Should we have some kind of "moral standards" orginization in video games?

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

No. Because your morals are not the same as mine which aren't the same as that dude there, or the one girl over yonder.
we all may share some, but we're not the same. Having any one organization decide what's right or wrong seems...fascist. Very 1984.
I mean what if my moral compass said women can't be protagonists? Or I'm morally against women wearing pants? Or I'm morally against Jewish characters not having that hooked nose?! And I'm in charge of this moral watchdog group and hand down M rating, or classify something as offensive because the protagonists breasts aren't big enough.

To be fair, I'm none of those things, but the point I'm making is no one organization should be able to decide what is moral for everyone else.

 

[BeerTent]

Because imposing your standards on someone else who has different standards NEVER generates pointless conflict.

If we get a moral standards group for video games, can we at least get a moral standards group for slash fics? If ANY medium needs a moral standards group, it's goddamn slash fic's. I mean, Ron Weasley, and Frodo?[footnote]Coincidentally, this is the first time I've ever regretted the conception of one of my own jokes SO MUCH![/footnote] Good god.

 

[silver wolf009]

No

No

No

The reason we don't have a moral standards authority in video games is because we have the ESRB / PEGI. If we start applying moral standards it will be pushed and pushed until it becomes "You can offend no-one even if the way they're offended is warping and twisting events to fit some paranoid delusion that the world is out to oppress them."

Enforcing moral standards depends on who is in-charge of them. In this present climate would you really want people like this guy in charge of what can go into video games ?


Word of advice do not try to watch a whole load of his stuff he's the Male Anita Sarkeesian oh and he doesn't have lenses in his glasses......... no really it's literally just a style choice

Edit: Change the video for one with a more clear example of the person in question rather than a slightly ambiguous one

This man hurts me to watch. Why the FUCK are his glasses glassless? How can you look at video games, which require the presence of fingers and eyes to work, probably one of the most physically inclusive mediums ever, and say that it's a bad thing because people with no arms or legs are feeling left out?

OT: Well call it the Minfeel, the Ministry of Feelings. It'll be great!

 

[nightmare_gorilla]

See, there is no such thing as a "moral standard" Morals are a subjective personal thing and no one else should dictate what's right for you morally. The closest thing you COULD have is a consumer education organization that gives you information ahead of time about some of the content contained within so you can make up your own mind about if you like it's morals.

But honestly? look at games like bioshock, the morals depicted in the game are NOT good morals and they use your personal disagreement with them as part of the storytelling process but within the game itself the ideology is never questioned or shown to be "wrong" they just show you things you know are wrong and let you decide yourself that it is wrong.

 

[Jarmam]

Absolutely, unequivocally, 100% no.

What would an organization like that do? What would its purpose be? Why is it required? To police people's morality? Based on what standard, exactly? The "RL-standard"? We should start by having one of those first, then.

I don't see what use it has. I do, however, see many ways that it could be predictably abused. The great thing about morality is that it's subjective and debateable. Scary stuff for some people, which I can sympathize with. But the thought of having "some organization" serving no purpose other than to enforce "its" views on morality scares me a lot more.

If a game includes something illegal, fight on legal grounds. If it contains violence, drug use/abuse, sexuality etc, then there's already a rating system to mark it as such and by then it is the responsibility of the parent/guardian to determine whether one's child should have access to it - not some organization's. Heck, we have censorship galore as we discuss it, and I have yet to see any purpose to any of it except to allow some people's perceptions of the world to be forced down the throat of other people. On that note, I feel for the Aussies amongst us - you seem to be particularly afflicted by this.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

The ESRB isn't already enough to determine whether a game is appropriate enough for a children?

I think it doesn't do a bad job; the problem is awful parents most of the time.

Anything being judged on a 'moral standard' is just...bleugh. No thanks. Since morals are quite subjective.

 

[zumbledum]

I mean, picture some old Grandmother looking to pick up a game for her grandkids sixth birthday, would you rather those warnings not be there? Would you rather the six year old gets Grand Theft Auto V or would you rather they get Mario Kart 8?

Personally, I'd want the warnings on the covers to show the uninformed consumer what is and isn't going to be acceptable by their standards. We all have different levels of what we deem acceptable, and these warnings help us understand what we will and wont be able to tolerate. So I'm all for the ESRB warnings on game cases.

I lived through the 80's id rather not see the return of the moral minority, the big problem with labels is they are a method of targeting. we didnt see the danger in letting them put labels on stuff then either , and now we dont have 18 movies everything has to be toned down to a 15 because the big guys wont stock the 18's.

The problems come not from the people classifying but in the people that want to push an agender and use that as a means to target what they dont like.

in your example i would rather the sweet ol grandma ask the parents of the child or talk to the professional in the shop who does know or to do her own research into the content available.

