Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[umiman]

Source: http://kotaku.com/5463280/charge-gamers-not-honest-about-their-defense-of-violent-games

True maturity an alien concept to video gamers

I wish video gamers were more honest about what they want (Letters, February 2). Most mention these days that the average age of gamers is quite high, but they do not mention that most of those gamers do not play ''mature'' games. It is like arguing that tennis needs more nudity and gore because the average age of those who watch is above 18.

While it is true Australia stands alone in not having an R rating for video games, gamers do not tell you that an R rating is needed only to slake their bloodlust.

No game maker has yet created what an ordinary person might consider a mature game. Video games in other countries that receive 18+ ratings, many of which are refused classification here, are ''mature'' only because they contain excessive gore, cruelty or torture. There are no great works of video game art being held back.

All we miss out on is graphic gore. It would shock most non-gamers to realise that in a current MA15+ game, players can shoot, decapitate and dismember. All games refused classification (and there are just a handful each year) are described by the classification board as containing things such as ''excessive blood spurts, excessive cruelty, the ability to kill innocents without consequence''.

When gamers discuss this issue on their internet forums, they complain that the bodies do not pile up in the Australian version of one game. But when they write polite letters to politicians or the Herald they hide this reality and instead talk about ''mature games'' and how they are being denied their right to enjoy content.

If we translate this into their ''right'' to indulge in gory simulations of murder and dismemberment, it beggars belief they would be able to state their case without causing their peer groups to react in horror.

Video gamers also make direct and crude comparisons with the movie ratings scale. However, the last time I saw an R-rated movie I do not remember being allowed to participate in the various heinous acts.

It takes a great work of art to advance a ratings scale. When the Lady Chatterley's Lover of video games arrives, all citizens will be rightly concerned if it is withheld. But that seems a long way off.

You know, I think this is very true. I bet I'm going to get some knee-jerk reactions just as this guy got (because admit it, the people who primarily play gorefest FPSes don't have the highest reading comprehension ability most of the time), but I think he speaks a very, very good point.

Mature games aren't called mature because they are intellectually stimulating to the point where it takes an adult educated mind to comprehend. In fact, the term "mature" in games is likely a disambiguation used to power the pro-"mature" games sect, which primarily caters to a more juvenile, chauvanistic crowd not particularly interested in anything other than what appears to be wholesale slaughter without any real reason. Especially those who would complain about a game getting banned because it's too violent on the reason that violence is not a reason to get things banned. This is a true and if you deny it, it's basically denying that humans need oxygen to breathe. You know this as a gamer and it's part of the unspoken gamer creed. It's true that "mature" R-rated games are generally just about gore, violence, and sex. And the hypocrisy behind this is clearly evident, just as he pointed out. There is no real cultural value other than lost sales and peeved gamers (who are obviously the world's most fearsome foe) when L4D2 gets banned or has less bodies. There is no cultural loss when Rapelay gets banned.

But this begs the question, how exactly do you create a motivation for all the gore, violence and sex that makes it earn the "mature" title? If the problem with gore, violence, etc. is because it's pointless or just there for the sake of being there, then what exactly is a good reason for them to be there? I think that is the contradiction, because there is probably no real artistic or plot-based reason you could create that would justify the Australian government to change their ratings systems and allow "mature" games... other than lobbying and voting power.

tl;dr: I like flowers. They make nice tea.

[3]

However, the last time I saw an R-rated movie I do not remember being allowed to participate in the various heinous acts.

...is probably the only thing that I have an issue with in that quoted passage. As far as the scientific investigations I've heard of have gone, there really isn't any reason as to why interactivity should make a difference or indeed ever has done (please correct me if I'm wrong here).

The main issue with avoiding the comparison with the film classifications system is that insofar as I know films that contain adult-oriented but not otherwise objectionable content will often not be classified with a 15 or 18 rating, even if an audience of an age lower than such a rating wasn't the original intention. In a similar vein, films that contain nothing but objectionable content can be rated 15 or 18 even if they're not catering to a truly mature audience in any way whatsoever.

tl;dr virtually the same situation exists in both industries.

