• ### Announcements

#### Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

# Morality in Game Design

## 55 posts in this topic

quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster

Any child that goes off and kills people BECAUSE OF a violent game they played is so maladjusted that they should have been institutionalized a long time prior.

If you think it is easy to spot who is maladjusted that easily, then you are very wrong. But again, I don''t believe I said anyone killed ''because'' of a computer game. The computer game may have contributed to violent instincts, or desensitized them to violence, taught them violence is an effective way of resolving disputes, or perhaps even made them more efficient at being violent.

quote:
I put it to you that eliminating all violence in computer games will not stop school or any other form of actual violence.

I agree that it will not stop it. I put it to you that it would reduce it.

quote:

If people can''t take responsibility for their actions (and note that this includes the act of having a child), then we''re collectively screwed. Every time an institution is charged with exercising responsibility on behalf of the people, the people suffer.

Guess what? Game developers are people too. There''s more to preventing violence than watching a child 24/7. No amount of control will prevent people acting violently if you''re indoctrinating people with it. The key is to not teach them these things in the first place.
0

##### Share on other sites
RAPE?

I have been kind of forced into thinking about the subject of morality in games recently because my current plot calls for the main character to endure being raped. I''ve had more than one person refuse to even think about the rest of my game because of this one plot event. This is supposed to be a terrifying, tragic moment, and I feel that the plot wouldn''t be as moving without it. Plus the rape itself is what gives the main character the key to regain her freedom and whomp the rapist - I think this is a _good_ moral. :/ So what does everyone think? Should I perservere, or go looking for a new plot?

(BTW, I am female. No, this is ABSOLUTELY NOT a rape fantasy.)
0

##### Share on other sites
hey, theres a game develpment project in singapore abt writing non violent games ... no violence in it at all !
However, some doubt that it will ever be interesting (It has to be a 3D action game)
0

##### Share on other sites
Sunandshadow I think it''s perfectly okay to have adult storylines in games. The concept of having a design with a pivotal part of the plot concerning something as deeply unpleasant as rape is not unthinkable and if told well can have a positive effect on the player.
I wrote a long post regarding what it is about different game types that make it okay to have a game about slaughtering people (unreal tournament/half-life) but not about rape. I came to the conclusion that it''s the mentality behind how you derive the fun (or at least the experience, games don''t have to be fun, horror movies aren''t really _fun_ but they are a good experience) not the plot that the fun revolves around.
(btw I ended up not posting this message, maybe I will later)
I don''t think it would be okay to have an FPS style game revolving around being a serial killer in the same way that I don''t think it would be okay to have a game revolving around being a serial rapist. The kind of enjoyment you get from an FPS is one of adrenaline not cold hearted killing which forgives a lot of it''s graphic nature.
There is no design that I can think of where it''s reasonable to use rape as it''s main plotline if you play the antagonist because the only kind of enjoyment you can get out of that is one that should not be found in computer games (IMHO).

The one problem in your game design is due to capitalism and the demographic of game players. Game players, or at least a large proportion of them, are under 18 and a rape centralized plotline would not be allowed to sell to that group. I would imagine that would put a lot of people off to start with before you even got to the fact that it''s a new, unproven, game concept which puts most publishers off straight away.

I''m not writing this to put you off though and you have my best wishes in trying to get this design through.

Mike
0

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by MikeD

The one problem in your game design is due to capitalism and the demographic of game players. Game players, or at least a large proportion of them, are under 18 and a rape centralized plotline would not be allowed to sell to that group. I would imagine that would put a lot of people off to start with before you even got to the fact that it''s a new, unproven, game concept which puts most publishers off straight away.

I''m not writing this to put you off though and you have my best wishes in trying to get this design through.

Mike

Thank you How many minutes of game time would the scene need to be to qualify as central, do you know? This shouldn''t be more than 5, and much of that will be the Bad Guy laying out his ultimatim.
0

##### Share on other sites
I think it''s more how much the game and the plot revolve around the rape than how long the scene in the game lasts. If everything the character does afterwards is based on this one scene i.e. the storyline follows on to how the character acts afterwards/gets their revenge, then it could qualify as being central to the plot.
If it''s only a small part of the overall plot then it''s less important.

