@losplagos: "why should we have to live with people who take great pleasure in Gorno like Saw or Hostel?"

You don't have to make it sound like we're a bunch of latent killers or something. I watch those films from a technical standpoint, as I have a major interest in the special effects that go into horror films. I don't see blood and organs, I see latex props and machinery.

ShaggE

@ajayvideogamer:

I'm pretty sure there's plenty of places in the world where books are still banned.

RaptureScientist

Videogames are young. This is only the start of our problems as we go throw the stages as an art form.

Many books used to be banned worldwide, and now its a nonissue.

ajayvideogamer

@Numanoid:
Yeah, America's take on that makes it a laughing stock in this regard.

But I'm all for banning mindless violence. If it has no redeeming artistic value, why should we have to live with people who take great pleasure in Gorno like Saw or Hostel?

I wouldn't ban, but rather look down upon something like Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers. Absolutely tasteless, stretching out a shoehorned message into its 2 hour running time. Taxi Driver delivers a coherent and layered version of that message in two simple scenes.

Where does that leave games? The author insists we hold them to a different standard (as they don't communicate a message like other entertainment might). I would have to agree with that.

losplagos

Banning is inherently pointless and detrimental.
First, it just increases interest in the banned item.
Second, once you start banning, where do you stop?
Any time something controversial is created, somebody wants to ban it. If we ban everything controversial, we're left with a whitewashed Disney world free of thought and opinion, where unicorns shit rainbow-flavored Gummi Bears and nothing is accomplished intellectually.

Sure, not everything controversial has artistic merit, but it still has every right to exist and be distributed. If you don't agree with it, by all means, say so. But don't try to ban it.

ShaggE

@IntelSilver: Yeah, I can agree with that. Take the book "Catcher in the Rye". It uses a lot more language considered taboo, or was at the time at least ("fuck" etc.)
But the language is something that makes the book so much easier to interpret. You can see what the characters are doing so much easier when they use language like that. They are speaking in the layman's terms.

Eranmane

Well at least in North America we enjoy the freedom to enjoy all games at a certain age. I strongly agree that age restriction policies that many stores have should be enforced, especially amongst younger children.

The real problem is when games rated Adult are not carried by retailers.

RaptureScientist

@IntelSilver: Indeed, that is how people talk. Would a Quentin Tarantino film be anywhere near as good without the dialogue? I can't really say no, but I can say probably not.

Zero_Beat

but... I enjoy running people over in GTA 4... I like to purposely drive on sidewalks as I travel to my destinations.

Armagetiton

I think banning something bad is worse than showing it in many cases. In America, for example, apparently sex content is apparently seen as being worse than violence?

Wtf is up with that? Death > Procreation?

Numanoid

@IntelSilver: It might've sounded unrelated to the subject, but what I mean is censoring/banning is sometimes overused and it hides the realistic aspects of movies, games, music and art in general.

IntelSilver

I ban the first place!

neoraul20

Interesting read.

This might sound stupid, but when I watch an uncensored movie with fuck's and son of a's and whatnot, it feels like the movie is more realistic. I certainly enjoy it more.

IntelSilver

@Metal_Slug_Solid: I guess he suggests, that you're not feeling as if you're actually "doing it yourself", but rather see an abstract game character doing it.

Kinda like you don't feel the joy of wearing a woman-suit while watching "Silence of the Lambs". I guess a lot of politicians and censorship advocates misinterpret controlling the action via buttons as actually PARTICIPATING in it. I don't know about you, but I consider the real-life aftermath of a car-crash as something pretty scary and disgusting.

lumpi

"Is it healthy for any culture to ban something that would explore their taboos in a safe environment?"

Short answer no, long answer yes with a but.

There are some taboos that might grow in a safe environment and then bleed out into the rest of society. Would it be fine to ban a sim that revolves around pedophilia? I think so. However, I wouldn't say the same thing about a game that includes violence.

Is this a double standard? I don't think so. People with a desire to play the pedo game are playing said game with the intent to satisfy their pedo urges. I don't think anything positive can come of that. People who play FPS games MAY have a desire to inflict harm on other people, but I think the main reason people play FPS games online (or any other competitive game) is to assert their dominance over another person. People are constantly sizing themselves up with other people in an attempt to establish a hierarchy. The world is all about competition and I think violent games promote that.

Then again, it's sometimes fun to just vent after a long day and cap a bitch online :).

golguin

I'm not sure what he's getting at. I don't understand!
I DO enjoy running over pedestrians in GTA IV, and watching them splatter over the windshield.

