STOP playing games you're committing a crime...

[kalniel]

Well, how about because very few are ever likely to be in a position to commit a war crime? and therefore, playing it out in a game seems so far removed from reality it is fine.

It's an interesting premise, but I don't think I can buy that - lots of real life soldiers are in the position to commit war crimes, and they play these games like the rest of us. Should there be different laws for those in the military?

Now go play your kiddy-fiddling game and then look at the 4 year old next door without feeling utterly ashamed.

As I said it is decency and the lines are NOT the same with these subjects.

Or do YOU think otherwise?

I do - I think committing a war crime is a thoroughly indecent act as well. In fact as far as the law in concerned I think the punishments for things like viewing child pornography are far more lenient than the murder of innocent civilians. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's the law's eyes.

Please would you keep this on topic.

It is on topic, stop pussy-footing around and answer the question. Or not, if you don't want to, but don't pretend the question isn't valid or on topic.

Guys, try thinking about this logically:

Premise A: Games are not real, therefore real world laws shouldn't apply to them.

Application A: A game where you participate in war crimes is not real, therefore real world laws shouldn't apply to it.

Application B: A game where you see a nude minor is not real, therefore real world laws shouldn't apply to it.

Logically, if premise A is correct, then applications A and B must both be correct. If that's the case then fine just admit that's your viewpoint and I'll accept your premise (in your opinion).

However if you think that application B isn't correct, then premise A can't be correct either. Same thing if the premise is 'Games will never affect real life behaviour'.

So perhaps there are some other premises? shaithis puts forward a premise about decency - something like

Premise (Shaithis): A rule of decency should apply to games. If an act is indecent, it shouldn't be in a game.

Which is fair enough, though now relies on further premises, namely that 'nude minors are indecent' and 'war crimes are decent'. I don't agree with the latter premise, but it's at least an attempt to distinguish between the two, so does a better job than premise A.

My own premise presented a few posts ago also distinguishes between the two, but mine is:

Premise (kalniel): The likelihood of encouraging real world behaviour is the important factor.

And my distinguishing premises are: 'participating in war crime in a game does not encourage real world participation' and 'viewing nude minors in a game might encourage real world paedophilia'. Someone said there's no evidence for the latter premise - now of course, lack of evidence FOR something doesn't really affect validity, where evidence AGAINST something would. However I believe that enough of a link has been made evidentially that it guided the legislation on representations of nudity of minors.

[PeteSmith]

I see this as a case of changing times. Go back 10-15 years games were very different, not just for the obvious technological advances. Sure some of them were violent (albeit highly pixelated), shoot 'em ups like doom, duke nukem etc..

Now games have to push the envelope, because we have been conditioned through media to some degree, we are not shocked, entertained or disgusted by the things we were 10-15 years ago.

There is a high degree of realism that is present in most modern games, and i think it's this realism that is in question here. I'm not talking about getting shot 20 times and still being able to run across a battlefield either. I'm referring to the depicted violence present in many modern games. Obviously they are rated accordingly for adults, i'm not questioning this.

Maybe in another 5 years time things will be very different still, and a graphic massacre in an airport will barely be given a 2nd glance.

[Blastuk]

...
Guys, try thinking about this logically:

Premise A: Games are not real, therefore real world laws shouldn't apply to them.

Application A: A game where you participate in war crimes is not real, therefore real world laws shouldn't apply to it.

Application B: A game where you see a nude minor is not real, therefore real world laws shouldn't apply to it.

Logically, if premise A is correct, then applications A and B must both be correct. If that's the case then fine just admit that's your viewpoint and I'll accept your premise (in your opinion).
...

Paedophilia laws are originally intended to protect real children from becoming victims are they not?
There are no victims in video games, it's all fake.

The logical conclusion is that it's ok because it's not real.
The moral conclusion would be that it's wrong because it involves children. (Won't people please think of the [imaginary] children?)

...
And my distinguishing premises are: 'participating in war crime in a game does not encourage real world participation' and 'viewing nude minors in a game might encourage real world paedophilia'. Someone said there's no evidence for the latter premise - now of course, lack of evidence FOR something doesn't really affect validity
...

God doesn't exist. I have no evidence but that doesn't affect the validity of my claims.