Mike
0

##### Share on other sites
I don''t think we are yet at the stage where games are really going to corrupt people that much. Soldier of fortune was mentioned and I think that shows the direction games are going in. What will happen when as someone said we can''t distinguish between games and reality. Think of soldier of fortune XXII set in the equivalent of the holo deck in star trek where you gat an exact replica of killing someone which seems totally real. The question is what type of people would enjoy doing that or by that time will too much FPS playing have desensitised us all into enjoying it. I hope not.

On the political side of things if gaming is to become a mainstream media art form (which I think it will) then we can''t avoid sensitive issues. How many controversial books and films have been written/made throughout history that addressed sensitive issues and made people think about things they might not have thought of before. If you strongly disagree with something then why not make a game that addresses that. I don''t think you could do it too explicitly at the moment or you would probably just be shooting yourself in the foot but hopefully when the industry matures and grows you would be able to do so and still have an audience. Untill then certain issues can be addressed more abstractly but shouldn''t be avoided.

On a side note, Peddler your post scared me quite a bit. I hope you don''t play FPS games and own a gun.
0

##### Share on other sites
I beleive that the game your talking about, the prison camp game should be destroyed! I beleive that that peice of crud is terrible. It puts people into control of a camp that killed and injured about 6 million jews in WWII.

though I like games like "Goldeneye 007" and "Half-Life" I still don''t like games that all you do is kill people. Running around a shooting up people is what is getting some of these kids to do stuff. Colombine! Look at that! A bet those kids were shoot-em-up game gurus! I can see you liking a game, but when you go so far as to act like the person in the game!

Plus some of it is the the people selling the guns. How do kids get a hold of dangerous weapons like that!? Their parents may have one but the parents shouldn''t let the kids know!

"blow up a lawnmower plant, save a lawn gnome!"
0

##### Share on other sites
Frankly I''ll put in what I and my team deem fit to put in, nothing more, nothing less.
My morals don''t come into the picture. If I voluntarily apply for a Mature (18+) rating by the ESRB, I''ve done my part for morality. Frankly I like playing bloody games, simply as a good outlet for my stress

I think the real morally bereft people are retail companies and parents. Having worked in the business I know that salespeople are expressly told (off the record) to sell their Mature rated product to anyone, no matter how old or else they won''t meet their daily sales quota. (Which can easily be $4000-$5000 in sales per day for a small branch).
And of course the irresponsible parents that come in and buy their kids these games themselves without even glancing at content.
Not an opinion: this happens, and is everyday reality.
0

##### Share on other sites
So m1dn1ght, you realise that the 18+ certificate game you create WILL be sold to underage kids but because you apply for that certificate you are under no moral obligation even though you know it means nothing?

That''s rubbish.

You can''t throw responsibility away like that, that''s a lack of morals not a moral basis.
If you said you didn''t think these games would hurt anyone then fine, that''s your opinion but just because there''s a useless governing body out there it doesn''t mean you can throw any obligation you think you would otherwise have away.

MikeD
0

##### Share on other sites
Actually no that not what I''m saying MikeD. I''m not throwing away my moral obligation. Now personally I''d hate to see gore and violence removed from games. Yes it''s an added effect and doesn''t make a game. But what many people are asking of developers is the equivalent of Hollywood editing everything rated above a "G" until it meets the G-rating parameters. There are adult movies, as well as adult games, and if a kid plays it then someone has screwed up, but it''s sure as hell not the game developer.
Yes I agree there is some stuff too contraversial to show, but I''ll leave that up to whoever''s discretion. This isn''t the topic I''m on though.
Yes maybe I could have added a parental lock, or something similar. But in the end it bears as much weight as the rating. Yeah, I stand behind the rating system, even if it won''t work most of the time, it does work for a few people.
By applying for a mature rating by myself, means that I am making a game for ADULTS not children. You can''t put me on the block for that man. Sorry.
0

##### Share on other sites
When the ESRB was first created, it was stated that the labels were warnings intended for THE PARENTS to watch for. They are the ones upon whom the responsibility falls, according to the very people who made the warnings labels.

