is there a game you can think off with have no redeeming social, political or cultural value?

[omega 616]

Although if you compare games with films, how are games worse? One of the most famous horror films, nightmare on elm street, stars a peado who got torched by angry parents (as far as I understand it) and now kills poeple in there dreams in rather twisted ways.

By todays standards those films are very tame but take Oldboy or the devils rejects, those are some fucked up films, GTA compared is barbies dream house 3.

Also deserving of a mention, the hills have eyes (one rape scene per film) and hostel (porn with gore tacked on the end) ... I would mention a few books but I don't read them much.

If the government are quick to jump at our "worst" I think it would be only right to compare it to equally "bad" films, that they consider to be okay.

 

[AvsJoe]

First thing I thought of: Custer's Revenge.

But, no, that game has some value in that it's both ridiculous and hilarious. And it provides an interesting snapshot into a time when adult-oriented gaming was in its infancy (yes, I did just use a baby metaphor when describing a sexual game).

 

[jaketaz]

Both of the Dead Rising games. Everything the game does well has already been done by movies, and there's too much retarded running around and side-quests and escort missions. Any possible anti-consumerist or pro-individuality message is lost in the idiocy of running around looking for baseball bats and crap. Also the story doesn't do anything to reveal any kind of message. As far as social value... I don't really think it has any of that either. It's just stupid, and the timer/save system is so damn annoying.

 

[Arkvoodle]

The "SceneIt?" games based around Twilight.

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

Ironically the games not covered by any "ban bill" are the ones with the least social, cultural or political value. Unless you're going to tell me "Mario Kart" is a critique on aggressive capitalism or that Peggle will bring forth the next cultural revolution.

 

[Signa]

Desert Bus. The game is so one-dimensional, the only "cultural" experience it offers is feeling the tedium of being a bus driver.

 

[Nifty]

Both of the Dead Rising games. Everything the game does well has already been done by movies, and there's too much retarded running around and side-quests and escort missions. Any possible anti-consumerist or pro-individuality message is lost in the idiocy of running around looking for baseball bats and crap. Also the story doesn't do anything to reveal any kind of message. As far as social value... I don't really think it has any of that either. It's just stupid, and the timer/save system is so damn annoying.

No offence intended but it sounds like the point of Dead Rising was lost on you.

 

[mexicola]

X blades, there might be worse out there but I haven't played them.

 

[Something Amyss]

after reading a particular article on wired.com, which stated a game could only be banned if it had no redeeming social, political or cultural value, i couldn't think of one wondering what everyone though or even if they could think of any and put a good justification on it.

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/11/violent-videogames/?pid=533&viewall=true

the EMA dispute is testing whether or not this law:

Legislative History: On October 7, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill restricting the sale or rental of certain video games to anyone under the age of 18. The computer and video games are classified as "violent video games" and restricted if the depictions of violence are "offensive to the community" or if the violence depicted is committed in an "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved" manner. Under the law, game manufacturers and distributors would be required to label games with 2" x 2" stickers displaying the numeral "18" on their front covers.

Can be validly applied.

Note the use of "Community standards," an old chestnut of the obscenity laws.

I normally won't call Wired wrong, but whoever wrote that is way off base and doesn't know what the hell they're talking about in terms of restrictions. The briefs themselves aren't applied like that, and the original law isn't.

What is? Current obscenity standards. CURRENTLY, video games are protected because they are art, and are currently safe under the purview of "redeeming social, political, or cultural value."

That's what California is fighting, guys.

Edited to remove the superfluous quote.

 

[jaketaz]

Both of the Dead Rising games. Everything the game does well has already been done by movies, and there's too much retarded running around and side-quests and escort missions. Any possible anti-consumerist or pro-individuality message is lost in the idiocy of running around looking for baseball bats and crap. Also the story doesn't do anything to reveal any kind of message. As far as social value... I don't really think it has any of that either. It's just stupid, and the timer/save system is so damn annoying.

No offence intended but it sounds like the point of Dead Rising was lost on you.

Yeah, it's definitely completely lost on me. But regardless of whether or not I like it, I still think it has no social, political, or cultural value.