Also Hitler would love this thread

[kalniel]

Paedophilia laws are originally intended to protect real children from becoming victims are they not?

Indeed.

There are no victims in video games, it's all fake.

The logical conclusion is that it's ok because it's not real.
The moral conclusion would be that it's wrong because it involves children. (Won't people please think of the [imaginary] children?)

I like the distinction between moral and logical, but wouldn't an equally valid moral conclusion be games with war crimes are wrong because they involve war crimes (won't people think of the [imaginary] innocent victims?)?

Also Hitler would love this thread

I call Quirk's exception.

[danroyle]

A rule of decency should apply to games.

Am not siding with Shaithis however mate surely A rule of common sense should apply to games and game making.

I do see your point however a game with shooting And said war crimes is completely different to a game that would have a nude minor in it. Most importantly i dont see a game that would need/warrant a nude minor in it. However a war game without killing would be NAff

The problem with all games is quite a simple one We are all different and have different tastes and while some of us would not like war crimes in games, I am PRETTY sure NONE of us want pedophilia or child nudity in games.

[kalniel]

Am not siding with Shaithis however mate surely A rule of common sense should apply to games and game making.

Definitely - but it seems no-one can agree on common sense

I do see your point however a game with shooting And said war crimes is completely different to a game that would have a nude minor in it. Most importantly i dont see a game that would need/warrant a nude minor in it. However a war game without killing would be NAff

Sure, but again, killing is not the same thing as war crime - the article doesn't say anything about killing being a problem in general. A war game without war crimes would be.. well, still a war game

The problem with all games is quite a simple one We are all different and have different tastes and while some of us would not like war crimes in games, I am PRETTY sure NONE of us want pedophilia or child nudity in games.

So there should be no need to legislate against it then surely? If no-one would want such a thing then no-one would bother making it.

[Blastuk]

...(won't people think of the [imaginary] innocent victims?)? ...

I've never heard of any person/group of people who would say such a thing, there's no knee-jerk reaction to imaginary war crimes it seems.

Since war games are generally accepted by the general public (You can buy them in shops!) I don't think it is morally wrong.
For something to be morally wrong it has to be disapproved by the majority of the public even if there are no specific laws against it right?

Say hypothetically that it is considered morally wrong to play war games; they might only be found in those back alley places. Normal shops would think twice before stocking such games or possibly just have them hidden behind the counter.

(By war games I do mean those that contain war crimes, this would also apply to GTA right?)

[Blastuk]

So there should be no need to legislate against it then surely? If no-one would want such a thing then no-one would bother making it.

This takes us back to the "What [imaginary subject] are you trying to protect?" argument.
Yes, such games exist. (pretty sure)

[kalniel]

Since war games are generally accepted by the general public (You can buy them in shops!) I don't think it is morally wrong.
For something to be morally wrong it has to be disapproved by the majority of the public even if there are no specific laws against it right?

I think war crimes are disapproved by the majority of the public, not approved.

Say hypothetically that it is considered morally wrong to play war games; they might only be found in those back alley places. Normal shops would think twice before stocking such games or possibly just have them hidden behind the counter.

(By war games I do mean those that contain war crimes, this would also apply to GTA right?)

I don't know much about GTA - are there missions to kill innocent civilians etc? If so then yes, I think it would apply, and I'd expect such a game to have generated some alarm from the same quarters (which I think it probably did didn't it?)

[Blastuk]

I think war crimes are disapproved by the majority of the public, not approved.

I don't know much about GTA - are there missions to kill innocent civilians etc? If so then yes, I think it would apply, and I'd expect such a game to have generated some alarm from the same quarters (which I think it probably did didn't it?)

Put it this way, you can walk down the street holding a copy of MW2 or [insert game you think the public disapproves of] you no one would give you a second look, no one would gasp in shock.. could you do the same for like.. a porn mag?
What you think doesn't make it true, however, how the public reacts might give you an indication of whether it is generally accepted or not.

Until it is second nature to consider such things taboo, no one really cares*.
If you specifically ask a sample of people, you may get some who would say they don't approve of such games, but they (most likely) wouldn't go out of their way to get it banned.


*People probably know better; it's a stupid thing to argue over, I mean seriously, who's the victim here? Who's getting hurt? What do we gain from banning such a thing?

