Where Do Game Subjects Cross The Line?

Thanks to GameSpy for their 'Spy Vs. Spy' editorial discussing whether any reality-based subject should be made into a game, referencing games like Kuma:War, which offers "the hunt for Uday and Qusay Hussein in Iraq and their eventual deaths in a shootout with U.S. forces" as a scenario. The first editor suggests that " I believe that such 'ripped from the headlines' titles are disrespectful to the soldiers in combat and the issues involved", whereas another editor presents a different view, arguing: "I'm all in favor of games working in contemporary events... one way for games to be more relevant to people is to bring current events to an interactive medium."

Comments

Only one kind of appropriate violence

[Henry V .009]

I have said it before, and I will say it again; Nazis are the only appropriate subject for war game violence.

Re:Only one kind of appropriate violence

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Why? Games like Battlefield 1942 have you fighting against low-level grunts who were poor Germans that were drafted into war as part of Hitler's plan. They weren't directly responsible for executing Jews (and if you are going to start indicting people for making uninformed decisions in a democracy, you're going to have a lot of people to go after) and towards the end of the war, were poorly outfitted and starving.

And if you are happy to fight Nazis, why not fight against those responsible for genocide in Rwanda during the 90's? Or perhaps Pol Pot? Hitler didn't exactly invent genocide.

I wish you had expanded on your thought a little bit - I just don't understand why you limit games to just Nazis. There have been plenty of very cruel military regimes in the history of humankind (the Nazi party ranking right up there at the top) but I don't think that in comparison people like Stalin and Pol Pot are saints.

Re:Only one kind of appropriate violence

[PainKilleR-CE]

I wish you had expanded on your thought a little bit - I just don't understand why you limit games to just Nazis. There have been plenty of very cruel military regimes in the history of humankind (the Nazi party ranking right up there at the top) but I don't think that in comparison people like Stalin and Pol Pot are saints.

I think there's an additional reason for going beyond Nazis, as well. In Germany, it's illegal to display any sort of Nazi symbolism, therefore games that utilize this symbolism to make it clear that you are going against the Nazis take a fairly good hit on localization, and possibly have their message reduced somewhat. With more recent conflicts and/or conflicts that don't involve Nazis, there are fewer regulatory issues, as well as personal issues, to side-step. People may have strong feelings about Vietnam and the current Gulf War, but that doesn't negate the feelings people still have over WWII, either.

Ideally, games should be able to approach any subject, just as any other media. If people are offended by playing a game in which they are playing as a US soldier in Vietnam, Korea, Kuwait, Iraq, or Afghanistan, then they should choose not to buy nor play that game. There are plenty of other games out there to choose from.

Additionally, even if no mainstream developers would touch the subject, one of the existing games depicting WWII or even a sci-fi environment would eventually have a mod that approached the subject anyway. Not to say that it's ok just because someone else would do it, but simply to point out that those that wish to avoid it will still have to avoid it, regardless of whether or not the large developers take it on. At least a larger company is going to be at least somewhat concerned about whether or not they'll offend some specific group with a particular game.

Re:Only one kind of appropriate violence

[Henry V .009]

Well, first of all, you need to understand that it is only okay to kill white people in games, or at least make sure whites are the majority body count. That rules out games about Pol Pot and the Rwandan murderers right there. And while Stalin is white and did kill a lot of people, they were not from any approved minority victim group, so his genocides do not count. That leaves Hitler as the only one you can make a game about.

Re:Only one kind of appropriate violence

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

On a related but slightly off-topic note: Isn't it great how the German government has banned all Nazi symbolism? In their attempt to prevent anyone from being a Nazi, THEY'RE BEING NAZIS!!

I can just imagine some high ranking German politician saying, "This book is advocating Nazism! We must burn it!!"

Re:Only one kind of appropriate violence

[Txiasaeia]

Actually, it *was* the low-level grunts (and non-combatants) that formed the majority of the "police squads" who herded up Jews and killed them. About 1m Jews were killed in this way. See Daniel Goldstein's book "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust."

Re:Only one kind of appropriate violence

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Actually, if you read my post you would realize I was making reference to games where you are fighting on the front lines of the war (of which most games in the WWII vein fall) and those front line combatants were exactly as I described. Don't try to give me a history lesson because you didn't want to read what I was saying in context.

How often in Battlefield 1942 do you shoot down non-combatants who are rounding up Jews?

I realize that you're proud of the fact that you read a book but you don't need to bring it up at every moment.

Re:Only one kind of appropriate violence

[linzeal]

How about killing the british boys that bombed dresden, oppenheimer and los alamos crew, and the british and american public who cheered on such bloodbaths?

Re:Only one kind of appropriate violence

[linzeal]

What would of happened to any of those people that refused their duties? I do believe they would of faced severe if not life-threatening penalities. Calling average germans "willing" is disrespectful of their economic and social position we left them in after world war I. We punished germans but not jews in germany who were allowed to prosper and reign in much of the what was left of the middle class.

If anyone is to blame for hitler and his policies it is not the german people, it is the american, french and british people who allowed their leaders to impose the versailles treaty as punishment on a people already impoverished by a massive war.

Re:Only one kind of appropriate violence

[Txiasaeia]

"...Actually, if you read my post you would realize I was making reference to games where you are fighting on the front lines of the war (of which most games in the WWII vein fall)..."

What, are you kidding me? You're telling me that the majority of WWII games are FPSs where you're battling on the front line? I can count on one hand the number of games like BF1942 where you're only fighting against "soldiers." Are you completely missing the strategy genre? What about tactical games like Commandos 3 where you actually infiltrate a concentration camp?

I realise that you're proud of the fact that you've been playing BF1942 non-stop since it came out, but making a gross generalisation about a video game genre based on one video game alone doesn't make you an expert.

Re:Only one kind of appropriate violence

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

I've never played Battlefield 1942.

