When is it no longer "just a game?"

[Ronan]

-catches muffin in teeth-
That's not a game, that's highly sadistic and slightly messed up. Sorry, Meg, but that's one game I wouldn't be able to complete ._.

 

[Meg]

That's not a game, that's highly sadistic and slightly messed up. Sorry, Meg, but that's one game I wouldn't be able to complete ._.

Exactly. So, why is it ok to do terrible things to other people in games if doing it to family is not ok?

 

[Angelo Credo]

For the sake of having a discussion I'm gonna play devil's advocate.

But shouldn't media have some sort of respect for people? Like how the movie Independence Day was delayed after 9/11. Yes its all just a game/book/movie, but is that really a valid excuse to portray terrible things? What does that say about us as a society that we buy up these kind of things?

If games ever hope to advance as an art form, then developers can't keep allowing themselves to be censored when it comes to touchy subjects, the industry shouldn't stop itself from portraying these things just because it might offend people lest games forever be branded as toys for children.

Look at Six Days in Fallujah, a game that is technically still in development about a very real conflict in a very real Middle Eastern city about a very real group of soldiers deployed there, they even brought in a number of those soldiers to tell their experiences to enhance the realism of the game.

Yet every publisher that has gone near it has abandoned ship the second the controversy sparks up again because they're too afraid to endorse something that might damage their reputation, all because it may offend people.

Imagine a game that allows incest and rape. If a person does those things in real life they are thrown in prison, but if they do it in a game then its ok? Why? Whether or not is real isn't the point. The point is that they are choosing to do an unspeakable act because they think its fun/funny.

Sometimes it can be hard to draw the line where censorship in games is concerned, yet it's still largely down to the relative age of our media, games are young as a form of entertainment, a movie about incest or rape is less likely to come under as much flak as a game that covers the topic purely because movies already have their established reputation.

Because of that opinion still flying around that games are toys for children, it'll be some time before developers will ever be able to delve into the topic.

The thing is though, developers that have gone onto more touchy topics don't do it because it's fun/funny, they do it because they're trying to make a point. It's probably the one final thing I respect Infinity Ward for, having the balls to go ahead and do that airport scene, not because they thought it was funny, but because they wanted to portray something seriously in a way that could potentially spur games onwards as an art form.

Rape games...Well, they never see the light of day as far as official releases are concerned outside of Japan anyway, and when they do, they tend to get buried pretty swiftly, so it's a moot point.

I want video games to go beyond mindless entertainment toys for the youth of the generation, I want developers to be able to explore controversial topics without fear of censorship because of offence, however, if this happens, developers can't ever go back, nor can they hide behind the shield of "Calm down! It's just a game!"
Once they go that far forward, that's it, they have to stay on that course or games risk losing all credibility as an art form.

 

[Ronan]

Exactly. So, why is it ok to do terrible things to other people in games if doing it to family is not ok?

I'm not saying it's justified, it's merely a way to detach from reality. And let's be honest, the media's not entirely to blame. People demand, they deliver. With the way we've been desensitized to violence and anything mildly horrific, we need more "shock" to heighten our thrill, yes?

 

[Meg]

@Mr. Credo- I never said companies think its fun/funny, I'm saying gamers think it is. Of course I'm generalizing for the sake of moving the discussion along. Also, the reason why movies should be giving small leeway is that the viewer isn't doing it themselves, so there is a level of detachment. However, in games they are doing it themselves. Why? Why should the media feed disgusting qualities of a person? There is a way to put things like that into a game without letting the player do it themselves.

Also, I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that you aren't against stuff that's in games. So, I challenge you, Mr.Credo. Answer the question I stated in my above post. Would you do it?

@Tonks- So in a sense gamers are like drug addicts? XD

 

[Angelo Credo]

@Mr. Credo- I never said companies think its fun/funny, I'm saying gamers think it is. Of course I'm generalizing for the sake of moving the discussion along. Also, the reason why movies should be giving small leeway is that the viewer isn't doing it themselves, so there is a level of detachment. However, in games they are doing it themselves. Why? Why should the media feed disgusting qualities of a person? There is a way to put things like that into a game without letting the player do it themselves.

Also, I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that you aren't against stuff that's in games. So, I challenge you, Mr.Credo. Answer the question I stated in my above post. Would you do it?