[Knoxville]

Personally I don't think Infinity Ward went far enough with the airport sequence and a few others and lets be honest, that's why that article was written, with huge sales and the critical accliam that's been heaped all over MW:2 it has a target on it's back and with it the rest of the FPS genre for as long as it's still fresh in joe publics mind. As for what's acceptable and what isn't and where common sense needs to be applied by censors I honestly don't think you can put imagery depicting child abuse on the same level as violence as it's portrayed in most video games.

The reason violence in video games and in other forms of media gets an easier ride with the censors than sex and other adult themes is that it can be and often is portrayed in a very cartoon like or hollywood fashion. For example the original Modern Warfare, you fire your weapon, a red splatter appears behind the target and the target falls... nothing really too pyschological going on there yeah? You're "killing" an avatar that represents another human being but it's not really realistic. If however every soldier you shot in the neck went down like Pvt. Blythe in Band of Brothers and bled out gurgling and pleading with his nearby squad mates I reckon you'd be more affected by it emotionally. As it is games rarely have that kind of depth of emotional content, they either feel more like an eighties action blockbuster or they go a more cartoon like route with the violent content which is deemed to have less of a pyschological effect on the player/viewer and hence is more "suitable" more on why I think MW:2 failed in that respect later...

While you can portray sexual relationships between adults in a realistic and yet light hearted way (it's been done in cinema after all) other adult themes can't be treated in such a fashion and unless the story and overall tone of a game is serious enough that an event involving child abuse or something similar can be treated properly and portrayed in the right way then in my opinion that content shouldn't be there, that's where common sense on the censors side comes into it in my opinion. For example a game like "Super Street Baby Raper HD Turbo Edition" has no place on store shelves but if a developer like say Quantic Dream were to put out a game based on the movie Hard Candy where the player takes on the role of the young female protaganist that treated the subject matter in a more serious and adult fashion then that game WOULD have a place on shelves in theory. Unfortunately that's where the current stereotype of games being something for children and teenagers is holding back the medium as a whole and until that changes we're unlikely to see games like that targeted purely at adult gamers that treat themes like that with the respect they deserve.

The reason I think MW:2 didn't go far enough is that they were, at times, trying to do something emotionally with the characters you inhabit throughout the game not just subjecting you to some gung ho Army of Two comic book style action. The Airport sequence for example made me feel uncomfortable and as soon as I'd finished it I went back and played it again to see if you could complete it without killing a civillian and you can. If they'd really wanted to make me feel I was sacrificing a part of myself going undercover with these guys (as the cut scene that preceeds the sequence implies) they should have had one of them push me into killing someone to prove my loyalty, even if it was as simple as a civillian crawls past and they tell me to finish them off they really needed to hammer home the point that your character was there for the greater good even if it was turning his stomach to be there and they never went that far. Later in the game when they start to introduce civillians they cop out in a similar way, when you kill one by accident nobody in your squad so much as bats an eye lid so they're just more cannon fodder rather than what they should be which is a way to convey the tension a soldier feels fighting in and around civillians because they don't want to kill an innocent by mistake. No doubt such scenes would have been met with a similar backlash but they'd have made me feel much more like a soldier, more in touch with how a real person feels in that situation and less like an extra in a Michael Bay film.

My point is that what should and should not feature in video games as far as adult content goes, be it violent, sexual or otherwise should only be limited by how that content makes the player feel as they play, if its respectfully done and integral to a story that's intended for adults that's fine but if it's done for cheap thrills or to gain extra press coverage because of controversial subject matter then censors have every right to pull it to pieces.

[AGTDenton]

Until reading the posts regarding MW:2 I couldnt work out at all which level had the option of being censored. I cant take games seriously enough to have any emotional attachement or believe it to be real in any way. To me the civilians in the game reminded me of zombies running around.

I was more upset when my cat died because he was real and not a Catz.

The story line is so hollywood its comical at best, but it has a good cast and is entertaining, thats ultimately what a game should be.
I read a short review by an ex SAS soldier (nuts or zoo they kind of blend together) and he pointed out at how unreal a lot of MW:2 is especially in terms of tactics.

This post just hits the nail on the head:

How about a game where I have to get up in the morning, commute to work, do an 8 hour graft, commute back home again and then settle in for a evenings couch-potatoing?