Compose a list of games themed around WW II. Then tally the number of enemies in those games and break down the percentages of enemies who are actively killing Jews and enemies who are merely combat troops. You will see that my original statement holds - in most WW II games you are fighting enemies who are not "non-combatants" as you brought up.

If you are to respond to this, try not to nit pick but instead back up your original argument. And don't take such a rude tone - I won't bother responding if I think you're just looking to argue for the sake of argument.

Re:Only one kind of appropriate violence

[Txiasaeia]

First of all, I'll thank you kindly to not tell me how to write.

"I realize that you're proud of the fact that you read a book but you don't need to bring it up at every moment." I'm sorry, but apparently I'm not the only one being rude here.

Anyway. I think we're talking at cross-roads here. You say that there aren't very many video games in which the player attacks Germans who kill Jews (or Poles, or Christians, or whatever). However, just because you don't actually see any of these ethnic/religious groups being killed in the game, it doesn't mean that these games don't depict men and women who *represent* such killers.

I guess I have a problem with the statement "low-level grunts who were poor Germans that were drafted into war as part of Hitler's plan" -- there are no such "poor Germans." Hitler rose to power out of sheer acclamation of the people, and as many historical sources point out, these same people were eventually fanatical about racial purity and the destruction of anyone not Aryan.

"...and if you are going to start indicting people for making uninformed decisions in a democracy, you're going to have a lot of people to go after." Nazi Germany may have started off as a democracy, but it definitely did not retain *any* elements of democracy after the Crystal Night when Hitler seized control of the country. The common people *knew* what was going on, knew that the huge factories billowing out smoke were killing "people" (though they might not have considered Jews, Poles and Christians, etc. "people"), but few (if any) did anything about it.

The number of video games in which Jews are actually depicted as being killed is probably zero. Such a video game would be immediately unacceptable, and would be most likely banned in the West.

However, if you consider WWII German characters in video games to be based upon their real life signifiers, then yes, those German front-line troops you're killing in BF1942 *are* "Jew-killers." This was the entire point of the book I mentioned -- people not only tacitly agreed with Hitler's policy of racial genocide, but the common man actively participated in such acts. Not only that, but they were *not* (as commonly assumed) punished for not participating in such pogroms, so there was no rationale to go along with such atrocities merely to protect one's self.

I'm not arguing for the sake of argument -- I think that your original statement was uninformed and showed a basic lack of historical understanding in regards to the era in question. Maybe you know a lot more than can be gleaned from your post, I have no idea, but generalisations really tick me off. Sorry if you got the brunt of that :)

Finally, as to why there are more games based around Hitler than Stalin or Mao, well, Hitler inspired a truly evil event in the twentieth century. Why Hitler is imprinted upon our cultural minds instead of Stalin (who killed twice, three times as many of his own citizens as Hitler killed *anybody*), however, I have no idea. Very few gamers are alive today that actively remember WWII. I think that, because WWII was a very common board game product in the 60's and 70's, it was the first genre to really catch on in regards to computer strategy games, and as such has maintained its foothold in computer gaming today.

Re:Only one kind of appropriate violence

[Anonymous Coward]

hahah look at acidic trying to troll.

Re:Only one kind of appropriate violence

[Matrix272]

There have been plenty of very cruel military regimes in the history of humankind (the Nazi party ranking right up there at the top) but I don't think that in comparison people like Stalin and Pol Pot are saints.

I agree that Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc. were terrible, evil men that deserved to die horrible deaths... the main difference between them and Hitler and the Nazis is that Hitler and the Nazis were certifiably the "bad guy" of WWII. There was no world-wide effort to oust Stalin, Lenin, or Pol Pot. Therefore, whatever games based on their respective reign of terrors wouldn't have specific "good guys" and "bad guys". Besides, Stalin, Lenin, and Pol Pot were major leaders for the Communist & Socialist movement, which still exists today... so it might not be "politically correct" to make a game dedicated to destroying their efforts... although I seem to remember a little game called Command and Conquer: Red Alert that did just that.

(As a side note, the word "Nazi" originally was an abbreviation for the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany... interesting, no?)

A game that will never be made

[Anonymous Coward]

One that involves child molestation or the child pornogaphy trade. At least, I hope it's never made.

Re:A game that will never be made

[Draigon]

There's already several, probably hundreds, of child pornography games. Child molestation is practically a japanese artform at this point.

Re:A game that will never be made

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, if you consider a game made and distributed by goatcx.com to be a "japanese artform".

What a troll.

There is no line

[Apreche]

I say freedom all the way. If you want to make a game about something, no matter what it is, go right ahead. And if some sicko wants to play that game, that's fine too. If you dont' like it, you don't have to play it. And if you don't think your children should play it, don't let them. And until someone infringes upon my rights, they can do as they please. You know the saying about swinging fists and noses.

If I made a flight sim where you try to hit buildings to score points, that's ok. If you think there's something wrong with that, then it's perfectly within your right to be that way. But you can't stop me from playing it or making it.

That's the way it should be.

Re:There is no line

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd agree with you except for one point: real people should not be used as in-game characters without their permission. It's not a matter of taste or decency, but rather a question of whether you should be able to be secure in your person. If I was making a "kill the kiddy-fiddler" game, and just went out and took photos of people in the street to use as targets in the game, I'm sure they wouldn't be very pleased about it, and I don't think that is acceptable; people should have a right to be left alone.

Re:There is no line

[sporty]

I say freedom all the way.

Until you see tastless games like, "Abortion by coathangar!" or "Rape that chick!"

There's some behaviors you don't even want to demonstrate much less promote.

Re:There is no line

[missing000]

Until you see tastless games like, "Abortion by coathangar!" or "Rape that chick!"

Kind of like this?

