They tried that already, back when comic books were the public's moral whipping boy. What do you think the Comics Code Authority was all about? Let me ask you something, friends: do you REALLY want a future in which the AAA industry is basically mass producing platformers about Archie Andrews and Richie Rich? Because that terrifies me more than an entire army of murderous animatronic singing animals.
Should we have some kind of "moral standards" orginization in video games?
- Thread starter BarryMcCociner
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Like what? What positives?BarryMcCociner said:
Erm, what? They only exist to advise the consumer on the content. They do not regulate morals.
A bit sensationalist, no? Whatever happen about the parents? Most consoles have age/rating paternal locks btw.
The only "rules" that matter are bureaucratic in nature, some countries in the world have laws based on what can and can't be shown. The other rules are purely made for targeting a particular audience and/or age group, these are purely voluntary.
For the record, America isn't the world.
Behold, in Germany. There is no such thing as blood.
While in US ESRB has no legal power (despite most stores actually follow it as if it were a law and refusing sales) its counterparts in the rest of the world does, and in effect can essentialy ban a game, even completely sometimes (see: Australia, Germany).BarryMcCociner said:
Organizations that give information on a game is good. organizations that are telling you whether to buy the game or not based on your age is bad.
Id rather the grandmother actually asked what kind of games her kids like.
people that made those rules dont think they are silly. and this right there is exactly the problem. give somone authority to ban things and he will ban things he does not like, instead of gamming things that are bad to people. humans arent inteligent enough to make these decisions, as proven on your examples of other entertainment media authorities.
It is not and it cannot be. the only way to determine that is to have an extensive psichological profile of every child and create individual ratings for everyone. "Age restriction" does not even begin to scrape the complexity of huma developement.Solaire of Astora said:
No we don't need self appointed moral guardians to make decisions for us. Even if it starts out with the best intentions you can guarantee the "moral guardians" will eventually be co-opted by the usual suspects.
These types of power hungry people always think they know best for everyone else and they always start out with the "think of the children" tactic.
Do not give such people an inch for they will surely take a mile.
Keep them out at all costs.
These types of power hungry people always think they know best for everyone else and they always start out with the "think of the children" tactic.
Do not give such people an inch for they will surely take a mile.
Keep them out at all costs.
Those basement creeps want it. You would take an aspect that some gamers like out of gaming, for some good PR?
In my opinion this is a horrible idea. People should be able to create what they want, sell what they want, and buy what they want. Fuck it if somebody gets offended.
Hurting people in other ways, such as the child when creating child porn, is obviously bad. But as long as its only someones tender sensibilities, go for your life.
If a change is made in an effort to stop from offending someone (Unless for whatever reason, you need said people to like you. A fancy restaurant for example won't be having "Fucking dope ass prawns" on its menu), its generally a shitty change. That's my philosophy in life. Someone is always going to create a fuss over anything. They are the problem. Not whatever bullshit they like to complain about.
Don't go out of your way to offend. Feel free to knock the easily offended out of your path however.
No. Absolutely not.
The only thing we need for media is content advisory. That is, a description of what is in the work that can be construed as inappropriate. Adults can then make an informed decision on what they are allowed to experience.
In other words, we treat adults as adults. If a work goes against your own personal moral standard, you opt to not purchase that work.
Here's the thing - I think Hatred looks like absolute garbage. I wouldn't want to stop it from being created, at all. If anything, I wish it was made less shit.
But it isn't, and I'm going to call it what I think it is and everyone that disagrees can just deal with that minor inconvenience (Here's a tip - The less you care about what random internet ****s say, i.e Me, the happier you will be). They still have the game to play, if they want to.
Censorship is bad. The only time it should be used is to prevent harm (e.g Child Pornography) or incitement to do harm (e.g Racism/Nazism), of which Hatred is neither. Everything else should be advisory only and distributed at the discretion of retailers, not any state or otherwise independent from the market organ.
Walmart is permitted not to stock certain games - You are permitted to take your business elsewhere if you disagree with that. If they want to lose your business, well, it's their loss.
The only thing we need for media is content advisory. That is, a description of what is in the work that can be construed as inappropriate. Adults can then make an informed decision on what they are allowed to experience.
In other words, we treat adults as adults. If a work goes against your own personal moral standard, you opt to not purchase that work.
Here's the thing - I think Hatred looks like absolute garbage. I wouldn't want to stop it from being created, at all. If anything, I wish it was made less shit.
But it isn't, and I'm going to call it what I think it is and everyone that disagrees can just deal with that minor inconvenience (Here's a tip - The less you care about what random internet ****s say, i.e Me, the happier you will be). They still have the game to play, if they want to.
Censorship is bad. The only time it should be used is to prevent harm (e.g Child Pornography) or incitement to do harm (e.g Racism/Nazism), of which Hatred is neither. Everything else should be advisory only and distributed at the discretion of retailers, not any state or otherwise independent from the market organ.
Walmart is permitted not to stock certain games - You are permitted to take your business elsewhere if you disagree with that. If they want to lose your business, well, it's their loss.
Uh, I think I saw an answer to this, his glasses are glasses-less because he wears glasses but the lenses were reflecting on the camera so he has another pair to wear when recording the show so he still looks the same as he normally does but without having to remove the reflection of the lenses post filming.silver wolf009 said:
Or because he's a fake nerd girl, I dunno. Is it really some thing to be angry about?
He's just saying that developers can make things more accessible to disabled people, oh noes. How fucking PC.silver wolf009 said:
Hell, I have hearing loss, and I can tell you, some games are fucking abysmal for subtitles. The first Bioshock springs to mind. Subtitles would come up sometimes as a big block about ten or twenty seconds after the actual sound. Not to mention some games don't allow you to access the menu to put subtitles on if you're starting a new game, so sometimes the intro cinematic could be completely lost on me. And on top of that it's petty but I wish developers would decide if subtitles are an Audio, Video or Game option.
Sorry, went on a tangent. Anyway, saying `things could be better` doesn't mean `things are all bad`.
OT: Nobody is even suggesting that really so meh. No.
Quite simply, no. It's never really worked when other media have done it.
Remember the Hayes Code for movies, or the Comics Code Authority? They ended up doing far more harm than good. In fact, the Hayes Code is one of the major factors that led to television being a "wasteland" or boring, uninspired dreck for many years, resulting in the nicknames like "Boob Tube." And then you get the Comics Code Authority doing things like rejecting a Spider-Man comic for depicting drug abuse... even though said comic was commissioned as a PSA against drug abuse.
Rating things like what the ESRB does is fine, and in fact, quite helpful. But restricting content based on "moral standards" is never a good idea.
Remember the Hayes Code for movies, or the Comics Code Authority? They ended up doing far more harm than good. In fact, the Hayes Code is one of the major factors that led to television being a "wasteland" or boring, uninspired dreck for many years, resulting in the nicknames like "Boob Tube." And then you get the Comics Code Authority doing things like rejecting a Spider-Man comic for depicting drug abuse... even though said comic was commissioned as a PSA against drug abuse.
Rating things like what the ESRB does is fine, and in fact, quite helpful. But restricting content based on "moral standards" is never a good idea.
Critically speaking, Kirby's enemies aren't humans. Neither is Kirby. Kirby's goal is to defend his world from an invading army, and overcome the obstacles in the terrain to save his friends. The guy from Hatred just wants to kill innocents for the sake of murder. And more importantly, Kirby doesn't execute innocents pleading for mercy (guess who does).babinro said:
I not saying that Hatred shouldn't exist. I'm saying that Kirby's Epic Yarn and Hatred ethics are as similar as the taste of plain water and beer.