Anyone who makes the assumption that the Columbine Shootings were at all related to games is ignoring the details. These people did not shoot other students because they were desensatized to violence. They planned for weeks to go in a massacre as many people as they could. It wasn''t that they didn''t know it was wrong. It was that they knew it WAS wrong.

I don''t know what kind of desensatiztion would cause the kind of idiocy you need to have to think such an act is worthwhile. But you sure as hell don''t get it from gaming. Making the (incorrect) assumption that the must have been Quake players is just ridiculous (and wrong, too!)

Other than my 2 cents, I read the posts (betcha thought I didn''t!) and was really intrigued by SunandShadow''s idea. I find rape to be completely unwholesome and disgusting, but I believe that since it does happen frighteningly often, then it does have a place in fiction. To censor yourself from dicussing such topics is like just wishing they didn''t happen. War happens. Make a game about fighting in or ending a war. Tyranny happens, there are plenty of games about displacing tyrants (read: the 80s). Rape happens. If we portray it as the disgusting act that it is, we''ve done something far better than not portraying it at all.

I am also working on a game where on of the characters has been raped. It''s a long term project, but I am still interested in what people think of that.

Where does the Landfish live? Everywhere. Is not the Landfish the Buddha?
0

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Landfish

When the ESRB was first created, it was stated that the labels were warnings intended for THE PARENTS to watch for. They are the ones upon whom the responsibility falls, according to the very people who made the warnings labels.

So, if I decide to set up a regulatory body, I get to make the decision about who is responsible instead of me?
0

##### Share on other sites
>quote:
>----------------------------------------------------------->--------------------
>I put it to you that eliminating all violence in computer >games will not stop school or any other form of actual >violence.
>----------------------------------------------------------->--------------------
>
>
>I agree that it will not stop it. I put it to you that it >would reduce it.

I disagree. Football (American), Soccer, and even worse Rugby have a worse effect. If you were to say we should limit violent games because they give people adrenaline rushes, why don''t we stop playing Football because they also do too? Why not stop firefighters because they may get an adrenaline rush that may make them kill someone? My point is, that if you cannot see the difference between right and wrong, fantasy and reality, murder and well... not-murder (couldn''t think of a word), then you have more problems than playing Doom, you would need serious help, or a re-programming (no pun intended)

0

##### Share on other sites
Kylotan:
Yep. Ain''t it great? (sarcasm...) I''m not supporting the idea, I''m just saying *that''s* why ESRB ratings aren''t enforced by retailers.
0

##### Share on other sites
Thought those that didn''t know might be interested as Columbine was mentioned here. I recently saw a report on the news stating that both shooters were on prescription psychoactive drugs which had aggressive and violent behavior as a side-effect.
Frankly I''m tired of the entire fingerpointing at various indutries. If you look at it, I bet back then when one caveman clubbed another with a bone, what was that from? Cave paintings? How about every other massacre documented and undocumented in our world''s history?
Only difference is now we have a media to help us point a finger. And it leads all of us down that path too, including me. For example, take Columbine again, how many different reasons have we cycled thru? Movies, Games, Neo-Nazi propoganda, the Media, now prescription drugs. All were mentioned. Who knew their real reasons? Nobody but themselves really.
0

##### Share on other sites
Hiya,

I''ve only read about half the posts on this thread, so sorry if someones already said this. Also, this might be unusually deep for me, and I''m trying to express my opinion using only words that I can spell correctly, so it might not be too clear, sorry about that

I reckon at the moment computer games aren''t going to make someone go out and kill people.
I think there is a definite line between driving too fast because you''ve been playing racing games, and killing people because you''ve been playing FPS games. The driving thing is an impulse, you do it accendently because that line between reality and fiction becomes blurred for a few moments. But it is usually just a few moments, you don''t go around driving recklessly all the time, or if you do, it probably has more to do with your personality than the fact that you''ve been playing computer games.

Also, going out and shooting people requires you to own a firearm, and I imagine acquiring a gun is not that easy (even in the US ), it requires at least a few moments planning, so it isn''t an impulse in the same way as the driving thing discussed earlier.

In summary: To go out and kill people requires time and planning, it is not an impulse. I don''t think computer games (or films, books or whatever) could push someone to act in this way, unless they are likely to anyway, in which case we have another problem that would probably not be solved by removing violent games & films.