Re:There is no line

[cgranade]

Until you see tastless games like, "Abortion by coathangar!" or "Rape that chick!"
There's some behaviors you don't even want to demonstrate much less promote.
That's nice. Now, who is going to decide where this line is? Who is going to say "this game is good, not that game." What about BMX XXX and GTA:VC? Are they too crude for you? More importantly, are they too crude for a censor? While it may sound all well and good to censor tastless games, it can be and often is a pitfall into a whole can of worms you don't want to open.

Re:There is no line

[mopslik]

If you want to make a game about something, no matter what it is, go right ahead.

Only to a point. There is a line, though, when it comes to violating certain laws. I don't think you'd have the "freedom" to create a kiddie pr0n game, which other paedophiles could download and play at their leisure. Sure you could do it, but law enforcement would be on its way pretty quick. Flying planes into a building, while certainly murderous, is in an entirely different category.

Re:There is no line

[sporty]

If you agree with the censor, then that's it. If you don't, you ignore the censor and come up with your own rules for what your kids an dyou see. EOS.

Re:There is no line

[PainKilleR-CE]

By the very nature of a censor, however, you don't get the choice of ignoring them unless you want to be more strict than they are. You never get the choice to allow your kids (and yourself) to see something the censor doesn't allow.

That's where the problem lies, not in what the censor lets get by, but rather in what the censor cuts. With a censor on-hand, GTA quickly becomes Crazy Taxi, and RtCW is set in a land populated by robots with most of the symbolism stripped, leaving a game that's decidedly similar to every other FPS. You can only ignore a censor if you agree with the cuts they do make, or believe they don't go far enough. You can't ignore a censor that's cutting something you want in the game.

Re:There is no line

[PainKilleR-CE]

Only to a point. There is a line, though, when it comes to violating certain laws. I don't think you'd have the "freedom" to create a kiddie pr0n game, which other paedophiles could download and play at their leisure. Sure you could do it, but law enforcement would be on its way pretty quick. Flying planes into a building, while certainly murderous, is in an entirely different category.

In many places you do have the freedom to create a kiddie porn game, as long as you don't use actual images/video of real children. In some states and countries even the simulation is illegal, but definitely not in all. In fact, some states have the somewhat arbitrary definition of child pornography as anything that depicts something that looks like a child in a sexual manner, even if it's demonstrable that the person in the images was over 18 at the time they were taken (or if it's not even a person at all).

Many of the games that are fairly commonly available in Japan would be illegal to ship into many states of the US because of these types of laws.

Re:There is no line

[mopslik]

Many of the games that are fairly commonly available in Japan would be illegal to ship into many states of the US because of these types of laws.

Perhaps I didn't fully explain my point. You're talking about the scenario in which a game is created in a place where certain preventative laws do not exist. It can't be shipped to certain areas because such laws do exist in other places. Obviously, acting in accordance with the existence/lack of laws within your area is acceptable. On the other hand, by violating laws within that area, you're crossing a line. Thus, AmericanSoftwareCompanyX couldn't release "Pre-teen Gangbang Extreme" alongside the latest Quake sequel.

Re:There is no line

[PainKilleR-CE]

On the other hand, by violating laws within that area, you're crossing a line. Thus, AmericanSoftwareCompanyX couldn't release "Pre-teen Gangbang Extreme" alongside the latest Quake sequel.

I realize that, but then I was trying to point out that the lines are very blurry in some areas, especially this one. In some states, it's perfectly legal for AmericanSoftwareCompanyX to release "Pre-teen Gangbang Extreme", although it may be placed under certain regulations as pornography. In other states, it may be perfectly legal until a judge rules that it meets some arbitrary definition of child pornography, although being advertised as "Pre-teen Gangbang Extreme" certainly makes it much easier on the judge. The point being that it's a bunch of polygons on a screen, doesn't involve any minors whatsoever, but since it's possibly a depiction of sexual acts involving a depiction of a minor, it's up to a judge whether or not it's legal, in some states and/or counties/cities. Furthermore, in some states it may be perfectly legal to actually perform those actions with a 14 year old girl, but it wouldn't be legal to do it in a video game.

Re:There is no line

[danila]

There should be no line. I think that in many cases you should be free to make a game about real people, basically about those who already forsake a large chunk of their privacy. But the courts should have the right to force game developers to pay damages if using real people there was degrading, offensive and blah-blah-blah. Outright banning such games is wrong, because next thing you know books about real people will be outlawed... And then journalists will be required to get a permission from the person to write about him/her. :(

Re:There is no line

[danila]

In Canada anti-child-porn laws cover any discussion of sex with minors. Of course, it would be really stretching it (no pun intended), but your post may qualify.

And in the US the Supreme Court upheld the right of developers to make "Pre-teen Gangbang Extreme". It was ruled that a law banning virtual child porn is unconsitutional - porn is definitely speech, child porn is speech as well, and if nobody is direcly harmed (i.e. no real kids are used), the speech is protected. The strange thing is that there are relatively few porn games made in the US and almost no quality ones. I expect that sometime, as graphics technology improves, someone will make the first great quality porn game and will sell millions of copies. That would create a virtual porn boom and probably lead to the creation of some child porn games as well.

Many of the games that are fairly commonly available in Japan would be illegal to ship into many states of the US because of these types of laws.
Some publishers went as far as to change the age of the anime characters. You had a 14, 15 and 16 year old girls in the Japanese version, but in American version they become 18, 19 and 20. :) Of course, the images and the story remain the same. :)

Sick, Offensive Games

[Goo.cc]

If I was a programmer, I would create games where you try to kill the President or a game where you get points for each nun you rape. Why? Because it would offend people.

Re:Sick, Offensive Games

[ymgve]

If I was a programmer, I would create games where you try to kill the President or a game where you get points for each nun you rape. Why? Because it would offend people.

I think Running With Scissors has a job opening for you.

There is no line.

[eddy]

End of message.

One title I would like to see

[missing000]

World conquest through deception.