Metal_Slug_Solid

You should see what censorship programs are slipping through German parliament. Because of their epic (and well deserved) sense of guilt for totally going crazy during the Nazi regime, everything you say in Germany is immediately compared to "glorifying" bad things.

GTA "glorifies" violence. COD "glorifies" war. As if a few action-loaded pictures could glorify stuff for you, just by watching them.

*sigh*

Titty-censorship aside, you US folks can be glad the freedom of speech ideals are so alive in your country. Although the whole terror-paranoia is slowly taking over. I bet if you suggest that Muslims have a right to be angry (even without implying that you support suicide-bombings), you're likely to show up on a terror-watchlist the next day. Oh my...

lumpi

"Vancouver Game Design wonders if this doesn't have to do with a fundamental misunderstanding of how the player-game interaction functions:"

I can answer that for them: nope. No misunderstanding here. Censor boards understand games perfectly.

What's at the core of the issue is the implicit assumption by these nations that the government has the right and duty to modify or prohibit speech and stimulus exchanged among its adult citizens. That's the first, last, and only issue here. Everything else is just semantics.

BobDelli

The link below lists banned games by Countries. Surprisingly Australia has 27 bans.

[kezins.com]

mrjuandrful

@golguin: So, one game is bad because they play it for the supposed pedo content, and the violence is fine because you dont think the intention to harm others is the chief motive behind those games? Aren't you going into a huge assumption from the get-go here, especially about the game content?

muu

Whilst very well put and an excellent way of explaining the appeal of some violent video games, I feel it is much for not. You see, these wacko "ban everything" people don't care. Reasoning is not their strong suit, nor their weak suit, or even a suit they own now or used to own.

These "ban everything" folk, at least in the USA, tend to be Dominionists; fundamentalist Christians that believe that the world, as created by a Christian god, is their dominion, as told in the bible, and therefore they must shape the entire world into that of the teachings of the Judeo-Christian bible. One of which ways includes banning anything that may be offensive to such principles. (similar to how hard-line Islamic law works)

It is nice to try and fully extrapolate the "whys" of violent video games, but for many of the banning people, it doesn't matter. I don't know if there are a lot of fundamentalists in Canada, but irregardless of whether it is religious motivations or not, the "ban everything" pople don't care about reason. They only care about the fact (to them) that their ideals are correct and yours are wrong. To them, there is no compromise and the world is black and white, cleanly divided by their dogma or stringent "I say so" ideology.

@lumpi: I love my country (to an extent), but Freedom of Speech (I capitalize because it IS that important!) isn't what it used to be. During the party conferences (Democrat/Republican) protesters were restricted to "free speech zones", where they were seperated by razor-wire topped fencing far away from the crowds of the conventions. The fact that no one blatantly sees the horrendous irony of people in America, with the 1st Amendment, having to go to special, cordoned off zones to excise Freedom of Speech is mind boggling. Even more so, that they are able to get away with such kinds of obvious subversions to such inalienable rights without anyone batting an eyelash.

"No, no... You can't speak freely here. Go far away, over there in that hidden and fenced in area. That's where freedom belongs, not here, there, and everywhere else!"

stupid_mcgee

censoring things just takes the fun out of making those things in the first place, gaming bans are just stupid. It takes the fun out of making a good game. Don't ban and just give games the proper rating and those who are dumb enough to act out the shit they see in video games should just go kill themselves.

NY_nets_in_09

Videogames can be designed however they need to be to communicate different meanings. Some games don't aim to give much meaning to the player and simply strive for fun, competitive gameplay in which case Vancouver Game Design's analysis would apply. There are games, however, that do attempt to communicate meaning through their gameplay and the different experiences the player must endure. Tangently, there are even more games that really bear no resemblance to normal "taboos" since they bear little resemblance to real life. So, really, the analysis and excuses given here only apply to certain games, albeit the games that tend to be banned.

Oh, and I felt like linking this:
[www.fat-pie.com]

>_>

Blah8

@BobDelli: Pretty bold statement saying that these people understand the games, when often officials make comments about them that are just wrong. Like that rape scene in GTA4, that doesn't exist but was targeted by some idiot.

Bon5ai

@ShaggE:
That's hardly the same as enjoying the sight of someone carved up by a scythe or tearing into themselves with a razor. There are of course other places to go for technical effects, but watching these to that end isn't objectable.

losplagos

@losplagos: Ah, but I do enjoy the films as films, on top of enjoying the tech handiwork. I'm a horror geek through and through, so it's only natural for me to find merit in even the worst of it's subgenres.