Otherwise, that's pretty much all fair enough. In theory (that is, what the industry media would have us believe), the time when games are starting to reach maturity and do have cultural value, as you put it, is now. However, I see no reason as to why storytelling is any more or less difficult now as it was ten, nay, twenty years ago. The only advancements that have been made in that time are graphical and very specifically technical (better AI, etc); the technical groundwork for every notable genre has existed for that long at least. There isn't any excuse for poor writing or lack of it.

tl;dr games haven't advanced in 20 years.

As for violent/objectionable themes being shoehorned in, one could argue that doing so allows for a more visceral experience. Whether or not a visceral experience is appropriate in the first place goes back to your original point.

Also, making something artistically effective (especially in animation) often falls back on how stylised you make it. If you suggest that an artistic reason is enough for the inclusion of graphic violence to be justified, then stylising is reason enough. I doubt that was your original intention.

[Aqizzar]

Putting aside the incredibly condescending tone of the article and points therein, my criticism of it, and your position umiman, comes down to the oldest and best response - what gives them or you the right to tell me what is or isn't art?  Semantically arguing about what counts as "mature" is every bit as juvenile as the people you accuse of hiding behind the term.  More importantly, it has absolutely no place in forming a government policy.

You want the exception to your rule, that gore can never be artistic and art can never be gory?  Fine.  Killer7, an opaque, interactive dreamscape on par with anything in an avant guarde museum, whose gameplay consists almost entirely of ''excessive blood spurts, excessive cruelty, the ability to kill innocents without consequence''.  Planescape: Torment, the closest any game has really come to emulating The Inferno, full of violent death and imagery, yet wordier than most novels.  And heck, while I'm on the subject, let me respond to the article as well, and it's blatant self-righteous egotism-

Video gamers also make direct and crude comparisons with the movie ratings scale. However, the last time I saw an R-rated movie I do not remember being allowed to participate in the various heinous acts.

The definitive R-rated movie of all time was The Road Warrior, 90 minutes of people getting stabbed, run over, shot in the face, and lit on fire, with some nudity, rape, and homophobia thrown in for good measure.  Also endorsed by Joseph Campbell as one of the most concise examples of his Hero Arc concept put to film, for what it matters.  Oh yeah, and it was made entirely by Australians.

The most telling point in both the article's angry paternalism and your screed about people who play gory games is what you didn't say.  I didn't see the word "children" anywhere in there.  Especially in the case of the Australian rating system, the "refused classification" ban appears specifically aimed at games only people over 18 would try to purchase anyway.  At this point, they and you have finally abandoned even the pretense of banning or altering content for the flimsy excuse protecting the young and impressionable, and straight up admitted to the heart of it all.  Legislating taste.

Well screw them for thinking they know what I enjoy or why I enjoy it, and thinking they would have any right to restrict that.  (I'm not extending that ire to you, because I like you and don't want to get muted).  The unholy grail of gory games is of course the Grand Theft Auto series.  I haven't played a GTA game since Vice City nearly a decade ago, and it bored the crap out of me.  But being told that I can't buy it, not because somebody dumber than me might get the "wrong ideas" from it or because it might corrupt the precious children, but simply because some dickwad appointed to a panel somewhere thinks it's not "good" or "artistic" enough, I'm going to get damn pissed about that.

I think legislation, especially wholesale prohibition, of anything decided simply by subjective appraisal is a crime against human intelligence, and among the principally worse uses law can be put to.  I should have prefaced this by saying I don't live in Australia and obviously have no experience with it's laws, but I'm calling to action everyone who does live there to do exactly what umiman said.  Lobby and vote, you're supposed to be the cool criminal country dammit.  Give us something to hope for.

[dogstile]

So hang on. Because it has excessive gore, it shouldn't be allowed?

"HEY! MILITIAS OF SOMALIA! AUSTRALIA CALLED, YOU CAN'T TORTURE PEOPLE ANYMORE BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE A BIT GORY, SORRY!"

[Sensei]

The problem of course, is that this thesis implemented regarding actual policies, would have some absurd "unless it's good" clause.