You start out as a lowly president's kid, only endowed with a small oil company and a baseball team.
The object of the game is to use deception and underground systems such as skull and bones to achieve world domination.

Pitfalls could include alcohol addiction, being bad at Political Science, and getting caught lying to your country.

Your objective could be a success however if you just talk to the right people

Re:One title I would like to see

[delus10n0]

I'm glad you wasted 10 seconds of my life by making me read your pointless ramblings.

Go rant your political nonsense elsewhere. The topic is video game subjects.

Re:One title I would like to see

[Anonymous Coward]

...and yet another ostrich sticks it's head into the sad.

Apparently you missed Indiana Jones

[Anonymous Coward]

The were after the Ark! And their faces melted! God hates Nazis.

love it or leave it; this is the way to maturity

[*weasel]

...artistically.

does anyone claim that steven spielberg shouldn't have made Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's list? Was he making light, or 'making a buck' on the idea of americans dying overseas, on the idea of jews being tortured and executed?

yet everyone in the industry aknowledges that the way to grow gaming is to drive for more cinematic, more interactive, more film-like experiences.

Games may very well be considered 'art' the way people consider film 'art' in 10 years.

or, they can be relegated to childish whimsy like comics.

Asking game developers to ignore certain topics, regardless of context, because they might offend someone is very much akin to the self-imposed 'Comic Code' of the 60s-80s. It nearly killed the industry as a legitimate artistic medium. Every american comic became trapped by the restrictive code and fell into a niche as a childish diversion.

within the code american comic creators could only explore child-safe content as defined by the broadest possible american social definition of 'safe'.

compare this with the evolution of anime in japan. Sure, we all make derisive remarks about 'tentacle porn' - but anime in japan is -accepted-. it isn't just for kids. the culture treats it on par with film or literature. why? precisely because only a certain subset of anime is devoted to children and child-safe topics (yu gi oh, pokemon, etc) - the larger segment covers mature subjects one might find in a TV drama or film (ghost in the shell, akira). american comics have no parallel (no mainstream parallel, though the underground is growing, but the social stigma will take time to erode). evern american animated movies suffer from this, and are relegated to insistance on 'child safe'.

visceral emotional response is the key to allowing people to realize that games need not -only- be about mindlessly pulling a trigger. not that there is anything wrong with some twitch play - just as there is nothing wrong with shallow action flicks.

a game simulating the Uday/Qusay vs USAF shootout would certainly have poor timing, if particularly identifying the subjects by name; but shouldn't be labelled in poor taste so because of its content, but rather depending upon its -context-.

if the simulation of that situation was created to educate people about the difficulties and human life risk associated in breach/clear/capture operations against a fully dedicated opponent in an urban setting - that strikes me as possibly reasonable. if the purpose of the game is simply to allow people to pump round after round into from-the-headlines political figures, then that is certainly tasteless.

notice it is the -gameplay-, the context, that indicates tastelessness. people always seem to forget to include context in their discussions of whether it is 'right' or not.

here is where we decide people. are games to be forever treated as an interactive extension of film? or an interactive extension of american comics?

(keep in mind i use 'art', and 'artistic' loosely to indicate mature expression, as in sculpture or painting - not to indicate it as being capital-A Art, being hoity toity or 'correct'.)

time

[pizza_milkshake]

how much time does it take for it to be politicially correct to use someone else's traumatic experiences as fodder for your entertainment? was Space Invaders written too soon after the incident at Roswell? ;P

newsgaming - decide for yourself

[Draigon]

http://newsgaming.com/

So far they only have one game, but there will be more.

I think the game itself is amusing whether you agree with the point or not. To me games (and programming) are art. Art should have no boundries. Some won't agree with me on that, some will, but that's even another reason I believe it. Because some will disagree and they're entitled to their opinion just as I am.

Re:newsgaming - decide for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting little game, politicly motivated for certain but a very cool way to make people think about things.

Is it a bad thing if i gave up trying to hit the terrorists and just fired at the civilians?

Oh no, the slippery slope fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, if content may potentially be disrespectful to somebody somewhere who probably needs a hobby, let's ban it out of hand. We'll start with Uday and Qusay. Well, after that comes the "we can't have anyone of X, Y or Z race as a hero or villain because it is racist and discrimnatory" argument... then comes the "we can't have violence because what of the children and their darling minds" argument... ditto sex, profanity and adult situations...

So pretty soon the only game allowed is Mario Kart... oh no, wait, he's an offensive Italian stereotype and car crashes are violent... I mean Atari 2600 Combat... oh, no, that's offensive to the brave soldiers who flew pixellated bombers maintaining plausible deniability over Cambodia. Pong anyone? (If the paddles aren't too phallic for children, that is.)

I would be interested in knowing how any actual soldiers -- not some Gamespy blowhard who can't do any better than slinging stereotypes of his own ("jackasses in Montana compounds") -- feels about his actions being emulated by thousands.

Inappropriate and tacky? Bringing the hobby down to the level of tabloid newspapers? This IS the same Web site that ranked Duke Nukem 3D and Shadow Warrior among the best / most underrated games of all time, right? Did they ever play either of those? No, they weren't "ripped from today's headlines," but they're full of inappropriate and tacky subject matter -- as are a whole lot of games.

Re:Oh no, the slippery slope fallacy

[Draigon]

I don't think their aim was necessarily towards the crude nature of the subject matter. It was simply about real world matters in games. There have always been vulgar or low brow video games. That wasn't the issue, I don't think.

I think it's pretty simple. Most people view video games as childish wastes of time. So the objection was having important world issues enter into a medium for childish, irresponsible, and careless behavior. From their argument it makes sense. To alot of people, games are not a legitimate art form or any sort of vehicle of self expression.

Re:Oh no, the slippery slope fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you read the article? No one said ANYTHING about banning. In fact, the first editor starts off by saying that he's a strong believer in the 1st Amendment and doesn't believe anything should be banned or censored.