The whole point of games is escapism, not realism.....

[mercyground]

couple of points...

I really really hate the "Thing of the xxxxxx" people. It is becoming a serious erosion of rights.
If its not you might be a terrorist... its you might be a pedo. Where next?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Its the politically correct mob going mad.

Yes there are terrorists and bad nasty men out there. We have existing laws. STOP invading our privacy and making innocent people look bad just because they say "Sorry no. Its my life and its private."

Regarding gaming. Most of us are socially responsible people. We dont run outside and main/kill people just because we play games. Its myth games "aid" this. Its a crutch the people who flip and "blame" games use to get off.

To take a piece of legislation gone wrong... the "extreme" porn law that was brought in. It is perfectly legal to spank consenting adults in your own home. Take a picture or a video and its "extreme" porn now. Yes it was brought in to help drive out the rape/extreme bdsm scene but existing laws already covered that under decency laws. This was unneeded and unwanted law.

To flip things around. Look at the usa. You can watch all the violence you want on tv... but god forbid you see a naked tit on the tv. Instant uproar. Yes they have issues with guns but with a large population and more "lax" gun control (compared to the uk) they have more accidents and a greater number of "loons" with guns.

Over here the Sun prints page 3 regularly... dont see us stood on streetcorners drooling for tits (well some of us )

Games are an easy target. Fix the proper issues. Mental health care. Proper parenting. Realise that little Johnny stroking a shotgun muttering "gonna kill them all" is proberbly a good sign he needs help... not ignoring and letting him watch more tv.

[Salazaar]

The Register posted a link to the actual report...

http://trial-ch.org/fileadmin/user_u...y_the_Rule.pdf

What really pissies me off about this whole this is their underlying usumption that there is some kind of increased importance of video games being an interactive rather than passive medium. There is no basis what so ever for that assumption, or following on, that gamers are more influenced by games than readers are by books or viewers by TV or films.

Personally I get far more emotionally involved in a good film or book than I ever have been in a game, and while I enjoy playing though some fantastical games, the setting, and frequently the plot, tend to be nothing more than a framework for the mechanics of the game to exist within.

Does it matter whether I'm shooting civilians in an airport or little bleeping invaders from space? To me, no, at least not on anything other than the superficial, inital, 'shock' value level.

Having read the report I'm not convinced that this is anything more than another, albeit nicely dressed up, knee jerk 'oooh games are messing up our kids' piece of stupidity.

We have chosen video and computer games as the object of our analysis because, unlike
literature, films and television, where the viewer has a passive role, in shooter games, the
player has an active role in performing the actions. Thus, the line between the virtual and real
experience becomes blurred and the game becomes a simulation of real life situations on the
battlefield.

This is why you fail.

Video games don't teach morals, people teach morals, now stand up and take some actual responsibility.

[Prime]

im sorry to be blunt and brutish - not even trying to stimulate the minds of the debating think tank; this whole topic including that report is laughable, i read the aims, recurring highlighted points and their relevance towards 'human rights' - i got as far as seeing the 'Destruction of Civilian Property' in most of the listed games and just closed it down. Every single topic is now under scrutiny from Governments - how much salt you should put on your food, shock tactic posters warning parents if they let their child eat crisps, and now (i say and now but its been under the spotlight for years) gaming - if the content of a game offends you, then simply turn away, if a movie looks like it could touch a sensitive subject- don't go to see it!
i dont deny a slight approval towards game content restriction but the things you are comparing are quite frankly Pathetic.
War Criminal - accepted against Pedophile - not
games give you the opportunity to play all types of beings and creatures from every corner of your imagination: Space Marines, Dinosaurs, Cars, Insects, Robots, Killers, Gangstas, Cops, Soilders, Aliens, Gods yada yada - why would you EVER want to be a child molester in a game? you base your argument on 2 peas from the same pod of touchy subjects, but its CLEARLY common sense.

not wanting to cause offense to anyone - but it really is laughable. "why can we be war criminals but not pedophiles?" gimme a break

[aidanjt]

I played a game that let me detonate a nuke in a small settlement, that made me wanna do it irl for the fun of it. I went to tescos to get one, but they were out of stock.