 

[Recusant]

There seems to be a misunderstanding- several, actually- in a number posts here. Back before the ESRB, we had the recreational software advisory council (RSAC), which followed a ratings system I've long advocated a return to: you had four categories (sex, violence, language, and drug use, one of which was added in after it was absorbed into ICRA) with five levels for each, giving you an actual objective system which, while not unabuseable, was much more so than the one we have today. There was a brief standards war between them and the ESRB, and the latter won- mom and dad wanted a quicker, at-a-glance rating of a game to know what to get their kids; they didn't have the time, patience, or energy to make more informed decisions every single time. It seems to me that a hybrid system could serve both needs easily; the labels would have to be large, but I say the trade-off is worth it.

 

[Godhead]

There will never be a "AAA" game with an over the top violent universe that doesn't shy away from getting rapey and disturbing.
You know, like that berserk comic. Which is a cult classic.

Or the F.A.T.A.L. RPG. Which is the exact opposite - the people who've heard about it mostly despise it.

What was your point again?

The point is to roll for anal circumference.

OT: I'm ok with there being a committee that gives notification on the content of a game, but not anything that can actively enforce anything.

 

[SantoUno]

HELL NO

...simply because there shouldn't be an organization with power to judge and decide what is acceptable to depict in games. What gives them the privilege?

Seriously, even with the most extreme cases such as killing children, exhibiting violence towards women, committing mass murder, and whatever, the true arbiters of what is appropriate to put in your game SHOULD BE the entire gaming demographic. If almost EVERYONE expresses the same disdain for being able to kill children in games, then naturally game devs would shy away from such a choice as to what they should put in their game, for the sake of their games succeeding and being received positively.

Giving power to one group to decide what we can be exposed to gives unreasonable power to those who may not have everyone's best interests to heart.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I'm not particularly fond of the idea of a group setting standards for games. Well, there is one group I'm OK with: Gamers as a whole. If a gamers as a whole find something so despicable that they won't buy something, then sure, that sort of acts as a "moral guide" for developers, but I don't particularly like placing that kind of control in a centralized group.

Now you might be saying: But what if gamers collectively agree to something that I find wrong or don't agree to something I find right? Ignoring the fact that that is likely to happen with a small, central group: That's why we discuss things.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I think the only time I've ever seen a horse die in a film is when the Fell Beast flies over head and drops its talons into the charging army in Lord of the Rings, plus there was The Neverending Story but they got to skirt around that rule because it wasn't a death technically caused by people.

I won't get into the rest of this, but you seriously need to watch more movies then. Braveheart, Game of Thrones, The Last Samurai, The part in Lord of the Rings where the Cavalry are fighting the giant Elephants, 300, and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. All movies where LOTS of horses die.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Absolutely, unequivocally not.

Games are an art form, no matter what Roger Ebert's peers might have to say on the matter. Art is never to be stifled. Art must NEVER be stifled. If artistry starts to step on someone else's perceived moral boundaries, then that person has every right to simply turn away and never look at it again.

An artist once designed a machine that poops. Marilyn Manson sings about consumerism and the unhealthy obsession of Western cultures towards warfare. The Marquis de Sade almost lost it all to the Catholic Church. Some of Salvador Dali's deconstructions of the Christian cross were considered sacrilegious, even if their originals will sell for millions of dollars. We've elevated the booze and drugs-fueled ramblings of the Beat Generation to cultural mainstays.

Look at it from another angle: Hatred is a game that polarized a lot of people, when its trailer was released. The game is a pointless celebration of wanton murder and puts you in the shoes of a sociopath who's gone off the deep end. It asks you to murder innocents for the sake of murdering innocents, all in the hopes that you'll get to beat your own high score before the cops take you down. It's despicable. I wouldn't play it even if you stuck a gun to my head.

It still is art. People still have the right to play it. My own damn opinion in regards to one lousy game has no right or ability to determine whether or not someone else gets to enjoy it. If someone were to consciously make a shiftest along the lines of The Slaughtering Grounds and to honestly claim that said game's shittiness is part of a statement of some kind, then it qualifies as art and should be judged as such.

Anything can be art. Anything has to have the possibility of being art. Everything can and must be effectively suffused with Meaning, or else you're robbing the notion of Art of its reason to exist. Your only choice as a consumer of entertainment is to choose what kind of content you'd like to consume. If you're concerned about exposing your children to proper levels of entertainment for their age, then make the appropriate choices. Don't expect the entire industry to do it for you - it's already thrown you a bone in the form of the ESRB's ratings.

