Should game content be restricted by moral standards?

[SirKicksalot]

My belief is that games, books and movies shouldn't be restricted by any convention or by morality. Put the most vile, despicable, horrible shit you can think of in them if you want. There's no harm in doing that. Is it not just a thoughtcrime?

This is something I've been thinking about for a while and today I saw this post on the Bioware forums:
A game which espouses genocide (cultural or otherwise), homogenization, and intolerance towards difference is abhorent and should not be sold or produced. It most definitely should NOT be praised and given scores like 10/10. If someone was to produce a game which celebrated the holocaust as "the solution" with the only alternative being ruling with an ironfist it wouldn't even make it on the shelves.

What's your take? (edit: on both matters if you're so inclined)

[Smashbox]

Even though it protects despicable-ass statements, I am very thankful for freedom of expression.

In short, no.

Things like this scare me: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57...-racist-tweet/

Sure his sentiments are wretched, but I can't believe they're punishable by jailtime. Thoughtcrime indeed.

[Nalano]

What do you want me to argue? The point or the post? Because they're two different things.

The point is bunk. Free speech. I refuse to allow any authority to dictate for me what is moral or immoral. I am a free man and can come to conclusions for myself.

The post is simply wrong. Bioware doesn't espouse any of that shit. In fact, Bioware's so far away from that shit that for Bioware to catch shit on that topic is laughable.

[Smashbox]

Agreed, in a game built on choice, it's tough to attribute 'espousal' to every (any) option. If they only offer 'nice' things for you to do, it's not really about choice. That said, the line has clearly been drawn when it comes to renegade actions. You're not a Nazi.

[Nalano]

Agreed, in a game built on choice, it's tough to attribute 'espousal' to every (any) option. If they only offer 'nice' things for you to do, it's not really about choice. That said, the line has clearly been drawn when it comes to renegade actions. You're not a Nazi.

Even if Renegade were baby-skeet-shooting evil - like some games - it wouldn't matter. But Renegade is still less "Darth Vader" and more "Dirty Harry."

[Unaco]

Some freedom of speech makes me nervous.

[Nalano]

Some freedom of speech makes me nervous.

Be glad they said it, because otherwise their actions would have come as a complete surprise.

[Cooper]

Exploring and expressing the fictional possibilities of certain actions is not the same as endorsing and encouraging said actions.

Fictional genocide as dramatic device is not the same as "lol let's kill Jews"

The twitter guy was sent to jail for inciting racial hatred. Not creating a fictional racist character.

There's clearly a massive issue and when fictional works begin to openly espouse certain forms of repugnant behaviour and encourage it amongst real people.
Then again, the US political system is based upon people using a work of fiction that espouses repugnant behaviour.

[Nalano]

There's clearly a massive issue and when fictional works begin to openly espouse certain forms of repugnant behaviour and encourage it amongst real people.

What about the people who at some level resonate with Travis Bickle? What about the copycat crimes after the release of Money Train? Should we hold the directors responsible? No.

[Smashbox]

Then again, the US political system is based upon people using a work of fiction that espouses repugnant behaviour.

I don't get it. Are you trying to talk about religion in politics?

[Nalano]

I don't get it. Are you trying to talk about religion in politics?

[Unaco]

Be glad they said it, because otherwise their actions would have come as a complete surprise.

WTF? Be glad about casual anti-semitism and racism, threats of violence and intimidation? WTF?

[Drake Sigar]

This is something I've been thinking about for a while and today I saw this post on the Bioware forums:
A game which espouses genocide (cultural or otherwise), homogenization, and intolerance towards difference is abhorent and should not be sold or produced. It most definitely should NOT be praised and given scores like 10/10. If someone was to produce a game which celebrated the holocaust as "the solution" with the only alternative being ruling with an ironfist it wouldn't even make it on the shelves.

