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

[omega 616]

No.

If films like "a Siberian film" can exist then games like hatred can.

I think the whole protect kids from violent games is bullshit. The graphics may have improved but I played games like manhunt as a kid and I'm fine. I say let kids play gtaV, resident evil (which hasn't been scary in years), god of war, gears of war ...

The only games I'd actually hesitate to let my kids play would be weird Japanese games or games that I personally think are sexiest.

My rule would be if you can play it, you can play it. If the kid can complete the game, let the kid play it.

Of course if he starts abusing the local wildlife or bullying kids then I'd think about the situation but I can't see it doing harm.

 

[Adultratedhydra]

IM NOT RACIST BUT:

Now with that out of the way. I would point you to the one group that has a "Morality police" in the Saudi Police of Vice and Virtue, or to use the technical term "Oppression police ensuring oppression remains in place, hooray oppression." as a prime example as to why noone should have the authority to impose "Morality" on anyone.

(Yes i decided to go with the Extreme example and it was this that made the cut because the Gestapo werent "Morality" focused and there wasnt any need for Godwyn.)

 

[JustAnotherAardvark]

But the thing is, there are some things that quite simply nobody fucking wants in games. For instance, child porn and bestiality and having rules against that in place would change nothing and everybody would agree upon it. (With the exception of two or three basement creeps.)

*sigh* Well, pencil me in as one of your basement creeps.
Along with Neil Gaiman.
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

No. There's already an age rating system, and reviews. If a person is uncomfortable with potentially mature content, either for themselves or for their children, then they should be checking the rating, previews, and reviews before purchasing. Take some personal responsibility.

 

[Arean]

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.

This, pretty much. Let the market decide what the market wants.

I'm all for stuff like the PEGI/ESRB, giving ratings and content warnings. Anything that informs the consumer is a good thing in my book. But like others have said, the concept of a "Moral Authority" makes my skin crawl, and brings my head right into stuff like the Comics Code.

Personally, I don't think anyone has any business trying to impose moral standards upon their fellow man (beyond the obvious, like "don't murder" of course). Also, I find that a focus on morals is very bad for any artistic medium. It all too often leads to self-censorship and stagnation, in my experience.

 

[babinro]

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.

This exactly.

Games historically play a fine line with ethics especially as you take them seriously. In a movie you'll have chase scenes where there is a minimal respect for human life. In games like GTA you'll cripple and murder pedestrians while driving without a care in the world.

Games like Mario may be cartoony in nature but they still advocate mass murder of far weaker beings in order to obtain a goal. You don't watch Bugs Bunny cartoons and see Bugs murdering 100's of things to get his carrots back from Fudd.

Critically speaking, why should we view Kirby as anything more ethical than the guy from Hatred?
Kirby can't even die in Kirby's Epic Yarn and yet he goes around clearly committing mass murder.

There's a steam greenlight trailer that shows off 'light-hearted' cartoony slave tetris.

Can you really argue that all the player interaction with animals in Far Cry franchise don't depict animal cruelty?
If the game actually allows a player to make the choice to treat animals cruelly then it still exists in the game. Even if the player isn't FORCED to take this path.

Where does the one draw the line on what's acceptable?
There's just too many grey areas in how video games operate vs movies in terms of ethics.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

No. We already know what the game contains in regards to violence, sex, nudity etc - if you dont want violence then a person just has to check the rating on the game. Games are not real and things we do in them moral wise are allowed because it isnt real. For instance i would never steal a car and run down multiple people in real life, in a game i would.

Also, whose moral value do we use? Religious values? Old peoples values? Young peoples values? End of the day morals are taught to us as kids.

 

[DrOswald]

No, there should not be a morality enforcement organization for video games. Beyond all the logistical problems of just running such an organization, it is a really, really bad idea from the basic conceptual level. But even worse than that is one undeniable fact:

Any one willing to run such an organization long term would abuse the power it grants them to enforce their moral standards on an entire creative industry. Some one will get ahold of the thing and then enforce asinine rules like "only x amount of guns" in the game, or limits on breast size, or no transsexual content.

No organization created to police the morality of creative individuals has ever improved a creative industry. This would be no different.

 

[Sanderpower]

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!

He's not perfect, but at least he listens to criticism and responds to people who ask him questions. Also I like that he's talking about video games in ways that I wouldn't have though of before. I'd rather have a person who says something interesting about video games albeit the solution to the problem may not even be possible (making games accessible to those who can't use their hands) then a person who says the same thing we all agree with and already know (Like, restrictive DRM is bad! On disk DLC is bad!)

Come on guys, think outside of your comfort zone every now and again. It can be pretty rewarding.

 

[visiblenoise]

Seems pretty unanimous here. Down with this sort of thing!

 

[CaitSeith]

First you need to know the film codes were made in circumstances very different to nowadays (public, economical, political and religious). Before that, there was no code or regulations; only recommendations. Then the Hays Code (as it was called) was established as self-censorship of the industry as a whole (endorsed by studio executives), so public and government censorship didn't ban films from theatres (movies weren't legally considered art at that time). The code was replaced by a rating system much later.

The videogames are different because:

1. Videogames are legally considered art.
2. There is already a rating code.
3. Videogames don't always require to be in an store (real-life or online) in order to be bought and/or played.
4. There are many less religious zealots in America.
5. Videogames already had their moral panic era in the 80's.