The issue is appropriateness, respect and taste.

let's not pretend

[sbma44]

that there isn't a fundamental difference between videogames and the art forms that came before them. In virtually every non-abstract game (eg not Tetris) You control the actions of some sort of avatar. Movies, books, plays -- sure, you can and frequently do identify with the characters. But it's not guaranteed. If a character in a work of fiction does something detestable, you can just watch in amazement. I would suggest that it's not the same in a videogame. As Raskolnikov's plunge into insanity unfolds I just keep reading, horrified. If I've just loaded the landlady's apartment level, selected "equip axe" and made sure the directX blood settings are turned up to maximum splatter -- well, it somehow feels a lot less like art.

I guess it boils down to this: people consume media because they're seeking entertainment. Before, media were entertaining because you *experienced* them -- that experience didn't necessarily have to be fun, just affecting (see also: Requiem for a Dream). Games, on the other hand, are fun because of what you're *doing*. And, as far as I can tell, people don't do things for any reason other than "they're fun".

Sure, there are gray areas -- emerging from a night of playing Doom full of adrenaline, having spent the evening worried about demons popping out from behind every corner: I wouldn't say that's fun exactly, but it was invigorating, and enjoyable. But I have yet to see a game experience that can be emotionally harrowing, a game from which the player emerges a little shaken but feeling like the art they've experienced has changed them in a meaningful way.

These are not generation's wars. I do not want to take them from the people who fought them without knowing that I'm doing so for a better reason than a justification for simple, stupid, slaughterhouse entertainment.

Of course I agree there should not be censorship of such games. But I do think we should consider officially bestowing "scum of the earth" status on those who redistill the horrors of war into fun action romps. It's not much different than the japanese rape fantasy mangas mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Do they mean the whole manage artform must be condemned? Obviously not -- manga is clearly can be an art form that really conveys meaning and ideas.

But how many non-despicable rape-related manga are there? I'd say the same could be said for war videogames. I'm sure it's possible to make one; but that's not why people turn to the war genre. They do so as an excuse for violence.

Re:let's not pretend

[cgenman]

but how many non-despicable rape-related manga are there?

Mainstream manga explores the theme of rape as often as mainstreem American literature, often times written by women for women. To point out a popular example, The Wings of Honneamise featured a disturbing but mature look at rape as an aspect of hero worship.

I agree with the fundamental precept that the "avatar effect" of gaming is very different from the "voyeur effect" of the written word. I disagree that this creates a fundamental disjunction with deeper sensations. Celes's suicide attempt in Final Fantasy 3 had a tremendous emotional impact upon a generation of gamers. The avatar was used to make a player deeply care about the character, and the difference between the player's choices and the avatar's actions lead to deep emotional distress. Final Fantasy 7 took this disjoint even deeper, flipping between what the player thought they did and what really happened, as they watch their character first acknowledge then slowly emerge from their madness.

The problem with gaming in general as the previous poster pointed out is that most of it is pulp fiction: 50% of games released on the computer are a First Person Shooter with no underlying emotional pull besides that which you would find at a basketball game. But that doesn't mean they all are, and that doesn't mean that Metal Gear Solid should be afforded any less artistic license than Full Metal Jacket.

For ever crappy war-based videogame the industry puts out, the movie studios put out a Courage Under Fire. For some reason this leads people to yell at the movie studios to raise their quality level, and to yell at the gaming industry to not make war games.

If we are going to prove ourselves as a viable medium, we need to continue to make games of all subject matters, need to continue to push the emotional and storytelling boundaries of the medium, and we need to release quality. Only then will people stop assuming that anything done in a videogame will be immature garbage. Only then will no subject be taboo.

September 11: Escape from Twin Towers

[dangerdg]

Somehow I doubt this game would be well-received...

Re:September 11: Escape from Twin Towers

[Carnildo]

It's out there.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

absolutely hilarious!

It's not a matter of law..

[CashCarSTAR]

It's a matter of taste. Some subjects in games, just strike me the wrong way. For example...

I don't like "Beach Landing" games. I don't like it one bit. I believe that the fact that Normandy was made necessary to be one of the biggest failings of the West over the last centry. That all those lives were thrown away over politics...well...

I don't like in MOHAA, I don't like it in UT, I don't like it in DoD. Hell, I don't even like it in Conkers Bad Fur Day. Not saying that they shouldn't make it..just that I won't play it. (BTW, the rest of those games didn't bother me. Weird huh?)

In any case. It is a matter of taste, and it doesn't bother me what anybody else does. I'll make the decisions for myself, thank you very much. Often on an arbitrary basis too! See, I'm allowed to do that:)

Re:It's not a matter of law..

[Trillian_1138]

This is off-topic, but you've made me currious. I've done some research on D-Day in the past (minimal, I admit) and, while it certainly cost a disgusting ammount of lives, most historians view it (or something like it) as something that was required to break Germany's back in Europe.

Do you say "I believe that the fact that Normandy was made necessary to be one of the biggest failings of the West over the last centry," to mean that D-Day was the wrong decision at the time? Or that countries in and out of Europe had a responsibility to crush Naziism before Germany gained such strength?

That is, you view D-Day as a specific poor choice within World War II, or that it's a symbol of the failings of Western Civilization to prevent World War II from ever happening?

For what it's worth, I would disagree that D-Day was a bad decission at the time (it was arguably the 'right thing to do') but _would_ agree that it's disgusting Europe, or America, or SOMEONE didn't step in _before_ the 1940s to slap Hitler down like the disgusting power-hungry freak he was.

-Trillian

Re:It's not a matter of law..

[Anonymous Coward]

Politics worked right up until Hitler marched into Poland, then country after country. I'm sorry, but anyone that ever thought politics would have prevented WWII is too naive. And then to further think that war could have been avoided instead of Normandy needs to go back to school because the war had already been going on for years.