Which is bad.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Aqizzar said what I was going to say, including referencing The Road Warrior and Planescape: Torment.

Except that I don't really think GTA is very gory. It's no worse than Spelunky. Compare with the God of War series and its various entrail related attacks.

But regardless, it comes down to free speech. If the government rating system for media puts a chilling effect on production of works within those media, it's unconstitutional. At least in the US, I don't know much at all about Australia.

And I'd also like to link to this little article. Thesis: video games don't make kids violent, because our kids are not violent. Census data shows this is our most peaceful generation. Furthermore, one cannot claim causality just from correlation. It's more likely that a violent kid wants to play violent video games than that the video game makes a peaceful kid violent.

[Cthulhu]

That was the basic thesis of a paper I did recently on violence in the media.  People are violent, and the mediamakers sell to their market.

Plus, like he said, violence has been going down for years.

And yeah, GTA isn't really that violent, it's just who the violence is directed at that gets people riled up.

[umiman]

Aqizzar, I knew you were going to say that and sometimes I wonder why you bother to come into threads I create at all as we never get along for some reason. I wonder if Jude or Strife have something to say to, though it probably is going to end up around the same lines.

Anyway, I didn't say anything about it being art. I purposely avoided the entire subject of whether it can be classified as art or not, even though the author of the original article may have had a position. I focused on the gaming community's interpretation of "mature" and the general public's interpretation of "mature". A semantic argument. It doesn't matter though. Because the point is not whether you or I think it's art, it's whether the governing body thinks it's art. That was what I closed it with. Because regardless of what we think, I don't think it's possible to satisfy the governing body and the original author's wish of creating a violent game that would conform to their standards of art. Hence the conundrum of the article. It ended with a catch-22, and gave the gaming community an impossible subjective standard to reach.

In other words... it would be like me saying, and I'm just saying this for effect but I don't mean it, that so long as a UPS carrier remains a UPS carrier, he cannot be allowed civil rights because he's a UPS carrier. It's ridiculous.

Though I agree with the main body of his text. It's retarded to argue for more corpses and gore in a game but turn around and write letters to the senate talking about how we appreciate artistic value while completely ignoring the fact that we're angry about the lack of corpses and gore. Even if it's not the same person writing both things, it probably is what it looks like to the general public.

Edit: Why the heck are you guys using the word "thesis" so liberally?

[Dakk]

TL;DR Australia is a very, very silly country with very, very silly politics overall.

Actualy, the only things I read were the OP and Aqizzar's post, which matches my position on the matter perfectly. How come there's no cultural value lost when you prevent some media from being sold, just because said media is riddled with violent, gory and controversial topics? I mention Caligula and A Clockwork Orange, two of the best movies I ever saw, both full of violence, rape, gore and some incest.

They also have young Malcom Mcdowell in it, which alone makes it A+++++++.

Apparently, Australia censored both of those movies (need confirmation on this), only showing the lame chopped up versions, while things like Gay Niggers From Outer Space go by unoticed. Now, if this is Australia's idea of "culture", then damn am I glad I don't live there.

[umiman]

Heh, all the games Aqizzar listed are not banned in Australia.

Dakk: no argument there. Again, it's their definition of *art* not ours.

[Aqizzar]

Aqizzar, I knew you were going to say that and sometimes I wonder why you bother to come into threads I create at all as we never get along for some reason.

Why do I bother?  Because that's the point of intellectual debate.  You didn't really expect you could rattle off a bunch of God's Truth observations about the culture of all gamers everywhere and get nothing but positive agreement?  Really, one time many months ago I flippantly asked why you made three new discussion threads in an hour, and you've been acting up tight with me ever since.  Get loose already, it's just a little vehement disagreement.

Though I agree with the main body of his text. It's retarded to argue for more corpses and gore in a game but turn around and write letters to the senate talking about how we appreciate artistic value while completely ignoring the fact that we're angry about the lack of corpses and gore.

