I going to leave the , " banned " bit up to your discretion - just as long as you don't define banned as bad to play ( in other words crap ) or we will be here all day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h962eqIzxiE
just to get the ball rolling :![]()
I going to leave the , " banned " bit up to your discretion - just as long as you don't define banned as bad to play ( in other words crap ) or we will be here all day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h962eqIzxiE
just to get the ball rolling :![]()
Please be aware, do not post any links to adult orientated material. If vids arnt essentially child friendly just a brief description why it should be banned please without being graphic.
Cracking thought for a thread melon
Not really a fan of censorship, enforcing age ratings yes, but not censorship. Never seen a game promote bestiality/Pedophilia/necrophilia/Jeremy Beadle before, so can't say theres ever been a game that should be banned purely on bad taste. That link tho is a bit freaky, not sure what all the boob touching is about or what age group its supposed to be for but certainly looks appealing to kids.
Mass murder as we are all aware, is promoted constantly, but as long as its kept to our screens and involves germans/russians/taliban/al qaeda/Jeremy...(take your pick, beadle, kyle, i dont care) then its perfectly ok.
The funny thing I find about violence in general for me is how that can be interpreted
as being ok if you give it a reason too i.e. war setting or visual style i.e. graphics etc
Isnt violence still violence however its portrayed by its intent ( i,e. to harm whatever the reason ) - and if not - then how can you justify it any more than touching a female ?
I know sex and death are taboo subjects but i just find it funny that in real life sex is everywhere and hardly taboo in society ,yet death most certainly still is , so youve have almost polar version of reality being played out right before our eyes.
I can see it a problem with kids etc , but its not like they cant access it any way , any more than playing any violent games or going from nerf ball to paintball too air rifle and so on...
Would addressing the subject of sex in games more actually satisfy the same primal urges people have to hurt , and what about disabled folk who for the most part struggle with finding relationships ?
What would happen if you had game where some guy had to repopulate the planet by impregnating as many females as possible ( the trouble is your revolting ) , or an armless cyborg who simply had machine gun as pecker and whom had to rely on a robot assistant to reload / upgrade it ?
just some tots
m
Last edited by melon; 06-10-2011 at 04:28 AM.
The only thing I'd ban is censorship. Lambaste truly crappy games, sure.. but what I find far more offensive than crap games is someone thinking they have a right to deprive the rights of others to express themselves and earn a living because they don't think it's 'appropriate'. A loaded subjective term if I've ever heard one.
Don't like it? Then don't bloody buy it.
True , but thats how laws and governments - the whole world is run , so where do you draw the line as having acceptable material under a universal law that aint going to offend someone , or stop someone getting hold of it ?
If you want sex in a game then theres probably lot of crap ones , death however has been exploited to death and point of being meaningless.
Also what is death, I mean when Mario jumps on mushroom , did he grind that beings brains into dust , or just knock him into another dimension ?
Would it be ok for example if you jiggled the milking teets of a cow in a game , if no one was really sure whether it was cow , 2 people in suit or just a dream ?
m
Last edited by Ferral; 06-10-2011 at 08:39 AM. Reason: Minor edit for language
Is it? I mean, obviously, violence is violence, but does that make it necessarily bad? For instance, the Allies resisting Nazi Germany, or the Gulf War throwing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait?
But more than that, what about a war film that discourages war by showing the horror of it?
Or on a more micro level, what about the social commentary of a writer like Dickens highlighting the plight of many underprivileged categories, not least, kids? After all, pressure for reform comes in many shapes and sizes, and guises, and we could argue that the welfare state and the NHS came, at least in part, from the high-lighting of injustice from writers like Dickens.
Aha, I hear people say, but it's different for games, they're just entertainment. But what, I ask, do people think the work of Dickens was? If you write a social commentary as a political pamphlet, you'll sell about 3 copies. If you write it as a novel, or a serialised newspaper story, it'll be read by millions and (if it's good) end up as classic literature.
And a computer game is merely a 20th and 21st Century version of a book - a form of entertainment.
So .... how do you distinguish between entertainment that gives gratuitous violence for it's own sake, for titillation, and entertainment that gives violence as parent of a social commentary?
And even if a gzame is simply a good old-fashioned Quake-style blast it if it either moves or doesn't, what's wrong with that if people have fun doing it. I have yet to let rip with my BFG in a crowded theatre. Not that there haven;t been occasions when ..... no, best not go there.
And if we're going to make such judgements, who makes them?
What games do we "ban"? Games where they either pass a legal line (like actual incitement to violence, etc), or where there is a clearly demonstrable case for them causing actual harm. Otherwise, let it alone. The same goes for porn. If it's made by and watched by consenting adults, it's nobody else's business, and certainly not Mary Whitehouse style interfering busybodies that set themselves up as the moral guardians of the rest of us. Who the hell do they think they are?
I guess I'm essentially very liberal on this. Unless there's a clear case for it causing harm, it's for others to decide what they watch, or play on their computer, not for me to second guess their morals, and I don't want anyone second-guessing mine either.
Well, that depends whose side your on, it doesnt change the fact someone is going to suffer or die in the process,
If someone is justifying that as ok because of how they see them ,then perhaps they arent good as t hey think, I mean just look at misery has been committed in the name of God and Religion , has there ever been a bigger cause of violence ? ( Just ask a Native Indian if you can still find one )
I dont think any tyrant or Dictator ever considered themselves evil , any more than the Allies did, its all about perception, but violence whatever the reason is pretty extreme way of resolving a problem, and almost always unsuccessful as many ongoing problems prove.