What's your take? (edit: on both matters if you're so inclined)

Those terms could cover a LOT of games, like Halo and Darwinia. I'd ask the original poster to be more specific, but since this is all about the ending of Mass Effect 3 I don't think I'll bother.

Anyone else played Super Columbine Massacre RPG? Now that's guaranteed to raise a few eyebrows. And possibily pitchforks.

[Oof]

I'm of two minds about this.

If a game offers a primarily multiplayer experience, I think there should be some delineation of what is and is not acceptable.
If a game is primarily single-player, then the developers should feel free to do whatever they want with it. As much as I'd be disgusted with it, I'd even defend their right to create pro-misogynist/pro-Apartheid/pro-slavery/etc. games.

Why the emphasis on what kind of game it is?

A multiplayer game is a heavily social product; as such, how one person experiences or interacts with that game will affect everyone else; and I think the communities built around a social experience have a responsibility to police and allow themselves to be policed by their own, to some extent, in order to ensure that the experience is (broadly) representative of the people that make up that community. Of course, there is some leeway here: EVE, for instance, appears to largely be a community of people who are comfortable with inflammatory, hurtful and base interaction. (It's just the example that most easily springs to mind, at the moment. I don't mean to derail the thread.) You've paid for that multiplayer experience, and you shouldn't be unable to enjoy it because of other people playing that game.

A singleplayer game, on the other hand, is a work of art, (or at least) a singular expression, and the person(s) responsible for that product should be allowed their free speech. It's a contained experience, and one person's experience of it isn't contingent on all the other people that (may or may not want to) play it. In that case, go nuts. I may or may not like it, but it's your right to make and sell whatever product you wish.

As for that drunken, racist teenager: total overreaction. I understand jailing public figures that utter the same sentiments, because those people actually have the clout to influence people. A stupid teenager? Completely insignificant. He has an odious mind, sure -- but then, don't many people? A minority's utterances should not be punishable simply because they conflict with the majority's.

[Smashbox]

A minority's utterances should not be punishable simply because they conflict with the majority's.

Precisely why the government should have no say in what constitutes legally acceptable speech.

[Nalano]

WTF? Be glad about casual anti-semitism and racism, threats of violence and intimidation? WTF?

Because stopping them from saying it doesn't stop them from thinking it, and they'll think it regardless. So I'd rather they slipped up so we could pillory them rather than allowing them to slip under the radar and infect the greater discourse.

[archonsod]

I'd be up for restricting it, albeit for non-moral reasons. I'd put a guy in every development studio with a cattle prod, who's entire job was to ensure the game was actually interesting on a mechanical level. Every time they failed, they get zapped. When they finally produce a game worth playing, only then are they allowed to put whatever pretentious bollocks they think passes for plot and story into it. As a kind of reward. Then we lock them in the janitor's cupboard until it's time to make the sequel.

[Nalano]

I'd be up for restricting it, albeit for non-moral reasons. I'd put a guy in every development studio with a cattle prod, who's entire job was to ensure the game was actually interesting on a mechanical level. Every time they failed, they get zapped. When they finally produce a game worth playing, only then are they allowed to put whatever pretentious bollocks they think passes for plot and story into it. As a kind of reward. Then we lock them in the janitor's cupboard until it's time to make the sequel.

Why do I suspect that all that guy's games are going to be variations on "how I will murder my boss"?

[Cooper]

What about the people who at some level resonate with Travis Bickle? What about the copycat crimes after the release of Money Train? Should we hold the directors responsible? No.

No, obvisouly not.

Creators should not be liable for the actions of consumers. Unless the intention when publishing their creation was to incite and encourage those actions.

Deciding whether the intention of the creator of the film, book or game was to encourage and incite action is difficult. Which is why judicial systems exist.

[Oof]

Creators should not be liable for the actions of consumers. Unless the intention when publishing their creation was to incite and encourage those actions.

Deciding whether the intention of the creator of the film, book or game was to encourage and incite action is difficult. Which is why judicial systems exist.

My sentiment, summed up.