Dangers of white-washing games

Remove all ads!

The current general attitude seems to be that games need to be sterilized for our younger (teens) players. I see a danger in doing this. It seems to me that this would give a false impression to anyone who is inclined to take the game seriously. By that I mean someone who forgets it is only a game. Violence, cruelty, hatred, bigotry are as much a part of life as love, friendship, giving, sacrifice, home and apple pie.

I am curious as to how others view this trend.

 

I think many teens see enough of those human traits in real life anyways....I don't think the games pave any new ground here. For younger children, I think it's a different story.

I'm not sure what you mean by (it's been a long day and I'm really, really tired.. lol):

Are you saying that if they have the urge to slice someone to bits, that it's a bad thing to censor a game because they won't be able to feel that way any longer? ...i.e. they didn't get the true experience? In my opinion individuals in their teens should know the difference between right and wrong -- I don't know that a game, no matter how violent, will change basic social values. For those few that are unstable, exposure to violent games, or what have you, could push them over the edge, but so could a lot of other things. I'm not sure we could say that that was the definitive cause. I guess what I'm saying, in a round about way, is that I'm not for censoring -- except for really young kids, who barely have a self-concept yet.

 

I'm against cloistering youngsters and showing them a world that isn't real under the guise of a more or less factual representation.

What I believe isn't needed is gratuitous sex or violence. Something that isn't a part of the story per se but serves to sell the game. I didn't really even mind Lara -- she was a bit ermm... superhuman in more than just one aspect but there wasn't too much skin. Or the Drakan girl if anyone remembers her. Her outfit was form-fitting, even the shining kind of worn out in some places, but she looked nice overall and there was not much skin, either.

More in SP's range of games, BioWare did a good job in the BG saga and Black Isle in the IWD saga, but it got close to the line with Aribeth (although I didn't like Dynaheir's portrait and I don't think Branwen's really needed to look like that). Guys drooled but I doubt any of them would like his "own" woman to walk the streets of Neverwinter like that. Not like Aribeth walked the streets but you get the idea. The naked nymph with sea shells on nipples was way behind the line of good taste (although the picture could perhaps be considered acceptable in the game because the character represented was a bit lewd, I didn't like it being used in advertising the game) and the Valsharess wasn't even titillating or offensive. She was simply ridiculous with all the stuff in the open and shaking. A real woman would have to swallow a fan to shake like that. Before you ask: yes, Jaheira or Aerie with their up-to-the-neck armour were more appealing to me. I believe that games reinforce men's ideas that women are best half-naked (and pointy-eared ) and ready for flirt. I can't get along with that kind of perception because it reduces women to objects, which is against my core beliefs.

But when it comes to violence, I think RPGs tend to keep it real. If there's extreme violence, unnecessary violence or violence enjoyed for the sake of it, it's shown as evil. Villains meet spectacular ends but there is no gratuitous gore. You can even switch gore off totally if it bothers you. Chunking is overdone because people don't get chunked by a longsword blow, but let me not be too picky.

I think IE games and NWN have included a fair share of psychotic killers and over types, just enough, and they have been identified well. No cloistering the players and showing them an ideal world, but no glorification of violence, either.

One of the bad things, perhaps, is the ability realistically to play evil characters. It may be fun, I agree, especially for the mean part of evil. But I don't really feel comfortable with the idea of someone getting immersed in his gameplay experience with a CE necromancer. Surely wouldn't like my children to, if I had any. The good thing in this bad thing is that it has to be chosen, it isn't default.

 

I agree with you to an extent, although one probably couldn't fully give a satisfactory answer without first proposing some sort of meaning and purpose to art and entertainment. So I will shy away from issue right now.

What I would actually like to know is where you are seeing this trend. I haven't really played any new games, and I don't have children or young siblings, so it hasn't been of immediate importance to me.

 

What got me to wondering about this wasn't CRPG but some CB games I play and Caesar IV which is in development. CotN took most of the fighting off the city map and the player had no control over the little that was on the city map. There is speculation over how the battles in Caesar IV will be handled.

I agree with Chev that the fighting should be integral to the game but the Romans didn't carve their empire by smiling sweetly.

In real life I'm a very peaceful person and do not like violence but I do enjoy a good strategic fight in a game.

@Spellbound...I guess what bothers me is that playing down the violence that would be natural to a game makes violence impersonal. The bomb being dropped on a city kills thousand but the pilot doesn't see the horror caused. I've actually learned a lot from games. The CB games have expanded my knowledge of the ancient world and in CRPG's I've expanded my imagination.

Games for young children should be carefully monitored but by the time someone is in their teens they should be aware of what goes on in the world. They should know the difference between right and wrong and what is real and unreal.

I, also, think that games do give an outlet for violent tendancies. If I'm upset I can get rid of some of my hostile feelings by playing BG or similar game.

It is the parents' responsibility to decide what is right for their children. I do think games should be rated but let us be realistic about it.

 

I liked the strategic parts in Caesar III and Pharaoh. It was great to pwn forces twice outnumbering my own. And you can't pull it off if the fight is calculated for you by the computer.

I played Fallout in my late teens and I'm not a drug pusher, crack whore, anti rad addict or anything. /me reaches out for his whisky and wonders why his computer has been overheating

 

I'm for censoring. Some things just don't need to be in games. Perhaps some people need sick, perverted images to be happy -- tough.

 

Part of it simply comes down to money. Game producers and distributors invest millions into a game and they aren't going to risk that investment on a game that parents refuse to buy for their kids or that Wal Mart refuses to carry. Not that such things hurt GTA I suppose.