I'm against certain things in games, take the rape games for example purely because they're unnecessary and exist purely for certain types of people to get their rocks off, not to portray any deeper meaning.
However, when it comes down to portraying events in war and things to that effect, I believe developers should have free reign to portray those events in a respectful and tasteful, true to life way.

Also, in regards to your question, no, I would not kill my own mother in a game and I think you'll find that a massive majority of gamers would give you the same response, but the question makes no sense in of itself, as no developer in their right mind would even think twice about creating such a game, it'd never happen, ergo it wouldn't be a true to life scenario, so you can't draw any conclusions from that.

 

[Meg]

I'm against certain things in games, take the rape games for example purely because they're unnecessary and exist purely for certain types of people to get their rocks off, not to portray any deeper meaning.
However, when it comes down to portraying events in war and things to that effect, I believe developers should have free reign to portray those events in a respectful and tasteful, true to life way.

I agree with that 100%. Especially the bolded part. I'm not a very good devil's advocate. XD

, in regards to your question, no, I would not kill my own mother in a game and I think you'll find that a massive majority of gamers would give you the same response, but the question makes no sense in of itself, as no developer in their right mind would even think twice about creating such a game, it'd never happen, ergo it wouldn't be a true to life scenario, so you can't draw any conclusions from that.

I was just using an extreme example to make a point.

 

[Angelo Credo]

I agree with that 100%. Especially the bolded part. I'm not a very good devil's advocate. XD

I've always believed that developers should have free reign to portray real life events, so long as it's done tastefully.

I was just using an extreme example to make a point.

My apologies if I came off as standoffish.

 

[Meg]

My apologies if I came off as standoffish.

No worries.


Good discussion everyone! *high fives everyone in thread*

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

Cheez, you know I think you're a levelheaded and respectable guy, and so for that reason I'm gonna get in your face.

You make a very good point. I'm not proposing censorship, just having respect. Like my example with killing the pope in ACII. I'm Catholic. I had no idea that was going to be in there, so when it came to that I felt sick like I was doing something wrong. Each culture has mores and taboos. If every day people can't do those things without being punished in some way, either formally or informally, then why should the media be able to? Just because it isn't real doesn't mean it isn't happening in some form. Imagine a game that allows incest and rape. If a person does those things in real life they are thrown in prison, but if they do it in a game then its ok? Why? Whether or not is real isn't the point. The point is that they are choosing to do an unspeakable act because they think its fun/funny.

there are ethics in journalism, there are ethics in politics, but the entertainment industry shouldn't be held to the same standard. you knew from the first assassins creed that it's incredibly edgy when it comes to religion. it was set in probably the edgiest time in your religions history.
i think you should have thought "this may be a little rough on my religion" and not ubisoft thinking "some of our gamers are catholics, we really shouldn't put such a thing in there".

if something is provocative without being obscene, i'm all for it. if it's just plain obscene, then the gore freaks and lovers of mindless violence can have it all. i haven't played all the way through ACII, but i'm 100% sure that NOTHING plot driven in that game is humorous or silly. it's not like you get a bonus score for stripping him naked and then killing him in a creative way.
and this is ancient history we're talking about.

call me extreme, but i thought the depiction of terrorists in an airport in the newest Call of Duty was overreacted to. 9/11 happened almost a decade ago and still people like pamela geller can manage to get a following with the kind of things you could read on the atlas shrugged blog.

i think people are overly sensitive. if something is too offensive for you, then don't look at it. you can't banish it from existence and take it away from everyone who wouldn't mind it just because of your own hurt feelings. it's a basic fundamental of democracy and human decency that has been largely overlooked.

unless of course it's kids we're talking about, parents need to do their jobs when it comes to that.

 

[Darth Angelo]

Well supposedly Pope Alexander VI was actually one of the worst popes in history and bribed the cardinals so he would get chosen a lot about him and his family was crooked according to what I have read and seen outside of ACII.
He was not a pure and wholesome vicar of Christ that's for sure which is the only wall of morality that the pope should be entitled to.

Being able to kill children and animals in in games like GTA is where I see the big morality issues. The obvious stuff which most game developers are smart enough to avoid.

