CENSORSHIP is coming to the gaming world

In Germany for instance they are very hot on the topic of violence, and even more specifically, red blood. If that is included in any game (blood), 1st person shooters especially, the game is bound to be put on the index list.

Games that are on the index may not be advertised, displayed or even mentioned in the press. If you are over 18 you may legally buy them but you will in all likelyhood not get one because the retailers don´t have them (no advertisment-no sale).

This does not protect anyone, the kids get them from the net anyway (everyone has them once they are on the index - this makes violent games sooooo cool), and the adults are deprived of their right to play what they want (as long as it´s not unlawful).


Just watch out, it may be going around the world, i don´t know.

I probably can''t say much different than what is already posted, but since this is a heated debate, let me add my opinion. I look at this from several angles. First, Columbine. Did anyone hear how the gunmen shot various students? They shot them in the head and chest. Why? Because of a game they played. Games are truly becoming *too* realistic. That is good and bad. I think it is really cool that game developers can model real life as much as possible. I sit on the edge of my seat for the next major leap that gd''s will take to make things more realistic. The military is suppose to start using Microsoft''s flight simulator because it is more realistic than the ones that they can produce at a fraction of the cost. The closer games become realistic, I believe, poses a real threat as to the behavior of people. I think about my dad''s dog - a full blooded wolf. He is domesticated - but you don''t ever do one thing. If he ever gets a taste of blood, you better watch out because he will turn on you. Believe you me, I don''t want to be around when that happens. What about alcoholics - how many drinks before they become alcoholics? (Not another can of worms!) I think that both gd''s and parents (of which I am both) are responsible for what they allow others to see and play. I would hate to think that I developed a game that gave kids the expert marksmanship (from a first person shooter) to kill kids instantly by teaching them *where* to shoot to get bonus points. Ratings don''t work it seems because we can go to any movie we want or buy anything we want because the laws are not enforced. If we as game developers took a more active stance that we didn''t want to teach or train people violent behaviour, then there would be a problem. We need to hold ourselves more liable for our own actions, regardless of whether this game or that game would be a top seller. If people are in situations over and over, they become desensitized to that situation. Perhaps in the case of the rape scenario, people would be desensitized if that game had rapes occur over and over (not saying that it is). It is up to us as game developers to sensor ourselves and produce quality games that don''t promote violence (mainly killing others). There are several other great scenarios that games can be made from that don''t involve violence to a great extent.

Columbine is an issue of gun-control, not petty
game-censoring. One has to see the true problem, instead
of some placebo explanation.

Have we ever heard the term "political scapegoat" it''s what game censorship is about. Whereas the real issue in America that is causing the problem is gun laws. Because it''s in your constitution to be at arms and violence (whether you like it or not) is a big part of your culture. What percentage of america owns a gun? Even just for hunting, it''s just something that has become part of your culture.
And then politicians don''t want to touch this cause it''ll cost them alot of voters no matter which party, so they just find something else to blame it on.
Don''t lap everything up, the columbine killings were a combination of many factors of which only a minor one was computer games. Playing Doom or Quake is not going to teach you to aim at the head and chest, watching movies will, and anyone that knows where the heart and brain is could probably figure that out for themselves too.
Games should be able to contain a message and that''s what morality is about, there has to be some of it somewhere if we are going to have these "interactive movie" type PC games...games weren''t always about people and characters, but they were still violent so they got less attention back then.

quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster

Columbine is an issue of gun-control, not petty
game-censoring. One has to see the true problem, instead
of some placebo explanation.

This is just as foolish as blaming games for all ills. Just as eliminating violence from games will not totally stop people shooting each other, enforcing stronger gun laws will not reduce violence. There will just be a lot more stabbings etc. The gun is only the means. The -violence- is the problem. What causes the violence? It''s not the gun.

When game boxes feature the phrase "Shoot someone in the head and watch them bleed to death" (Kingpin, as I recall) and make out that is some sort of cool feature, you have to be concerned. This is not scapegoating. This is an example of someone claiming watching people die is fun, to sell their software!