Otherwise, what? We go back to autodafés and burn books and destroy works of art? Look at what's happening in the Middle East and tell me, OP, that "Moral Standards" are cut-and-dry. I dare you.

Your hunky-dory piece of PG entertainment is someone else's incarnation of the Western Devil, if such a thing even exists. Considering, trying to legislate matters is impossible by definition.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I'm glad someone linked PBS's glassless glasses guy. He's a twat.

There seems to be a misunderstanding- several, actually- in a number posts here. Back before the ESRB, we had the recreational software advisory council (RSAC), which followed a ratings system I've long advocated a return to: you had four categories (sex, violence, language, and drug use, one of which was added in after it was absorbed into ICRA) with five levels for each, giving you an actual objective system which, while not unabuseable, was much more so than the one we have today. There was a brief standards war between them and the ESRB, and the latter won- mom and dad wanted a quicker, at-a-glance rating of a game to know what to get their kids; they didn't have the time, patience, or energy to make more informed decisions every single time. It seems to me that a hybrid system could serve both needs easily; the labels would have to be large, but I say the trade-off is worth it.

It seems like it'd be much easier to botch (intentionally or no) the ratings on those 5 individual categories than it would be to put an age rating and maybe mention that a category is represented in the game. A 5 for one person could just as easily be a 3 for another, depending on what they've seen/played.

 

[Rasha M]

I support informing the consumer whole-heartedly. If they want to avoid games that are too gory or have a sexual element to them then that is their right. I also support keeping that stuff away from children and their still developing minds. That is as far as I am willing to go.

Artists should be allowed the freedom to create as they see fit. Some of it will be unconformable and even ugly, but that's life. Self regulation is much better than government regulation in my opinion.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Hell no, for most of the reasons already outlined above. Mainly because content can be (more or less) judged without being moralistic. It would be fair to say for example, "Grand Theft Auto V has high level violence, course language, sexual references and drug themes. Suitable for ages 18 and up". This is a generally neutral way of outlining the content therein. The process need not go further than this to inform the consumer.

 

[Recusant]

It seems like it'd be much easier to botch (intentionally or no) the ratings on those 5 individual categories than it would be to put an age rating and maybe mention that a category is represented in the game. A 5 for one person could just as easily be a 3 for another, depending on what they've seen/played.

You misunderstand. It wasn't a generic "1, 3, 5" system; each number referred to a specific, objectively measurable level of the activity in question, as detailed on the label. Much harder to botch.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

It seems like it'd be much easier to botch (intentionally or no) the ratings on those 5 individual categories than it would be to put an age rating and maybe mention that a category is represented in the game. A 5 for one person could just as easily be a 3 for another, depending on what they've seen/played.

You misunderstand. It wasn't a generic "1, 3, 5" system; each number referred to a specific, objectively measurable level of the activity in question, as detailed on the label. Much harder to botch.

Mmmm perhaps. But unless parents new what each number meant, it wouldn't mean all that much.

 

[Sarge034]

Snip

What is the actual point you're trying to make? Your op kindda jumps around a bit.

Do I want someone telling me what is and is not moral for me to watch? No, I'm 24. If I don't know what I think is moral and immoral then I have a very serious problem at this point. Now that's not to say that watching illegal things is ok (don't want to get any more specific as the CoC is kindda grey about this stuff, and I've seen it go both ways). I do appreciate the ESRB though because there are some things minors shouldn't be able to get without their parent's or guardian's permission. Added on that the ESRB is an industry self-imposed regulatory body as opposed to a government one and that really they just say what things are in the game, then I'm fine with them. Straight up sex in a game gets it AO? Fine, I'm an adult. I just really don't want any fucking "Australian shenanigans" going on. Man those guys got it rough.

 

[Danny Dowling]

No, not that important imo. Reviews and trailers can give a fair grasp on what to expect in the game, as well as those little symbols Pegi puts on the back to tell you if there's drug references and horror etc.

What I would like to see, is a company detached from any developer that quality assures the product prior to release and, on the assumption of good quality, allows the logo to appear on the box art to assure customers of the products quality.

Tired of bugs? glitches? general crap like that? well what if there was a company that checked games over and either gave them a pass or "unable to meet necessary requirements" on a game purely on the subject of quality? An independent team that checks the game over and, if passed, is able to be held accountable for no bugs or glitches within the game. That grading can then be put on the game cover and used at the discretion of the game publisher to promote the game itself.

Thanks what I want.

For example, I happened across no consistent bugs in Order 1886 and I haven't heard of anyone else doing so either. Also, general things like areas rendering and the camera not causing objects to look like crap when it passes them never happened. So give it an S.

AC Unity fails for being a massive clump of unplayable shit.

You get the idea. And it's my idea btw no one nick it.