The obvious exception to this would be young children, and so censorship is very important in both games and films (IMHO). Although that rape scene is OK in the game sun&shadow is developing, since it is important in the plot, the game would have to be age-restricted, it''s probably not the kind of thing you want young children watching. As someone else said, having a game where you go around raping people would be totally unacceptable, because it''s just sick, and the only people who would play it would also be pretty sick.

I''m not a psychologist (bad spelling?) or anything, this is just my opinion, please feel free to disagree (I''m sure at least some of you will )

One other point, if you have a game that involves real-life politics or event, maybe you could have the option to play either side. Using the wolfenstein example (which is actually a pretty flawed example, but I can''t think of a better one): you could play the allied soldier, or a nazi, depending on your political stance.

In My Humble Opinion:
I think banning hand-guns in the UK was spot on, but Americans are having hastle with altering their gun restriction laws because for so many Americans, owning a gun is pert of their lifestyle. Also, where-as very few people in the UK used to own a gun for personal protection (that''s always been illegal I think), in America people do feel so unsafe that they need a gun to protect their home.

Just out of interest:
Alot of people who have posted on this thread are actually from the UK I notice, but for those who arn''t, there was a court case recently about this farmer guy who shot & killed a teenager who was breaking into his house. Although he claims he did not intend to kill the boy, he is still being charged for murder (I believe). In my opinion, it shouldn''t be illegal to defend yourself or your property, but murder is murder, regardless of the motivation. I still feel sorry for the guy though.

George.

"Who says computer games affect kids, imagine if PacMan affected us as kids, we'd all sit around in a darkened room munching pills and listening to repetitive music....uh oh!"

0

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster

>quote:
>----------------------------------------------------------->--------------------
>I put it to you that eliminating all violence in computer >games will not stop school or any other form of actual >violence.
>----------------------------------------------------------->--------------------
>
>
>I agree that it will not stop it. I put it to you that it >would reduce it.

I disagree. Football (American), Soccer, and even worse Rugby have a worse effect. If you were to say we should limit violent games because they give people adrenaline rushes, why don''t we stop playing Football because they also do too? Why not stop firefighters because they may get an adrenaline rush that may make them kill someone? My point is, that if you cannot see the difference between right and wrong, fantasy and reality, murder and well... not-murder (couldn''t think of a word), then you have more problems than playing Doom, you would need serious help, or a re-programming (no pun intended)

Sure, that person needs help. But it''s no good saying "that person needs help" or "that person is messed up" and sitting back waiting for someone else to change something, or even worse, expecting them to sort themselves out. (One common part of the definition of psychotic is that the person cannot appreciate their own psychosis.) Again, people ignore how such a person may get to that state in the first place. It may be that desensitisation through some sort of violent activity accelerates this process.

Whether self (or mandated) censorship is considered acceptable in the name of saving lives is a matter for each individual society to decide. The old liberty vs. security issue. You can''t have 100% of both. But for anyone to shrug their shoulders and say games cannot have an effect, or to say that it''s not their problem, is missing the point in my opinion.

In rugby and US football, the violence is in pursuit of a wider aim, whereas in many games the violence -is- the enjoyment. Therefore you could argue that boundary.

Having said this, rugby players over here are known to be quite violent anyway And also observe the actions of certain groups of supporters who watch sports such as soccer, rugby, etc: people who watch entertainment that is heavily based on violence seem to tend towards exhibiting more violent behaviour themselves. Sure, part of this is down to the mob mentality, but that is not all of it: after all, I don''t hear of riots at the GDC each year.
0

##### Share on other sites
>>> And also observe the actions of certain groups of supporters who watch sports such as soccer, rugby, etc: people who watch entertainment that is heavily based on violence seem to tend towards exhibiting more violent behaviour themselves. <<<

It''s probably more because of the large quantities of alcohol they consume .

Anyway, IMHO games will not cause (or even encourage) violence in people. I''m also getting a bit sick of self proclaimed experts trumping around telling everyone how computer games are worse then hitler, when they haven''t even played any of them.