 

[Esura]

I've been thinking. There have been some games lately that have pushed moral limits. For instances, in ACII you kill the pope, in Medal of Honor there was the whole play as the Taliban controversy, "No Russian" in Modern Warfare 2, and now the up coming game Homefront is about North Korea taking over America. Yes yes yes I understand that games have freedom of speech, but my question is this; do games have an ethical/moral limit? If so where is it? Have we crossed it yet? Basically, when is a game no longer "just a game?"

I feel it will always just be a game. People need to get over it. Books and movies have had more controversial **** than video games ages ago. Its beating the same damn dead horse really. All forms of art don't or shouldn't have an ethical or moral limit just to appease the outcries of people who dont even play games in the first place. This isn't directed towards you, but to people who constantly complain, whine, bitch, and moan about every little damn thing in a game. Have these people EVER played a Shin Megami Tensei game? Those games have the potential to make Medal of Honor's Taliban controversy look minute in comparison had they been in the public's spotlight.

Also, I find it quite hypocritical that people will accept video games portraying the killing of German Nazis, Russians, Koreans, Japanese, and the Vietnamese, but Taliban is a no-no. Is it because it's recent? The people who even complaining about it aren't even the soldiers...hell it was a group of soldiers who thought of the idea of Six Days In Falluhah in the first place.

All I'm saying is...and excuse my language...but people need to stop being such big pussies (not directed at the OP).

 

[moseslmpg]

I think that a game is always just a game, but perhaps only in the sense that everything is "just" everything.

The thing with humans is that we attribute significance to the world, which has none per se. So, if you treat a game as more than a game, then it is more than a game.

That said, I do think that ethical issues are becoming more important for games given their increasing level of realism and gamer integration. It would be naive to ignore the distinction between games and other passive forms of entertainment or "art" (which I don't think games are btw), because games require interaction. As they become more realistic, there will be less and less difference between those actions in a game and in real life.

As for censorship, while I am against it in practice, I am actually for it in theory. I don't believe people should have access to all information at all times, and I don't believe their morbid indulgences should be pandered to by the an entertainment industry grounded only in the capitalist virtues of hedonism and amorality.

I think that even if someone is against censorship in general, games present a trickier subject that can't be treated superficially or dismissed so casually. The fact of the matter is that violence is far more entrenched in the gaming medium than any other produced by humanity, and with the ability to create games basically out of thin air, which require increasing physical and social investment from users, they could lead to a serious issues not presented by passive forms of "art."

In any case, to the Fool and the Trickster, it is all a game, even when it isn't. It just depends on your perspective and whether you can be consistent with it.

Edit: Nice thread, Meg. Very thought-provoking.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

As for censorship, while I am against it in practice, I am actually for it in theory. I don't believe people should have access to all information at all times, and I don't believe their morbid indulgences should be pandered to by the an entertainment industry grounded only in the capitalist virtues of hedonism and amorality.

but shouldn't it instead be a goal that there be nothing to censor? i'm thinking more in political terms here, but the way i see it if all information was declassified and the government could no longer censor its information, once the initial chaos (from all it's secrets which no doubt exist) passed you'd end up reaching a phase where the government has NOTHING to hide. if every action is under public scrutiny, what's there to censor?

I think that even if someone is against censorship in general, games present a trickier subject that can't be treated superficially or dismissed so casually. The fact of the matter is that violence is far more entrenched in the gaming medium than any other produced by humanity, and with the ability to create games basically out of thin air, which require increasing physical and social investment from users, they could lead to a serious issues not presented by passive forms of "art."

so then, how do you attribute the matrix getting more criticism for it's display of violence than videogames in the post-columbine school violence scare?

my mom worked as a child therapist for the school system at the time, and i wasn't allowed to see the matrix until LONG after everyone else my age because the child therapist community was putting so much blame on it.
yet, i was allowed to play goldeneye on my N64 from a very young age. even when violent videogames were brought into question it was never with the same gravity.

on the plus side, keanu reeves isn't a good example of acting for someone of impressionable age.

 

[darkslayer13]

game developers make what people will buy just like everyone else. people are responsible for their actions not companies and not products. games, movies, books etc are entertainment. if the author, developer, etc. chooses to make a point that is their right. if they want to put in pointless violence and cause controversy that is also their right. it is everyone else's right to refuse to watch, play, read, etc. if they have a problem with the content, but violence and controversy continue to sell better than anything else so that is what continues to be sold. its human nature. it's not good or bad it is just the way we are. the way we have always been and will always be.