That aside. Normandy is history. It's one of the bloodiest battles in the history of the world and furthermore one of the most pivotal in changing the direction of the war. I found the invasion at Normandy to be one of the most well choreographed scenes in a game EVER, there was nothing distasteful about it regardless of how you felt about the war. It was portrayed as accurately as possible given the technology.

So basically what I'm saying is that my opinion is your naive and ill-educated.

Re:It's not a matter of law..

[Maserati]

Without a Second Front in the West, Stalin would not have stopped until he hit the Atlantic. If he managed to beat a Germany that wasn't fighting a two-front war. We tied down a lot of German troops and planes in the West, forces that could ahve won (or forced a stalemate) in the East. Then where would we be ? Looking at a Europe dominated by Hitler's successors that's where.

I'd like to know what the grandparent poster thinks we should have done instead. Coming up through Italy would have been much more expensive in lives and treasure, and would have stopped at the Alps anyway.

I think we've been trolled. Unless the grandparent was just shocked at the amount of casualties crammed into such a short time and (relatively) small space. Which is the whole point. Thousands of men died horribly in landing craft before they ever got to the beach. Thousands more died in bloody sand as they attacked concrete bunkers with small arms. It was horrific. Everyone involved, especially the combat veterans in the first wave, knew it would be bloody and many expected it to be worse.

They did it anyway.

There wasn't any other road to Berlin. It was Normandy or nothing. Thousands dead at Omaha beach or the Swastika over Paris. Late in 1944 Stalin would have been willing to accept his pre-war borders, maybe with all of Poland. I haven't seen any hints that his political position depended on taking out Germany. Repelling the invader and gaining territory (especially Poland) would have been acceptable.

Game it out folks. Play Axis & Allies and prohibit amphibious assults. Maybe just big one. Maybe just in Western Europe. Play any strategic WW2 wargame and guarantee Germany no D-Day. Russia is toast, fast.

I'm gonna repeat myself one last time. The Western Allies had to engage Hitler on his Western flank. Period. You do that by launching an invasion across the Channel. Period.

Re:It's not a matter of law..

[CashCarSTAR]

I think you misunderstand me. What "offends" me about Normandy, is that it had to happen. My feeling is that such a beach landing, was only forced by an isolationist stance that was pretty prevailent throughout the US at this time. The US should have been involved as soon as Hitler left Germany.

Most of them were, undoubtedly, very accurate. However, I can't play them without crying. Thinking about the lost life, that was basically wasted because of stupid isoloationists and apologists.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done. Just that I..physically and emotionally, can't stomach it.

Re:It's not a matter of law..

[CashCarSTAR]

Actually, that's exactly how I feel. I feel that the US should have been involved before Pearl Harbour. (And they were, unoficially, see the story of the Dam Bursters, many of who were Americans).

That they wern't...frankly I can't even think about it without tearing up.

Re:It's not a matter of law..

[CashCarSTAR]

No argument there.

What i'm saying, is that Hitler's march should have been stopped WAY before France. That "D-Day" should not have been necessary, because a beachhead should have been estabilished, to land troops and supplies.

Maybe I'm incorrect, but all the same, it's how I feel about the subject, on an emotional basis

Re:It's not a matter of law..

[Maserati]

Ahh. Ok, that point was pretty.. indirect. I have to say that 1938 was the last chance. If you like, put all of WW2 on Chamberlain's tab. Or the French, a couple of rifle regiments in the Reinland and Hitlar would never have gotten started. It's no wonder Churchill drank like a fish, he was screaming preparedness for most of the interwar period and nobody listened until it was way too late. Then they gave him the job of saving the country. A lot of people here know what that can be like, with differences mainly of degree and not of kind.

If I ever get *really* into Hearts of Iron I may see if I can shut Hitler down diplomatically in the late 30s.

Re:It's not a matter of law..

[Detritus]

I would argue that the isolationist movement in the USA was a direct result of the carnage and insanity of World War I. It didn't help that British and American propaganda from the period had been publicly exposed as being full of lies and fabrications. The problem was that World War II was not a repeat of World War I.

Re:Comic books

[lehyeong]

The vast majority of comic books sold in America in the last 15 years reflect a pre-pubescent fascination with big breasts, big guns and geek empowerment fantasies. For every Pulitzer winning "Maus" there are 10 X-Men titles.

Same thing with games-- the female game character most recognizable to the public is Lara Croft, just as known as for the size of her breasts as for her skill with guns.

Re:Comic books

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

I don't know about you but I'm post-pubescent and I'm still fascinated with big breasts, big guns, and geek empowerment fantasies. Mmmm, big boobs...

By all means

[ArmenTanzarian]

We should definitely pass asinine legislation to moderate this as quickly as possible. Kids are impressionable and their parents certainly can't be held responsible for what they buy for them.

The only thing I would have to say in seriousness about this is design whatever you want, but expect some flack no matter what you do. Good taste is like yellow speed limit signs, you can ignore them, but it's not always the best idea.

Could we please avoid the whole censorship thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we all agree that censorship is bad? If you read the article, no one said ANYTHING about banning. In fact, the first editor starts off by saying that he's a strong believer in the 1st Amendment and doesn't believe anything should be banned or censored.

The issue is appropriateness, respect and taste. It's not about what CAN be done in games, or what is ALLOWED in games. It's about what SHOULD be done in games.

To use the comic book example - Japanese tentacle child-rape manga is and should be perfectly acceptable legally under the 1st Amendment. On the other hand, it really SHOULDN'T be acceptable to anyone who has a shred of moral conscience.

Write it, draw it or buy it if you wish - that's your right, but don't hide behind the 1st Amendment and say we as a society have to accept it, legitimize it or call it "art".

The 1st Amendment guarantees your right to speak - it doesn't guarantee your right to an audience.