That said, though, I think game companies need to take a bit more responsibility for what their putting out. Really, when a company is trying to release something in which the main feature is senseless violence, they should _expect_ a bit of outrage. It''s unfortunate that the entire industry is getting unfairly criticized for a few bad games, but should we really be all that surprised? It really pisses me off when I see a game advertising that "the characters die so realistically!" while the entire industry is under fire from certain pundits (who don''t even have a clue what their talking about).

My point is this: game designers need to realize that what they''re putting out there can hurt the entire industry, not just themselves. So before you start work on your ultra-realistic blood bath, remember that the consequences of your actions may have an effect on many more people than just yourself.

--TheGoop
0

##### Share on other sites
This has been an interesting thread, and I''ve found all the posts enlightening. I didn''t agree with some, I agreed with others, and what the heck, I may as well as throw in my two pence worth.

This is such a complicated issue, and this is my personal opinion (note: OPINION). If we were to remove all "potentially damaging" content from our environment (be it in Cinema, Magazines, Games, Whatever) we would live in padded rooms in total sensory deprivation. For example: Clowns at the circus. They really freak me out, I can''t stand them. Why, I have no idea, but just because they disturb ME, should we remove Clowns from society? Of course not. I don''t like clowns, I stay away from the circus. WOW! what a sensible idea...

There seems to be this theory that if we didn''t have censorship, the world would slide into total chaos and moral deparivity. Maybe YOUR world would, not mine. And do you have such a low opinion of the rest of the human race? Not all of us are as weak as you...

Ah, but what about the Children? If you want to cloud an argument, bring in the kiddies, why don''t you. *sigh* "We need to protect the children" Here Here! I agree! Kids should not be exposed to violence. Now who''s responsiblity is that? Now we hit the problem...
"If game producers didn''t make these games, there wouldn''t be these problems!" If we didn''t have cars, my best friend would still be alive. I don''t blame the car manufacturer. I don''t blame the Brewery. I blame the s.o.b. who got drunk and drove into the bus stop he was waiting at. You see, the developer of this "violent content" cannot take responsibility for every ****hole in the world. You can take procautions (ratings, warnings etc) but there is a limit to what can be done. Not release the game at all? Well that is a question only you can answer, it is, after all, your MORAL decision. (hehe, well actually it may well be a FINACIAL decision: "This game sux, it''ll never sell!")

I digress...

Personally, I''m sick and tired of someone else telling me what I can''t see or think for my own personal "moral" protection. You think you know better than me? You have all the answers? Well good for you. When we meet up in the next life you can gloat and laugh while I burn in the fires of hell. Or...here''s a thought.Could you be wrong? Nah. Thought not.

Sorry, I''ve rambled completly off message. Basically this argument has raged for centuries. IMHO it''s up to you. Not you, not them, not anybody, can be the world''s moral policeman. If in your heart, you feel you can live with the consequences of your actions, then be free! Just be prepared for the hoards of rampaging psychopaths (AKA "The moral majority") to denouce you as the son of Satan. We are fortunate to leave in a free world, it''s just a shame nobody realises that yet.

One more thing: (sorry)
The MacDonalds Case mentioned previously staggers me. The person concerned bought the coffee, and didn''t realise it was hot? Hmmm. Does this mean that if I buy a fork and stab myself in the eye with it, I can sue the manufacturer of the fork? BE AWARE! There are no warnings on forks about the damage of putting them in your eye! Maybe that''s because its common sense NOT to.
I also hear that Gun manufacturers are being sued by the victims of shootings. This doesn''t work I''m afraid. Guns are available for sale to the public (in the US anyway)Colt et al have no control over who those weapons go to. It is the responsibilty of the Shop owner, who is allowed to sell guns because the government let''s them. If these guns are going to the wrong people (eg Those with children in the house. Wow! we just stopped accidental shootings!) then the gun controls are too lacks, which is the governments fault Sorry, kind of a dream I have...

Anyway. I''ll shut up now. I''ve contradicted myself, left right and centre, but hey, it''s a complicated issue where nobody is right, and everybody is wrong (from someone''s point of view) If I have a point at all it is this: It''s a moral choice which only you can make. If someone disagrees then I suggest they stay away.
0

##### Share on other sites
I think this whole good guys - bad guys thing is more than moderately outdated.

Games are becoming increasingly lifelike, sure, but still the typical game hero is always right and nice and the villains are evil persons who deserved to die anyway.