Why do I enjoy them? Couldn't tell ya. I'm a pacifist in reality. I abhor all real life violence. But I love cinematic splatter just as much as I love a thought-provoking arthouse flick.

ShaggE

@mrjuandrful: lol pokemon was banned in Saudi arabia because it promoted zionism

Phreakz

Hopefully in before the 'bawwww.' Most coherent and long posts tend to get thrown down near the bottom as the ones posting "Ja ur rite the bans suck, legalize we3d!" come and go.

Anyways, to the article: I agree that most of the games these days aren't really what one would consider 'art' in that the piece is open to interpretation or trying to express a point or idea. If someone were to come up to me and say that GTA IV is a brilliant piece on existentialism and the futility of life, I'd probably laugh in their faces until they left the room. Same thing with Gears of War or other titles with absolutely no artistic merit or depth.

On the other hand, there are a few rare gems that come out where the game is built around the idea of exploring a theme or intentionally left open for interpretation on the part of the player. Examples of games like that are the more recent Braid, as well as Bioshock. MGS4 explores ideas relevant to the information age and some 'nightmare scenarios', Silent Hill 4 (at least in my mind) began to take away the safety the player felt, as your apartment world began to slip into the same hell the Silent Hill world is in, and made for good interpretation.

However those games are all few and far between and the actual artistic merit of our entertainment isn't as prevalent as we all like to claim, and censorship, as much as I hate to say it, is still a card that we should have available on the table, but should be responsible in how often we play it. If there was ever a game called "Rapemaster 6000" I'd probably shed little tears over the Banhammer being dropped on it. There is no reason for something like that to be out, no artistic merit, no ideas being explored, nothing of value actually being put forward. However that doesn't stop those games from being released in Japan with an (appropriate) adults only rating equivalent.

There is, as the article said, a very large different and frame of mind from *being* the guy doing the shooting, and being the guy telling the guy to do the shooting. Most politicians and rating boards do not make the distinction between the two. You, the player, are not actually doing anything wrong. You are pushing a button on a pad which makes a digital avatar move on screen in pre-determined motions. I'm not sure you could make things more removed from reality if you tried, but that doesn't stop people from calling these things murder simulators.

I think if more games went to try to actually shoot for exploring themes and ideas or perhaps some more artistic elements aside from the development phase then the medium would be one more step closer to actual being described as 'artistic'.

PathRifter

I was 'banned' 12 times from Anarchy Online.

Does I count? ):

NintendoFanBoy64

The article is exactly right on how games are a "let's pretend" sort of thing. I played a Warrior on WoW just 5 minutes ago. Am I going to pick up a sword? Hah. I've held a few display ones but I'm not going to run out striking giant cats with a sword.

When I was a child we'd play pretend, sometimes we'd have "weapons" sometimes people would "die" but after it was all over we'd all go inside and do something else. None of us thought of it as we were practicing killing people. None of our parents thought that either.

@lumpi: Freedom of speech was killed a long time ago here, sorry.

Ajh

@losplagos:

If you are referring to Saw (first), you must have never seen it. Hostel was disgusting gore, Saw was a scary thriller (not that much gore). The other Saw movies are a bit different though.

Where do we draw the line on what is mindless gore and violence? Whom can be given such a high task as to decide what such fragile minded people are allowed to view? Can it be just a personal choice?

MonkeyBiz

@golguin:

It'll be better for them to "satisfy the urges" with a game instead of an actual kid...

MisterAngry

An edit button would be nice.

@muu:
"Aren't you going into a huge assumption from the get-go here, especially about the game content?"

I suppose I am, but I'm trying to be general. I'm sure a violent game can be made that would also have no redeeming qualities. The original Manhunt was more or less a snuff film in the making with you as the star, but I didn't mind playing it. Then again I don't see the point of movies like Hostel.

I guess in the end it's difficult to make a blanket statement on anything. As for a pedo sim game, I feel pretty confident that it would be a bad idea to make that.

golguin

@muu:

I guess what I was trying to get at is that a person can play a game that includes violence for a variety of reasons and to ban that game because some people may be influenced to act out real world violence is stupid (see GTA or mortal kombat outcries).

However, I don't think a pedo sim game can have any redeeming factors. If the argument for that includes "It's better to satisfy the urges with a game instead of an actual kid" (at MisterAngry) then it shouldn't be a problem for a person to possess child pornography.

With that said I wouldn't advocate for pedophilia, rape, or child abuse themes to be excluded from games since they are included in other media for story telling purposes.

I suppose my original comment was a bit vague so maybe this cleared things up.

golguin

"Does your son, your brother, your husband, enjoy shooting people in Counter-Strike?"