Sick Feeling over Battlefield Vietnam

[Anonymous Coward]

Battlefield 1942 is currently my favorite game. It's well balance and the theme doesn't take itself too seriously. I'm excited about the new gameplay and technology in Battlefield Vietnam but I have to confess that I'm not too excited about the theme. 1942 is easy for me to identify with because in our collective memory it was America's finest hour. My reaction is completly different to Vietnam. The promotional videos play "Fortunate Son" in sharp contrast to the BF1942's videos that are voiced-over by Churchill et al.

The game is not out yet so I won't judge it but there is a real possibility that I won't pick it up as a matter of taste despite the fact that I'm a huge fan of the series. Developers have an absolute right to free speech in their games but they should consider who they isolate when they pick their themes. Hopefully BF Vietnam's developers will lose the tongue in cheek gloss they had in 1942 and pull off a tasteful and fun game.

Re:Comic books

[PainKilleR-CE]

...and this is different from movies how? TV?

Maybe comic books and games have a higher percentage of these things than other media, but a great deal of it is due to public perception. In part public perception is fueled by this, but it also perpetuates it, because games and comics that take themselves more seriously don't sell as well (because the more serious audience is less likely to gravitate towards the medium).

It takes a great deal of time to overcome the public perception, and even at that point you still have to deal with some percentage of the media catering to the lowest common denominator.

How many trashy romance novels are published every year? How much low-brow horror and sci-fi? Novels only have less of a problem in this area because the majority of them only have pictures on the cover, but those writers that still feel the need for big breasts and big guns are still going to find a way to get them in there, along with hundreds of pictures of Fabio on the bookshelves of America.

Lets face it.

[Jhonny]

If we make games about killing Nazis, the American kiddies will love it, Germans will get offended. If we make games about blowing up American monuments, the Americans will be offended, Saudis will love it. For some kids this is the only way they will find out about what is going on in the world.

Re:Lets face it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If we make games about killing Nazis (...) Germans will get offended.
Nope.
There are some hard (and if you ask me, dumb) restrictions to ANY kind of Nazi content by German law. For example, a lot of symbols like the swastika are illegal here. So, if live in Germany and you make games with swastikas in it, you will get problems with the law. You will get problems for making a kz manager game and you also will get problems for making a game where you shoot Nazis, because our lawmakers seem to believe that you will transform into a Nazi by looking at them. Compelling, isn't it?

Other "interesting" ethical stuff to discuss: There where some protests against Wolfenstein3D in the USA, because of the game's virtual killings of virtual dogs.

Re:love it or leave it; this is the way to maturit

[h0mer]

I haven't been reading comics for quite a few years, although I do still buy two series, PVP and Liberty Meadows.

There was mature comics even a long time ago though. Don't you remember DC's Vertigo line? Titles like Sandman, Preacher, I remember in the back of some Sandman book, Death teaches you how to put on a condom using a banana to demonstrate. I think Marvel had a mature line too, don't recall the name but it had the mature book by Peter David called Sachs & Violens.

Fast forward to today, imagine my surprised when I picked up some title by Image (a mainstream comic company at this point) and found T&A, gratuitous use of "fuck", and other things that would probably garner an M rating in a video game. Mind you there was no warning of any kind on the cover, and it was sitting there right next to Superman and Hulk.

I'm coming to a point here. If you haven't noticed, the mainstream tolerance of "offensive" material has been growing rapidly over the last 5-10 years. How else could Eminem be one of the biggest musical acts today?

Games are slowly but surely getting to the same "art" level as other media, and I don't think extremely offensive content will change that. If the movie Kill Bill can open in nearly every theatre and be #1 at the box office, then video games will be no different.

What's the BFD?

[NanoGator]

" I believe that such 'ripped from the headlines' titles are disrespectful to the soldiers in combat and the issues involved"

Funny, I think imitation was a form of flattery.

I mean, seriously, what's so disrepectful about it? It raises awareness of what soldiers have done to protect our country. If anything, it helps us appreciate their work even more. So what if a game is made of it? Would they rather hear snoring as that event goes by in history class?

Re:What's the BFD?

[Anonymous Coward]

The NBC special Saving Jessica Lynch
Will it be propaganda and lies like what we got on the news, or will it be the truth as people involved reported?

Re:What's the BFD?

[NanoGator]

Neither. It'll be a drama made to get people to watch commercials.

I hope they make it ultra-realistic

[gothrus]

In the case of Uday and Qusay, I hope they include over a hundred U.S. troops using heavy weapons including 10 TOW missiles, attempting to kill (not capture and interrogate) 4 people in a house . The best part will be when they storm the building and kill a 14 year old child. I hope they include the large number of murdered and maimed civilians (infants, elderly, etc.)in every one of the military campaigns. Perhaps then people will realize that our escapades abroad do not have the glamour of a Quake style shoot em' up.

Re:I hope they make it ultra-realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, put the Chomsky down and back away.

Re:I hope they make it ultra-realistic

[MMaestro]

While we're at it, lets have hundreds of rioters attack the U.S. troops while armed with AK-47s claiming that the Americans are devils. Oh but we can't have females as part of the riot though since they can't be out in public while having their face's revealed. Oh and don't forget to have land mines in the middle of the street. Ooh ooh! And we can't forget having to dodge RPGs being fired from refugee camps!

Yeah, right. 'glamour in of a Quake style shoot em'up'? Have you even PLAYED Quake? You can blow the limbs of your opponent with a ROCKET LAUNCHER. (sarcasm)Nice example, you're a real gamer.(/sarcasm)

Re:I hope they make it ultra-realistic

[che.kai-jei]

ps the USA is one of the very few countries that wont outlaw the use of landmines

Re:I hope they make it ultra-realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

pps Lots of the countries that have outlawed them sure as shit wouldn't hesitate to use them if they needed to.