Soldiers return from wars and someone of them are never the same through Post traumatic stress disorders, but you take someone on pc game and it just trivializes the whole impact of what their doing .and what it means, and then even reinforces / encourages it , so that they become desensitized to what their doing - not only in games but life too.
Age certificates are irrelevant ,any young kid can just as easily get hold of such material now as much the next idiot , regardless of whether they pay for it or not , and for them those things will have an even bigger impact , and for our future too.
The days of sports, playing with toys are almost gone now entirely ,so what gets put out there will have an even bigger impact on society than the sort of problems its already causing now ( obesity being a minor one , awareness a larger concern )
m
Last edited by melon; 07-10-2011 at 12:31 PM.
Not really.
On those cases, people were going to get hurt, perhaps killed, either way. If Hitler of Saddam Hussein had not been opposed, it could well have been far worse than if they had. And are some things not worth fighting for? It was, after all, a response to naked and bloody aggression in both cases.
In an ideal world, there'd be no violence. But we don't live in an ideal world. And sometimes, sadly, the only thing those pre-disposed to violence understand is violence, or threat of violence, right back.
Violence is (IMHO) never a good thing. It's just sometimes better than the lack of it. If an intruder breaks into your house, should violence be used? If necessary to protect yourself or others, then clearly, yes.
No argument from me there.
I've no idea whether they considered themselves evil or not, or even whether they either thought about it or cared either way. But I think actions speak louder than words. Don't look at what they said or thought, but at what they did.
My point was that violence, per se, is not always wrong, because sometimes, however unpleasant, it's better than the alternative. It can be the least worst option.
What I don't get is that in real life, sex is a natural and (usually) beautiful thing, leading to the creation of life, and war is the opposite, the unnatural ending of life, on a large scale. Yet, there are many, many games about war, where blowing someone's head off is to be congratulated, one tiny, pixellated sex scene in a game (ie the secret bit in GTA) and the world is in uproar. What's going on there?
1 ) What has become acceptable in terms of violence has been growing in terms of acceptability for some time , because its seen everywhere else too
2 ) Violence is everywhere, from cartoons 2 films and trivialized in far more of generic sense so its never questioned - esp in regards to boys who grow up worshiping things that cause it from an early age like comic heroes etc
3 ) Sex on the other hand while everywhere too ( at least implied or suggested ) is not generic, or adopted in a trival sense ( esp for kids ) the same way violence is ( unless your perhaps in japan )
there are no toys where you interact in a sexual way , and its not something usually spoken about - but rather found out like some urban myth ( or was in my day )
As games are associated with kids usually but adults too - the overall perception of sex in games is unclear and therefore a worry who the audience is and therefore what might be implied .
The other problem , as i see it , is that a lot of these games that use manga style create moral issues about the age of the participants, so that its never quite clear what age the females are sometimes and their age of consent.
Sex and Death evoke the same desires , just opposite ends of the scale and sometimes , in the case of f*cking people, both at once .
Here is a clip from G-Spo. . er I mean Force. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfh-j...eature=related
This is Japanese kiddies show otherwise called BOTP for our older viewers who remember it.
Now if they hadnt mentioned the word sexy or had he anguished cries sounds more like something else, there wouldn't be a problem , but its as you can see the it doesn't take much for the alarm bells to go off when it comes to anything that might be interpreted as sexual because we have heard that sound before.. perhaps
However to a kid who hasnt - or no idea it wouldnt be sexual at all , no problem then - right ?
Accept its not the kids who are making the rules, and therein lies the problem between the ambiguous and many subtle ways sexual interpretations can play out compared to the very graphic and physical effects of violence .
Once is obvious and universal to any age, while the other calls into question the viewers morals, just as much as the act.
m
Last edited by melon; 07-10-2011 at 02:05 PM.
How about this early Atari vcs game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hi8y7fEEqk
Very graphic, well it would be if there were more than 10 pixels...
Last edited by mikerr; 30-04-2012 at 09:20 AM.
Sorry it's not, that clip is from Yatterman, and what's more the 2008 remake series not the original yatterman series.
It was a pure fan service cameo appearance, in which she acted totally out of characture from the original.
Japan has some rather odd to our eyes views on censorship in general and cartoon and comics in paticular.
Where they are not seen as a medium for children at all.
Video games have been a natural progression for this.
In many ways the trivialization of violence and war is far more incidious, also the sexualised language used within the player base.
Think how often you've heard the term "being raped" used by people who play games in relation to losing, it's used in such a lose and casual way yet if you stop to think about it using that term in that way is massively offensive.
The question of "should there be games that are banned?" banning something is often a sure way to give it greater appeal, should there be games that should never be made in the first place? (if you see what I mean) where should the lines be drawn? that tends to be down to society and the individual.
[rem IMG]https://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i45/pob_aka_robg/Spork/project_spork.jpg[rem /IMG] [rem IMG]https://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i45/pob_aka_robg/dichotomy/dichotomy_footer_zps1c040519.jpg[rem /IMG]
Pob's new mod, Soviet Pob Propaganda style Laptop.
"Are you suggesting that I can't punch an entire dimension into submission?" - Flying squirrel - The Red Panda Adventures
Sorry photobucket links broken
BF3,to reduce upgradetitus.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)