All male figures, guess girls do not like games after all.

Hand_O_Death

@lumpi: I totally agree. There's a big difference between "glorification" and simple "depiction." CoD4, especially, does NOT glorify warfare. In fact, it depicts war as scary, dangerous, psychologically unsettling, immoral, expensive, and not-that-great in general by putting you in the shoes of a soldier in a semi-major crisis. Is the game fun? Yes. Does that mean war is fun? Definitely not.

Spiffyness

Hi, as the author I want to say thanks for all the great comments! It's almost a forbidden act, to enter the comments of your own article, but every comment here has been mature and insightful so I'm certain no flame war will spark up :)

@Hand_O_Death: I was going to include their female counterparts -- in fact I had them written down -- but it was a ridiculous sentence. Males are generally the aggressive stereotypes that people see as game players and fans of violent videogames, so the male pronouns made the most sense :)

@PathRifter: There are most definitely games that do that, in the full article just below the quote I include Jonathan Blow, Rod Humble, and Jason Rohrer as making games that communicate a message through gameplay mechanics.

Metal Gear Solid certainly has a narrative theme and has messages to communicate, but the minute to minute gameplay doesn't necessarily reinforce those themes.

@BobDelli: I'm not sure we can say that the people responsible for this kind of censorship fully understand it or not -- I can't say for sure, but I bet the majority are not game players.

You certainly hit a larger topic though, that certain governmental bodies feel it is their right to control the kind of entertainment people consume. That's not always a bad thing though, and as we saw with Fallout 3 they seem to be getting more progressive -- Fallout is an extremely violent and morally ambiguous game and all Australia had a problem with was correcting a drug reference, and they provided a real reason for the correction they wished to see.

Snake726

@Ajh, stupid_mcgee: Heh, I get your frustration. But at least when it comes to really BANNING media from the public in a wide-spread fashion, Germany (a country close to me that we share the language with) is the worst by far. This goes far beyond "18+" stickers. And it swaps over its borders to our stores.

The list I saw posted here said 9 games are banned in Germany. Well, basically all games containing violence either get cut to a point where you can hardly make out the action or get "indexed", which means they're banned from the media (including reviews or articles) and store shelves. Often they get cut first and indexed next. There must be hundreds of games on that list - a list which may not even be published because of this ban-not-called-ban. And politicians are calling for a general Verbot of violent games, punishing distributors with fines and other legal action. The 9 games mentioned are on the über-banned list on top of the infamous "index", making them downright illegal to distribute them. If Germany successfully lobbies for that law in the European government, it would be a sad day for gaming.

The funny thing, though, is, that they do not seem to base their bans on real psychological studies (at least I doubt that people's psyche changes every few years) but rather, they are always 5 years behind what is generally accepted in the media. Goldeneye is on the index. Left4Dead, apparently not - with the only cuts being no dismemberment, all the blood should still be in. The same goes for GTA4! Also both the uncensored and the (heavily!) censored version of the Orange Box use the same 18+ rating - thus making the censorship pointless.

Check out the "River Raid" story ( [en.wikipedia.org] ) to get an idea for what I mean when I say, that they're just a few years behind. The game was on the index in 1984 and got a "free for all" in a 2002 compilation!

It's also funny, that most banned games aren't banned just for violence, but for portraying the country they're banned in in a bad way! (China, Germany, Mexico - [en.wikipedia.org] ).

Looking at this from an international POV, really discloses the ridiculousness of the whole idea of censorship.

lumpi

I hereby vote that we ban practice of government-sanctioned media banning.

What one allows themselves to see/hear/experience should ultimately be an individual decision, not that of a fanatical or overly sensitive group. Preventing majority access to media because of an ignorant, intolerant, yet exceptionally vocal, minority is a horrible idea. The gov should not give in to the petty to gain a few constituents, but protect their entire country's right to the pursuit of happiness.

jmaster14656

Hey Nick, I love broccoli.

collusioned

@MonkeyBiz:
I don't know...ratings boards? That's why they exist, yeah?
[en.wikipedia.org])#Classification_law
(Check list at end) This appears to be a good guideline.

The idea that everything is good and fine as long as it's recreated in a film/game/book is grossly mistaken.