 

[Meg]

^ I've got a question. When you say "it's human nature" do you mean buying up stuff or enjoying violence?

EDIT: Thanks, moses.

 

[moseslmpg]

but shouldn't it instead be a goal that there be nothing to censor? i'm thinking more in political terms here, but the way i see it if all information was declassified and the government could no longer censor its information, once the initial chaos (from all it's secrets which no doubt exist) passed you'd end up reaching a phase where the government has NOTHING to hide. if every action is under public scrutiny, what's there to censor?

This is where we disagree. I don't believe the public should have all knowledge available to it because it is too much responsibility for them. Note, however, that I am not saying I support control of information by some elite group for purposes of power manipulation. I'm just saying, there are some things people don't need to know for their own benefit. It is a slippery slope indeed, but I agree with it in theory, not only in terms of government, but all information. As Jack Nicholson so eloquently summed it up: "[They] want the truth? [They] can't handle the truth!"

After all, as someone else once said, if you give the truth to someone who doesn't want it, you might as well be lying to them. I think the whole focus on the truth or information being available to the general public is simply a side effect of the democratic thinking of modernity, which I also don't totally agree with, and the post-Enlightenment fetish for rationality and knowledge above all that we have a fixation upon. I feel as if it is based on these two mistaken assumptions: that human beings are primarily rational, and that the opinions of each person hold equal weight.

so then, how do you attribute the matrix getting more criticism for it's display of violence than videogames in the post-columbine school violence scare?

Because the perpetrators were specifically borrowing the aesthetic presented in the Matrix of trenchcoats and stuff. They didn't specially emulate anything in a particular game, but I think one would be remiss to discount the influence of violent videogames on their state of mind completely.

my mom worked as a child therapist for the school system at the time, and i wasn't allowed to see the matrix until LONG after everyone else my age because the child therapist community was putting so much blame on it.
yet, i was allowed to play goldeneye on my N64 from a very young age. even when violent videogames were brought into question it was never with the same gravity.

This is kind of my point, that up until now, games have been either too unrealistic or too "kiddy" to warrant any real philosophical and ethical consideration, but that we are quickly approaching a point where that is no longer a viable option. As realism increases, we have to pay attention more to the ethical implications of the medium on the whole. There is a difference between jumping on a koopa and blowing someone's head off in COD in terms of subjective human experience, even if there isn't in terms of technology.

Edit: Meg, I'm not sure what he means, but I do thinkthat the indulgence of our baser "instincts" is a fundamental aspect of human existence, if not nature.

 

[aka958]

Anyone ever seen that "Bullsh*t" episode when they are talking about video game violence?

Anyone reading the Pegi information if they don't want a specific level of violence or content?

 

[Richtofen]

As gamers, (I'm not saying ALL gamers, it's just easier to explain it this way) you tend to want "more" of everything. Story, action, gore/violence, character development and the whole works. Gamers demand, developers make...plain and simple. If people demand more COD with bigger action, they will get what they asked for. In a game reality you can shoot anyone, slash anyone and anything of the like. You're desensitized to the killing because it isn't 'real'.

 

[Esura]

game developers make what people will buy just like everyone else. people are responsible for their actions not companies and not products. games, movies, books etc are entertainment. if the author, developer, etc. chooses to make a point that is their right. if they want to put in pointless violence and cause controversy that is also their right. it is everyone else's right to refuse to watch, play, read, etc. if they have a problem with the content, but violence and controversy continue to sell better than anything else so that is what continues to be sold. its human nature. it's not good or bad it is just the way we are. the way we have always been and will always be.

Best post in the thread.

In the case of violent or misbehaving kids, parents always want to pass the blame of their kid's bad behavior on everyone or everything else except for themselves. They blame Grand Theft Auto, blame God Of War, blame Manhunt, blame Assassin's Creed, or whatever and say its the cause of violence in youth...which is bull****.

Like the story of this kid killing his brother because of Call Of Duty or some **** and want to see if he would "respawn" or some ****. Thats not Infinity Ward's or Activision's fault cause the kid is a mentally challenged, sociopathic dip****.


BTW...this applies to the thread so...whatever.