I do think there's a limit to the "aw mom, it's just a game!" excuse. Stealing cars, selling drugs and murdering police officers is okay because "it's just a game?" Okay fine, how about the next installment of GTA you can rape Girl Scouts? I mean, it's just a game right?? In real life, I'd never rape a 12 year old girl but my, uh, "character" in the game really enjoys it. I can't be the only person who finds such things sick, can I? Could there possibly be any defense for someone who enjoys such a game?

The question is, why is raping a child in a game wrong but killing a cop or running over an old lady perfectly okay?

 

The key word there being "should." While many people should know these things, the reality is that they don't.

I am not against censorship in games, necessarily. I don't think violence is a good thing, but I also don't think that video games cause people to do things like that in real life. If I shoot a guy in a James Bond game, that doesn't mean I am going to in real life. Of course, that is just me, and I (last time I checked) am not the typical guy who plays video games. Personally, I can see violence and gore in movies and video games, and not be affected. Others will be, however, and I think we should cater (sp) to the less secure-about-death people. The video games can only be as intense as the average person can take.

However, I am not saying we should censor all games. There should be games that are more realistic, and there are. They are (as they should be) rated 'M' (in America, at least).

Basically, I am fine with the way games are now. As long as the rating system stays the same, we should be fine. Any intensely intense games should be rated 'M'.

Of course, they could always make it an option to turn off gore and blood, as they do in BG2 or Champions of Norrath, etc.

 

I read something funny in the newspaper today regarding this topic. A south korean guy, *38* years old died in front of a computer after spending ten days playing online. He's not the first, another guy, *28* years old died while playing Starcraft.
My point is that if one is prepared, warned if you like, to play games, then you can play anything you want. Sometimes we underestimate teenagers. Besides, choosing what is good for another people, that is autoritarism, in my opinion, of course.
There are other threats than a game's content in itself, and those examples above clearly illustrate what I want to say. If a teenager, or anyone for that matter, spends too much time in front of a computer that it affects his life and the lives of those around him/her, it becomes a problem. As a final note, I'd like to point out that tv should be our first priority, like a president would say.

 

*gulp*

/me looks around and pretends he doesn't exist

(Haven't been a teenager for some time but still... )

Seriously, though, it's not so much aggression in games that inspires aggression in a normal teenager, as losing badly or randomly or in suspicious circumstances (the latter applies especially to multiplayer). Not like aggression in the game isn't relevant -- this, after all, is more characteristic of FPS's than chess or scrabble, but still.

And wasting time isn't good, especially if there's also school or work.

 

Are we talking censorship here or youth protection? I'm against censorship. It means cutting parts out of media products, so that no one can see them. Thats butchering.

Youth protection is another matter. If you make media products with gross violence or with sexual content unavailable to children or teens of a certain age, there should be no problem. Provided vendors are trusted not to sell these games, movies or whatever.

 

The attitude of 'We must dumb things down to save people from themselves' is quite scary to me. Personally, I'd rather run the risk of people playing games and being influenced by them negatively than have them dumbed down so that they're no longer as intense, and thus no longer as enjoyable or are no longer in the form that they were intended.

I certainly don't see it as my place to recommend what others are or aren't able to handle - and am quite willing to give them the benefit of the doubt anyway.

Getting strong content out of games is crap - give me something that will make me go 'whoa, this is heavy/realistic/gritty/whatever' over fluffy dumbing down any day. If it inspires such a reaction or emotion, it's a good thing, and I have no wish to be missing out on that because of a theoretical 'some people' who are sociopaths and can't deal with it.

 

Censorship in the form of cutting things out is bad, but there are always people who will bitch about the rating and say that ratings de facto force developers to cut things out of games, which is bull****. If you make a game for teenagers, you don't put in content for adults. This is very basic logic, which many will however find hard to grasp.

I'm a bit torn when it comes to crap like games where you hunt policemen, run over old ladies, rape schoolgirls and whatever else strikes sick fancy. That crap we don't need. I just fear that cutting it out could in fact give it even more publicity than leaving it alone and allowing it to die a natural death after a short period of time. Should we choose to get rid of such games, it wouldn't be the same as dumbing realism down to playground level so that we could maintain the illusion that we live in a perfect world.

 

M ratings are put on games for a reason. It means that kids shouldn't be getting their hands on them. That needs to be enforced, and any trouble resulting from this falls on those that put the M rated game in the hands of the kids...

 

After thinking about it for a bit, I'm inclined to agree with Nakia (and Chev, to an extent). If a game--let's use Call of Duty as an example--is trumpeted as a realistic depiction of something (combat in this case), it really ought to be realistic. Which is to say, Call of Duty should be more like Saving Private Ryan and less like The Longest Day.

Personally, I'm quite happy that the trend in movies over the last few decades has been toward more and more realistic, which is to say graphic and disturbing, war films. Yes, they're unsettling, but given the subject matter, they damn well should be unsettling.

My feelings about games are much the same. That doesn't mean I want to see a rape simulator, but it does mean that I feel that games which touch on mature topics ought to deal with them in a serious manner. At least, if the game is trying to be serious. Postal 2, maybe not so much.

 

Sadly, most parents nowadays, don't pay much attention of what their kids play: my girfriend's son is 16 and he got San Andreas (18) for Christmas, most teenagers chat, surf the web, download anything, get cellphones full of crap, and parents don't even care. Anything without violence or some sex/sexy images DON'T sell; take television: is full of realities with violence, bad language, etc. and any 'cultural' show is put at 4am. The new game from EA, Most Wanted, a simple game of cars races is about running away from cops: 'be the most wanted'.
Money makes the world go round, so as long there are people who buy these kind of games, we'll have them for long time; and of course, as long there are grandmothers/aunts that buy these games for Christmas/birthdays to kids, they always have them no matter the M rate.