 

[Brutal Peanut]

Ethnic Cleansing (2002) is a controversial computer game developed by Resistance Records, an underground music label owned by the National Alliance. Specializing in Neo-Nazi and white supremacist bands.

In the game, the protagonist (the player can choose either a skinhead or a Klansman) runs through a ghetto killing black people and Latinos, before descending into a subway system to kill Jews. Finally, he reaches the "Jewish Control Center", where Ariel Sharon, former Prime Minister of Israel, is directing plans for world domination.

The player must kill Sharon to win the game.

Or,....

any train simulation games people play, for fun.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

I too must defend the case of Postal 2. It has more than a bit social value. Its a funhousemirrorimage to society.


Funfact: "no redeeming social value" is also an awesome band!

Spoiler

 

[Jonny49]

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 for the PSP.

Don't ask why, merely accept.

 

[Something Amyss]

Both of the Dead Rising games. Everything the game does well has already been done by movies, and there's too much retarded running around and side-quests and escort missions. Any possible anti-consumerist or pro-individuality message is lost in the idiocy of running around looking for baseball bats and crap. Also the story doesn't do anything to reveal any kind of message. As far as social value... I don't really think it has any of that either. It's just stupid, and the timer/save system is so damn annoying.

This is precisely why games need to be protected. The idea that "I don't like what this game does" as a reason it has no merit as art (which IS what most of your argument boils down to) is the worst possible justification for censorship.

Well, I suppose "Because I feel like it" is worse, but it's up there.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Desert Bus. The game is so one-dimensional, the only "cultural" experience it offers is feeling the tedium of being a bus driver.

That game has raised Thousands of Dollars for sick kids. How many games have done that? Also it was a joke game anyway.

 

[k-ossuburb]

"Beat 'em and Eat 'em" and "Custer's Revenge".

Just... no.

 

[Signa]

Desert Bus. The game is so one-dimensional, the only "cultural" experience it offers is feeling the tedium of being a bus driver.

That game has raised Thousands of Dollars for sick kids. How many games have done that? Also it was a joke game anyway.

Sure you can argue that, but wasn't it because it was a crappy, pointless game that it has raised those funds? Couldn't you do the same for any other valueless game? The only advantage DB has over other valueless games is that it's not really meant to be fun. You can make a valueless game fun. It's because it's not fun that people pay to charity for those who drive a certain number of miles, like a walk-a-thon without the exercise.

 

[C95J]

Viva Pinata.

 

[Ken Sapp]

after reading a particular article on wired.com, which stated a game could only be banned if it had no redeeming social, political or cultural value, i couldn't think of one wondering what everyone though or even if they could think of any and put a good justification on it.

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/11/violent-videogames/?pid=533&viewall=true

the EMA dispute is testing whether or not this law:

Legislative History: On October 7, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill restricting the sale or rental of certain video games to anyone under the age of 18. The computer and video games are classified as "violent video games" and restricted if the depictions of violence are "offensive to the community" or if the violence depicted is committed in an "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved" manner. Under the law, game manufacturers and distributors would be required to label games with 2" x 2" stickers displaying the numeral "18" on their front covers.

Can be validly applied.

Note the use of "Community standards," an old chestnut of the obscenity laws.

I normally won't call Wired wrong, but whoever wrote that is way off base and doesn't know what the hell they're talking about in terms of restrictions. The briefs themselves aren't applied like that, and the original law isn't.

What is? Current obscenity standards. CURRENTLY, video games are protected because they are art, and are currently safe under the purview of "redeeming social, political, or cultural value."

That's what California is fighting, guys.

Edited to remove the superfluous quote.

"Offensive to the community"? The law can not be validly applied based on that one phrase. It is too vague, general and fluid. Based on that phrase the law could ban entirely different games in towns less than an hour's drive apart. Or even in different portions of a city. When it comes to law the standards have to be codified to a greater degree than that or the law becomes useless and unenforceable. Personally, I am against the law and highly doubt that the government can do a better job keeping mature games out of the hands of minors than the current industry self regulation. It is illegal to purchase or use tobacco under the age of eighteen or drink alcohol under the age of 21 and of course the government has been able to keep these products out of the hands of minors. Let the police deal with real criminals instead of wasting their time on matters like video game sales.