Going from a rating system to a morality code would be going backwards. Besides, the AAA industry plays it pretty safe (they haven't push many morality boundaries lately), and indie games don't get too much attention from mainstream public (exceptions like Hatred are really few).

Granted Nintendo did do something like this a long long time ago, forcing developers to only make a certain number of games yearly, but that never really about the content of the games it was more about the quality. But this did still on some level interfere with creative processes.

Totally false. As videogames were considered kids' entertainment, Nintendo of America was very strict in that aspect in the 80's (and in console gaming they were practically a monopoly). Heck! Final Fantasy games had no bars, but cafes. But with the fiasco from the censored SNES version of Mortal Kombat in the 90's, it was clear that game censorship wasn't the best option anymore (so MK2 had a warning logo instead of being censored).

 

[CaitSeith]

Not really.
An 18+ rating is basically the death sentence for a game that wants to make a profit.
There will never be a "AAA" game with an over the top violent universe that doesn't shy away from getting rapey and disturbing.

Spoiler

Halo

Spoiler

Grand Theft Auto

Are you serious, inmunitas? Sales numbers laugh at this!

EDIT: loa, neither of those games got the 18+ rating he talks about (the AO rating)

 

[Callate]

I mostly think it's good that the ESRB exists so that parents can have some understanding of what materials they might be buying for their children, or what they might be allowing them to access in the case of online content, gifts, or the like.

But... Barring that, barring preventing people from having to look at material they don't want to see or don't want their children to see... Why should there be other standards in place?

The standards in cinema against animal cruelty, for example, exist in a large part to avoid cruelty to real animals. Nearly every major motion picture with a significant amount of animal performers has some sort of Humane Society logo in the end credits, stating that the animal action gets some overwatch to prevent animals from being mistreated. With the result that scenes like horses and wargs fighting in Lord of the Rings are done with CG, and we don't hear about a lot of scenes like this one (For the link-averse, a 1939 movie with a scene of a horse jumping off a cliff resulted in the horse drowning.)

Also, by contrast, there remains a (eugggghhhhhhhhh) significant number of people who enjoy watching people having sex with animals, or seeing small animals crushed to death on film. Many of them get their jollies by watching videos distributed through the Internet.

As long as these people exist, why would I be insensed at the existence of digital depictions of such activities that don't harm any real animals, particularly if it might help steer people away from forms of media that do? I don't want to see them; I don't particularly want kids to see them. But I don't think it makes anything better just to push them further underground.

 

[Ratty]

Hasn't it been shown that ESRB ratings are more strictly enforced than MPAA ratings?

Art is a market of ideas, as long as no living beings are harmed in the production finding something distasteful or morally objectionable is not an excuse to try and censor it. And limiting an items availability by demanding retailers remove it IS censorship. Criticize the work if you find something wrong with it, don't buy it and encourage like-minded people not to buy it. But don't bash the audience for daring to have opinions and tastes different from your own. Because simply demonizing a market does not and never will do away with the forces that drive that market. Which for media branded "problematic" very often appeals to an unchangeable part of human nature no matter what you do. As with the horror genre, which allows us to safely explore our fascination with death and violence in a safe and controlled environment, or porn, which does the same with our sexuality.

Bottom line is we've got the ESRB, we don't need other groups demonizing developers and players. The ESRB has made many attempts to reach out to parents but at some point parents have to take responsibility for learning about and monitoring what media their own kids are exposed to.

 

[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.

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

They knew what the number the game was given meant; the reason the labels were so big was because they gave that information. I've been looking for a picture, but I haven't been able to find one thus far.

 

[K12]

Are there official moral standards organisations for any entertainment medium?

There are classifications boards which sometimes censor content but it's not about "moral standards" it's about informing (and occasionally (over)protecting) consumers.

The only groups that refer to themselves to "protecting moral standards" are the right-wing, homophobic, religious organisations that all have the word "family" in the title to try and disguise how hate-filled they are.

I suppose there's also the law which prevents some content which is immoral (like a paedophilia game, assuming that this would actually be illegal, I'm not sure if it would).

 

[K12]

Seems pretty unanimous here. Down with this sort of thing!

Careful now.

 

[CaitSeith]

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.

This image is based in a box art showing an example of the RSAC rating.

Spoiler

As you can see, the meaning is included in the label. Usually the texts were like the ones on this table:
http://legacy.3drealms.com/tech/rsac.html

 

[CaitSeith]

Are there official moral standards organisations for any entertainment medium?

There are classifications boards which sometimes censor content but it's not about "moral standards" it's about informing (and occasionally (over)protecting) consumers.

The only groups that refer to themselves to "protecting moral standards" are the right-wing, homophobic, religious organisations that all have the word "family" in the title to try and disguise how hate-filled they are.

I suppose there's also the law which prevents some content which is immoral (like a paedophilia game, assuming that this would actually be illegal, I'm not sure if it would).

Well, not official; but more like unofficial agreements of not publishing or distributing the material that wasn't following the standards (see the Comics Code Authority and the Motion Picture Production Code). These were more for PR relationships with the general public and the government, to avoid being officially banned by any of them. That was before classifications, and before they were legally considered an art form (yeah, even films weren't seen as art when they started).

 

[Lazule]

No. The market and the costumer should decide.

But a moral-organization overlord? Hell no. No one wants to be thought policed.