original game for the murder of their 14-year-old son said they were "absolutely elated" sleeping better now that they found an escapegoat to justify mediocre parenting.

[Tigranes]

This is interesting because the New Zealand Censorship authorities banned Manhunt the original when it came out. I had the opportunity to speak to the head of the government institution that did so at the time. From memory, he stated that Manhunt was banned not because of its violence or gore (or a thousand films would be too), but the fact that the user was continually encouraged to commit the greatest feat of violence possible in order to progress. The problem was that A) violence was the best and only answer to all problems, B) the number of points awarded was proportional to the level of violence exercised by the player, and C) the progression of the game itself was dependent upon the player's execution of these acts. In other words the player had to commit virtual violence of a sadistic level to progress, was rewarded for doing so, and was encouraged to search even 'better' means of doing so.

 

While some present pointed to, say, GTA3, he pointed out that GTA actually had missions which were fulfilled by performing acts such as, I don't know, driving a taxi, and the level of sadism and carnage possible was more 'optional' a component.

 

At this point those present accepted his justification of the banning; what that really meant for me was that everybody accepted a video game's interactive and socially influential capacities, so that if a player is sufficiently encouraged to sadistic, violent deviance within a video game, this would have debilitating effects on society as a whole and the individual, even if he is a fully grown adult. I think the same conclusion would be instinctively reached by many people who read the OP's article, especially if they are not hardcore gamers.

[Meshugger]

So, there's an authority in Britain that decides whether a perfectly healthy grownup can purchase a VIDEO-GAME or not, based on the rate of violence. A single grown-up individual can not decide for him/herself on on such matters, no. A non-elected goverment official has better judgement on such trivial matters than any other member of society, why ofcourse.

 

[Down with] censorship. [Down with] those that blame violence on video-games, and a big "Grown up already" to anyone that supports it.

Edited June 20, 2007 by metadigital
profanity

[Azarkon]

Besides, we all know that banning something only increases its cult appeal, and could end in more people playing the game than less

[mkreku]

I don't know why people keep comparing movies to computer games. In one you're a passive spectator, in the other you're an active participant. Anyone but me see the difference..?

[Sand]

I don't know why people keep comparing movies to computer games. In one you're a passive spectator, in the other you're an active participant. Anyone but me see the difference..?

I see the difference which is why games are better than movies. Active participation is always better than passive participation if all other aspects are of the same quality.

[Meshugger]

I don't know why people keep comparing movies to computer games. In one you're a passive spectator, in the other you're an active participant. Anyone but me see the difference..?

 

Still, the user knows the difference between a fantasy world and reality

[Volourn]

Games, and movies, and books, and tv shows are not reall. Only delusional freaks who have major problems already would think otherwise. Using entertainment as scapegoats for other atcual issues is cowardly, and pathetic. Don't bury the heads ain the sand. Deal with the TRUE problems.

[Pop]

Also note: The ESRB has officially given Manhunt an "Adults Only" rating, which is pretty big. I'm personally wondering if Nintendo's going to react adversely to all of this, given their generally squeaky-clean image.

[Sand]

Games, and movies, and books, and tv shows are not reall. Only delusional freaks who have major problems already would think otherwise. Using entertainment as scapegoats for other atcual issues is cowardly, and pathetic. Don't bury the heads ain the sand. Deal with the TRUE problems.

Yeah, the last thing I need is some guy trying to stick his head in me.

[GreasyDogMeat]

I don't know why people keep comparing movies to computer games. In one you're a passive spectator, in the other you're an active participant. Anyone but me see the difference..?

 

There is obviously a difference, and there is also a hell of a big difference between pushing a button to make a 3d character stab another 3d character and actually taking a knife and doing so.

 

The reason I compared the two mediums is because, for me, a movie with violent content is far more difficult to watch than playing a game with the same content which is why I asked if certain movies are banned in the UK.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

"No, playing games for too long incites people to violence or other stupid acts. Either by frustrating them or just giving them bad ideas."

 

Nope. Sand is right. This is the modern equivelant of blaming the devil.

 

Games do not kill, do not encite someone to kill, or do stupid acts. It's beyond ludicrous to suggest it do.

 

I guarantee that in EVERY case dealing with games and violence that the criminal who had a game be blamed for his actions had other problems outside of video games - ie. poor home life, horrible school/work social problems, drugs, alcohol abuse, or other deeper more mental problems.

 

Games are NEVER the cause. Period.

 

This reminds me of the cases way back when D&D was considered a 'devil's work' is the cause of murder. yet, in every single case where D&D was brought up as a (the) cause, there was always soemthing else involved a smention above.

 

The theory that games (or any form of entertainment) cause someone to act out is just beyond retarded. It has no basis in logic.

 

The Devil Made Me Do It. L0L That's hilarious.

 

 

P.S. I presume you are gonna blame games for my attitude. HAHA!

 

If you do, I'll blame your parents' poor parental skills for yours.

 

 

Oh SNAP!

 

 

 

 

Games, and movies, and books, and tv shows are not reall. Only delusional freaks who have major problems already would think otherwise. Using entertainment as scapegoats for other atcual issues is cowardly, and pathetic. Don't bury the heads ain the sand. Deal with the TRUE problems.

 

Oh.

Ok, you're right.

 

But it's still a retarded game.

[Gfted1]

Ireland joins the party.

[Big Bottom]

SENSORESHIP! SENSORESHIP!

 

They're probably all a bunch of old foggies who still complain about rock and roll music and yell at children to get off their lawns.

You are such an idiot.

Don't judge me!

 

Sensorship!!

[Big Bottom]

Games, and movies, and books, and tv shows are not reall. Only delusional freaks who have major problems already would think otherwise. Using entertainment as scapegoats for other atcual issues is cowardly, and pathetic. Don't bury the heads ain the sand. Deal with the TRUE problems.

 

You might regret that viewpoint if a pumped up meathead came your way after psyching himself up on a Manhunt binge and lamped you one. There is no doubt in my mind that games can be an influence on violent behaviour, it allows people to act out their worst fantasies and for some after a while fantasy doesn't do enough. Sure these people might end up looking for trouble anyway but do you think violent games help or hinder the issue? Seems pretty simple to me. So if the BBFC want to ban this game I probably don't want to play it anyway.

[Pop]

In a way, I'm always surprised by the sheer willingness of people to turn libertarian whenever something they might marginally enjoy is affected by government oversight.

 

And after some checking, Nintendo indeed "refuses to license games that carry the ESRB rating "AO" (Adults Only)." So at this point, Take Two is either going to force Rockstar to drastically alter their game, or lose unprecedented amounts of the market, and take huge losses on their investment, on principle, for what amounts to an Acclaim-caliber snuff game.

 

Honestly, I'm not shedding any tears. Even as somebody who really, really loves gaming, I don't feel compelled to stand up for every two-bit exploitation game. I do not fear the Jack Thompson contingent, they'll fail with or without my involvement.

Edited June 20, 2007 by Pop

[Aram]

England already failed years ago on the Aram-o-meter when they banned firearms. Damn Nazi Pinkos.

[Pop]

Apparently Sony, too, will not release AO games. So it looks like Take Two's only option is to cut the game up and hope for an M rating.