I don't understand why you think these things are mutually exclusive, or why the standard in question is impossible to reach.  I pointed out two excellent examples of brutally violent and gory games I would immediately include in any open list of "art".  I have no doubt that there are plenty more I've omitted in ignorance, and I could spiel out an endless of game concepts that would rely on graphic violence to make an artistic point if you dared ask.  That was the point of my rebuttal.  Who are you, or anyone, to say that depicting violence is inherently foul and juvenile, or that wanting to see such is retarded?

Because the point is not whether you or I think it's art, it's whether the governing body thinks it's art. That was what I closed it with. Because regardless of what we think, I don't think it's possible to satisfy the governing body and the original author's wish of creating a violent game that would conform to their standards of art.

Can you not see how whether you or I or a governing body thinks it's art is the exact same question?  Ultimately, you're enshrining one person's (or a small panel's) interpretation of good taste as law over what people can buy and sell.  That my whole argument - that attitude should have absolutely no place in governing, no matter who the people involved are.

What I'm wondering is, because I can't actually tell from language, is whether you agree with this state of affairs?  Do you support the existence and operation of this government body as presented?

Heh, all the games Aqizzar listed are not banned in Australia.

I'll be damned.  And ignorant, obviously.  I think the philosophy of my point stands all the same.

[Dakk]

I do believe the GTAs sold in australia are also cut versions though, so Aqizzar is not all that mistaken.

[Agdune]

It's not so much the actual banning of games (Though the censoring of L4D2 was annoying, I haven't bought it yet), more the moral grandstanding and general condescending nature of those who are doing the banning. 'Your games are crap and it doesn't matter if we ban them, but pretty much all other forms of  craptacular entertainment are okay, even if they're a dozen times worse, simply because their constituents  are more numerous and more easily understood by conservative mindsets, being mostly made by poorly informed generalizations based on fear.'

Also all the associated bullshit that goes on around the topic. Some people think games are just for kids (plain wrong and shows they know nothing about the subject, why are they involved in decision making?), some know damn well it isn't about kids but keep campaigning anyway for the sake of moral purity, most people simply know absolutely nothing about the subject and just go with whatever Sunrise reporters say (eugh).

It's similar to the whole pornography censoring thing that's going on here (in fact, it's almost exactly the same problem). Even though it's proven that porn reduces the instances of rape/sexual assault in society (despite what mal-informed, barely educated baby boomers may think), even though the acts in the banned hardcore porn are legal to do in real life (okay, this part is not identical to the gaming topic), X rated porn is banned in (most of) Australia on the basis of 'it's icky and I, as a member of the Australian Classification board, don't like it. Therefore, no reasonable Australian Citizen must like it either, and it will  be banned.' Any public dispute over this pretty routinely results in someone being branded a filthy horrible pervert in mainstream society and the discussion is promptly shut down for the sake of decency.

[Aqizzar]

It's similar to the whole pornography censoring thing that's going on here (in fact, it's almost exactly the same problem). Even though it's proven that porn reduces the instances of rape/sexual assault in society (despite what mal-informed, barely educated baby boomers may think), even though the acts in the banned hardcore porn are legal to do in real life (okay, this part is not identical to the gaming topic), X rated porn is banned in (most of) Australia on the basis of 'it's icky and I, as a member of the Australian Classification board, don't like it. Therefore, no reasonable Australian Citizen must like it either, and it will  be banned.' Any public dispute over this pretty routinely results in someone being branded a filthy horrible pervert in mainstream society and the discussion is promptly shut down for the sake of decency.

...So Australian law is trying shut down X-rated porn, but isn't prostitution legal in (parts) of Australia?  Maybe it's because of a Prostitutes' Lobby angry about porn stealing their business?

[Zangi]

It's retarded to argue for more corpses and gore in a game but turn around and write letters to the senate talking about how we appreciate artistic value while completely ignoring the fact that we're angry about the lack of corpses and gore. Even if it's not the same person writing both things, it probably is what it looks like to the general public.

Ummm.... how is it retarded?  Its smart.  No way in hell are you going to convince the general public, much less people who willingly put the ban/nerf on gory/corpsy games...  By saying you want to see more corpses and gore for the sake of it...

There is the good reason and there is the real reason.  Its in the realm of politics.  Not the realm of right and wrong.