I think this has to go. Games like Dungeon Keeper put you in just that position. You build your realm and then the "Goodies" come and want to take it all away. Do we hate them for that? YES! Will we torture them to death for that? YES!
But will I go out now and stab my neighbour because he has been using my parking space again? NO.

As long as the audience can handle what they are playing, it´s cool. There is such a thing as age limitations and it think the only way is to enforce them much more strictly.

In Germany there is a big thing about violence in computer games. Titles like WOlfenstein go straight to the "Indexlist", meaning that the title may not be advertised (Displayed in the store, not even mentioned as this could be seen as advertising) and may not be sold to persons under 18.
Is this a sollution? Probably not. THe game manufacturers loose lots and lots of money and those who may play the game can´t get it, because it´s not in the shops.

BUT, and this is the cool thing: The German versions of violent games (like Soldier of Fortune for instance) have "reduced violence", meaning no blood, no gore and no screaming people twitching on the floor. Now it´s kiddy-proof. Shoot - die (hygenic and effortless)

In my opinion this makes the whole thing even more dangerous (if that´s the word to use). YOu make it as life-like as possible, without the unpleasant bits. Talk about dreamworld.
(Quote from one of the kids who triggered the fire alarm and gunned down pupils as they were coming out of the building "We really didn´t think anyone would get hurt")

So i guess my statement is:
IF THE GAMES TOPIC IS ABOUT SOMETHING VIOLENT, THE GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION SHOULD BE THERE IN FULL EXTENT - JUST DON´T USE VIOLENCE FOR IT`S OWN SAKE.

If someone gets killed, it´s violent and usually bloody and ugly. But show this because someone is dying and not let someone die to show off your new and improved GoreTek(tm) engine.

hase
0

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster

There seems to be this theory that if we didn''t have censorship, the world would slide into total chaos and moral deparivity. Maybe YOUR world would, not mine. And do you have such a low opinion of the rest of the human race? Not all of us are as weak as you...

The issue here is not protecting people from the subject matter itself, but from other people who might be ''corrupted'' by the subject matter. I don''t care if someone messes up their own head performing some activity. Others might, but that''s not my point. But if that activity makes or influences them into doing something anti-social (such as blowing someone''s head off), then that is something to be concerned about.

quote:
Ah, but what about the Children? If you want to cloud an argument, bring in the kiddies, why don''t you. *sigh* "We need to protect the children" Here Here! I agree! Kids should not be exposed to violence. Now who''s responsiblity is that? Now we hit the problem...
"If game producers didn''t make these games, there wouldn''t be these problems!" If we didn''t have cars, my best friend would still be alive. I don''t blame the car manufacturer. I don''t blame the Brewery. I blame the s.o.b. who got drunk and drove into the bus stop he was waiting at.

Perhaps if the penalties for selling the wrong games to minors were as high as they can be for drink-driving, this argument would be less important...

Either way, the issue here is dealing psychological damage through a product you produce. And also, to someone who may not know the dangers.

quote:
Personally, I''m sick and tired of someone else telling me what I can''t see or think for my own personal "moral" protection. You think you know better than me? You have all the answers? Well good for you. When we meet up in the next life you can gloat and laugh while I burn in the fires of hell. Or...here''s a thought.Could you be wrong? Nah. Thought not.

I don''t recall anyone trying to censor your choice based on morals as such. I think most people here are against censorship for adults. I don''t hold much respect for so-called ''morals'', but when there is a chance of psychological damage which might possibly lead to someone committing violent acts, it''s something you have to consider.
0

##### Share on other sites
I am going to quote myself from a different thread, please put it in context

quote:

These are games people. They are supposed to help us block out the crap we deal with on a daily basis, not make the 5'Oclock news look like a kiddie show.

Yes, I do think it would be cool if there was a little less hack and slash. But I'll be damned If I want it GONE. Yes, blowing off a lower leg can be fun. BECAUSE I WOULD NEVER DO IT IN REAL LIFE!!!!! I also am not suicidal, but I have jumped characters off ledges just to see if there was anything down there. The surrealism of game is what makes us play it.