Do people miss out on something redeeming if they don't watch gorno? I'm not saying ban the depiction of such things - just "works" that promote such behaviour/actions. Although, it's rare that a depiction of things in that list up there can be artistic or tasteful, so no one's any worse off.

losplagos

Point from the article I do not like: "The main argument for videogames not being seen as art is that they do not inherently communicate a meaning. The sole reason for this is because that is what entertainment does; it is the dance performance in front of you that you can choose to interpret however you want." Mostly, I find this statement confusing if not contradictory. Maybe it just semantics and word-mincing, but even after reading the article twice, I guess I'm not understanding the difference that games do not inherently communicate a meaning but entertainment does, and games are not, somehow, entertainment, as defined by the article. Snake726, when you get a moment, could you elaborate?

And to get completely off-track: Moreover, the implied tautology that entertainment = meaning = art does not hold as none of those entities are wholly in the universe of any other. That is, not all art is entertaining, much entertainment does not have meaning inherent or otherwise, and art can be completely detached from meaning, or meaning is whatever you impose on to it.

Back to banning: I guess a fundamental question about this is kinda one that MonkeyBiz already raised, and that is "who guards the guards?" For books, at least in the United States, librarians coming together can be quite a force at lifting a book ban if they want to see a particular title arrive on their shelves as they are a powerful marketing force to leverage book publishers. What do other media have fighting for them? I, personally, don't know the answer to this question, but I imagine that one of the only things to combat banning would be market forces and not high-minded cultural ideals.

Sensai-N

I never understood how one human has the right to ban something they do not like over a human who likes the something that was banned.

I thought we were supposed to be equal.

Don't ban anything, instead if you do not want to read/play/watch/do something you find vile, I promise I won't shove it in your face

Why is this so difficult for society?

NintendoFanBoy64

@NintendoFanBoy64:

Heh, not exactly living up to the name, is it?

TechnoDestructo

To me, the banning of Fallout 3 for the use of morphine (a very popular analgesic - I say that Fallout should rename morphine to fentanyl and see what happens) was going too far, but some of the justifications for the bans are just insane. By the way, Max Payne would have used fentanyl.

China banning all games for calling Tibet an independent country? Come on!

I say that:
1. All games from now on portray Tibet as an independent country! Especially the Tom Clancy ones!
2. The main character must have an ancestor that shoots Nazis!
3. At some point in the game, the main character must get shot and treat himself with fentanyl! (Or a first aid kit involving morphine)

mcderek3000

I love Vancouver.

Jesse_Dylan

As a card-carrying ACLU member, I personally find the concept of censorship, be it of corporate, governmental, or of social stigma origin appalling and immoral.

And for those who say "I'm all against censorship except...", ask yourself this question: if you don't defend the rights of those who you detest to speak, who will be there to defend your rights to free speech? Either the door is open for censorship or it isn't.

@Sensai-N:
Ironic that you mention this, considering that the Librarians themselves run off of "high-minded cultural ideals" rather than these mysterious "market forces". Those Librarians are pretty militant. If they weren't able to use "market forces", they would show up at the doors of publishers with pitchforks in hand!

Akin

@Jesse_Dylan:
totally agree

@PathRifter:
if you think gta4 doesn't have anything artistic about it, i think you are SO wrong. in my opinion, thats an example of you misunderstanding the full breadth of what art can be. i mean, gta4 is the perfect definition of satire. its art, but its not necessarily high-class art, its not the art that an art snob would collect.... but it is art nonetheless.

joeloliol

Art does not need a message. Art is it's own point. A good painter would paint, even if no one would ever see his/her painting. Violence, Gore, Hatred, those things happen senselessly in real life. The people calling for games to be banned should go do something that would make a difference to the world, unless it is the financial aspects that prompt banning.

BlueToast

I don't think these people understand what Art is. Art is it's purpose, not the message it may or may-not be trying to convey. A song can be enjoyable with no words or message to speak of. So why must violence and gore have a message behind it to be in art. Last time I checked both violence and gore are REALLY in the world, why not in what we create. It's natural, no?

BlueToast

@Akin: Librarians may possess "high-minded cultural ideals", but they themselves are a market force that pressures publishers to get books published. And, if that doesn't work, maybe pitchforks and fire can. :)

Seriously, though, my point was that while all of this academic masturbation takes place about whether to censor or not censor, there has to be a coordinated effort affecting whether or not a title gets through to the market. While it is nice and all to possess high-minded cultural ideals on censorship, merely possesing these ideals doesn't affect anything. For books, librarians affect titles and whether or not they reach the market, and it is because they buy titles, irrespective of how they think about censorship. I'm not aware of any other such group for any other kind of media. While "the public" could be considered such a group because they have the purchasing power, they make no coordinated effort to affect a title's availability. The public may not want something censored, but if they apply no pressure to the publishers or censorship boards, no one will care what their opinion is.

Sensai-N