Oh and by the way, one of the reasons the U.S. is unwilling to outlaw the use of them is because we currently use a shitload of them in the DMZ between the Koreas.

One word:

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh.

There can be games that are tasteless, just as the same can be done for music/movies/books/etc.

We've lived with trash before, and we'll live with trash in the future.

Re:Comic books

[*weasel]

which was exactly my point.

because of the self-imposed prison that the brightest minds and the largest budgets in comic publishing put themselves in, the form stagnated. it features childlike morals and prepubescent attractions precisely because that is the only market left for it.

If someone sees you pawing through Gaiman's work - they'll -still- derisively scoff at it as 'a comic book' on the same level as golden age Superman. And -that- is what i'm talking about.

Right now, you can't convince a person that Metal Gear Solid 2 may have had the first postmodern storyline, or even just a fairly engaging higher level commentary on the nature of information. why?
because it's a game 'oh, like doom'. or 'mario'.

The reason that Lara Croft is the most visible female gaming icon is a terrible precursor of gaming following the path laid down by comics before it. into irrelevance.

To intentionally oversell the same tried and true prepubescent themes to the proven core audience, without ever giving pause to deliver a decent character arc, let alone plot.

the key problem with being a pigeonholed art form by general society, is that you lose exposure to would-be writers, designers, and artists. and that will -always- lead to stagnation. I don't want games continue to stagnate - I already see it, I already lament it, I'd like to change it.

tasteless?

[Anonymous Coward]

where's the JFK themed assassination FPS game???

I think we left that line a long time ago...

[wrinkledshirt]

...when little Greek kids were reenacting Homer for kicks. Have you read the Illiad?

And let's not forget Titus Andronicus. They do some filthy things to each other in the name of theatre.

Yeah. Let's just ignore what's in our genes. In fact, wouldn't it be great if we could come up with a law where chess players were legally obligated to draw every game, then go have a Coke and a smile.

Re:love it or leave it; this is the way to maturit

[ymgve]

If you think Vertigo comics come from 'a long time ago' you are too young. Read the other posts here about the 'comic code' that almost destroyed the industry some decades ago.

Re:love it or leave it; this is the way to maturit

[h0mer]

Vertigo started in 1993. A lot happens in 10 years. Maybe I should've used "awhile ago". But then again, do I really care?

Ender's Game?

[Rand310]

Anyone read Ender's game?

Give 50 million teenagers the new US Military game, where you launch a missile with a camera on its nose and tell them they get "points" for hitting targets...

When does the game become real?

Re:Ender's Game?

[Anonymous Coward]

Missle with a camera in the nose? Hell yeah, I'd play that game.

Although I'd much rather play the one where I control a 100 foot tall flying transformer robot armed with 30mm chainguns, 2.75 inch rockets, and particle beams.

But if a missle with a camera in the nose is all that is available now, well I've got a stack of quarters ready to go.

hmmm

[Sj0]

Actually, my first response to this would be, bring it into the real world. Let the soldiers have real names and faces, and let your enemies, large and small, have the same. In this way, one of the most interesting feelings of war which I have ever been told about; that you're here to do a job, and they're here to do a job, and you don't nessessarily hold animousity towards them. I think something interesting and real could be brought to life if both your men and the enemy men were more than faceless drones waiting to be killed. In fact, I think it could be a much greater tribute to our real-life heroes, saying "You're just playing a video game, but these people did it for real. This hell you're about to experience, you can reload from, but the people in this game who died can't come back, so you'd better appreciate each and every one of them"....

I could be wrong though, I'd appreciate any thoughts on the subject.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if you had to play through both sides,a nd it wasnt loaded with one sided political bias....

forgotten to say in the first answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

The German public is not offended by Nazi/WWII stuff. Maybe bored, but not offended.

The German public has no problems with that Nazi stuff in movies like Indiana Jones. The swastikas in the movie weren't censored either, maybe because of the exception from censorship for documentaries. But the swastikas in the Indiana Jones games were censored.

Hey, don't mod me troll. It is not my fault that these facts doesn't make any sense.

Re:Comic books

[DeadScreenSky]

Right now, you can't convince a person that Metal Gear Solid 2 may have had the first postmodern storyline...

Because even if you did believe that, it still wouldn't be the first example of that. :D And I would certainly argue that the same is true of film and novels - very few people, at least in America, would remotely pick up on what you were talking about. Americans (and probably most/all other nation's citizens) just don't really understand critical theory of any kind.

Dangerous Information

[nanojath]

Generally I'm down with the total freedom of information principle. But it's interesting to think about the true extremes. Sim Holocaust, perhaps, where you try your hand at running a concentration camp. Serial Killer, where your object is to kidnap, defile, kill and eat innocent victims - don't accidentally kill them during the torture phase, you lose points!

Consider the Matrix, both the movies and the game, which are pretty much straight up about anti-state terrorists. But the context tells you you're the good guy, so killin' cops, blowing up buildings and shutting down power grids is okay. In the game you can give an innocent bystander a whack to get them to put their hands behind their heads and lie down on the ground. Switch to target mode, get their innocent, harmless heads in your sights, and pow, execution style.

Although it gets dodgy on the fringes of "dangerous" information (issues of national security, for example, where practicing "freedom" with information can get you a trip to the gas chamber, or Nuremburg Files kind of things), it seems to me that we should err on the side of freedom of speech.

On the other hand, if someone wants to call someone for being sick, perverse, disgusting and unforgivable, more power to them, providing they're not calling for a government ban. Protest and boycotting are freedom of speech issues too.

From the files of RTFA

[nanojath]

Allright, and a quick update to say - so I read TFA and sure enough, the "con" guy is saying upfront he doesn't want such things banned - he specifically sites the Sim Concentration Camp idea, I guess it's a pretty obvious example, how embarassing). Just that he personally thinks it's not a good thing.