Hell, one of the oldest board games in existence is nothing but hack and slash (CHESS). It is in the human nature to be violent. It is also in human nature to control our nature (Go figure.). There will never be an end to violence in games or society. It is what we are. We can however, choose how to include it within ourselves.

I am gonna get SO flamed....

Ahh, the children. It seems to me that the whole children thing is representative of a society that plays to the lowest common denominator. I am a parent, and as a parent, it is MY responsibility to monitor my child and make judgment based on MY morals and ethics. Nobody else in the entire friggin' world has the right to make those decisions for me.

If my child screws up, it is not the systems fault. It is mine. If my kid ends up being homicidle(sp), it is not the games she played or the friends she chose, it is MY fault. I accepted that responsiblity when my wife and I decided to have her.

When DOOM first came out, I played it in secret at my friends house. Why? Because my mom thought it was to violent and would mess up my behavior... You know what I do when I lose my temper now that I am an adult?

Butcher the neighbors in their sleep? nah.
Set bombs off at Wal-Mart? nah.

I go play a game. Sometime a violent computer game, sometimes chess with my wife. Often times the game is Pirates and Treasure with my 3yr old daughter. The screwed up behavior was never there to begin with. No amount of DOOM or Quake or anything can put it there. I have common sense. (some may question that, I did post this after all.)

Edited by - Landsknecht on May 13, 2000 6:27:57 AM
0

##### Share on other sites
Okay - this is a way oversensitive subject and it's easy to get flamed for having an opion, but I'm perfectly prepared to add my meagre thoughts.
As a society we can't keep traversing down the chain of responsibility for all eternity. You find the person that is most *directly* responsible for whatever action (for instance a child going on a killing spree) takes place and they should be held accountable for it.
However somewhere along society's evolution, we decided that children can't be held accountable for their own actions, so we have parents for them who should be accountable for a childs actions. And that's where it should stop, parents shouldn't shirk their responsibilty and point their finger to game developers.
A parent (as Langsknecht said) chose to be responsible for their child when they decided to have it. Whatever gets supplied to the child should be under the supervision of parents, which includes computer games. Game developers can't be held responsible for producing the content as they weren't the ones who handed it to the children.
And I agree with Bert Halligan, if games are ever going to develop as a serious story telling media, or an art media, then there is no way of avoiding mature content. The reason why we try to censor these kind of things, is because we don't want to accept our society for what it is, and we want people to live in some happy-happy joy-joy land amongst the daisies and the poppies in a world of peace and love.
I for one like the world we live in, sitting around looking at the hopeless morally afflicted people, and then the naive person walking down a street with a smile on their face joking with their other people as children starve in other countries. It's a philosphists playground out there! Game design is a great way for me to express how I see things and how I see people. If I am unable to show some kind of mature "evil" content how am I going to define the good content in the game? There is no contrast and the point of the game is left flat and dead.
The only other problem I can think of is that some people just want "games" and not a community message, and if you want to go ahead and write a multi-million dollar commercially succesful game that has no point but to act out violently at people for no reason, then that's fine, but leave out the mature content

I can say one thing - look what happened to DreamWeb - great story (almost art) - but not a great game in the terms of commerciality.

Edited by - Maitrek on May 13, 2000 7:14:22 AM
0

##### Share on other sites
Games are hardly the first target of censorship, nor even have game developers or retailers yet been touched by the zealous hand of censorship. Perhaps it is coming, but the worst games have seen is propeganda, and that is no worse than free advertisement. But do be wary. Best take a stand with no reservations for freedom in and of itself or risk being trampled under the beast you let mature.

I come from a background in cartooning, where I risk a severe penalty with some material (especially if I tote a few samples along to the local conventions). The men who sold me the comics of Richard Corben when I was young, providing much of the inspiration to set me on that path, suffered for doing just that; read about it at: http://www.cbldf.org/casefiles/planetcomics.shtml

It's not about what you publish, as that is a matter of your own morality -- no matter what it is you can count on someone having a problem with it, or you. But when censors have power you cannot be certain you won't find yourself at their mercy.

Even your title could get an uninformed public behind a contract on your life (remember Salman Rushdie, ever read Satanic Verses?).

Edited by - Mantic on May 15, 2000 4:50:37 AM
0