roto hit the nail on the head with the no taste comment.
roto hit the nail on the head with the no taste comment.
Who would enjoy playing this?Originally Posted by ESRB
The whole necrophiliac rape thing perks my interest, but microwaving a cat to death is really not cool.
That's a bit too much...
Who would enjoy playing this?
Come on now guys. Let's not be hypocritical, I KNOW you have all thought about doing this at some point...That's a bit too much...Who would enjoy playing this?
...or actually, I think Nominous is the only one...
He's the only one.
Look what Diablo II has done to him.
Poor Nominus.
Me? It sounds epic.Who would enjoy playing this?
I thought I read somewhere that Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony don't want AO rated games on their consoles, and that this was to be rated AO.
Oh well, it sounds like a horrible game anyways. Talk about tasteless.
"... and so I close, realizing that perhaps the ending has not yet been written."
No, they don't care about it being A/O in and of itself, they care because a huge number of retailers like Wal*Mart, Target, and so forth refuse to sell A/O games (Don't ask me why). That's a massive dent in their potential sales.No, it's not just because "it's violent". It's because of the overwhelming emphasis and focus on the violent infliction of sadistic cruelty.
It's a matter of degree, not an absolute. It's not "all violence is bad, so it all has to be banned." It's a case-by-case matter: "is the violence, in this instance, so extreme and dealt with in such a way, that it warrants the prohibition of the title?"I find this pretty weird, since plenty of game are legally restricted to over-18s, in a lot of countries. But Sony and Nintendo will pull any title that gets the equivalent rating in North America? Quite a strange system, in my opinion.In Nintendo and Sony's case, they don't allow AO games on their systems at all.
Edit: I think A/O may actually be more akin to R18 in the UK than merely 18; 18 translates more directly to M rated.
I also think there is a line for free speech - when it becomes an unfounded criminal accusation, or is very likely to incite immediate panic. So, no slander/libel, and no yelling "fire" at the movies. Other than that, I can find no reason beyond personal distaste or fear of offense to ban or censor things. My personal distaste is not sufficient, and we have no right to never be offended by things.
Offense is certainly unavoidable, hence why there's plenty of "offensive" matter available in every medium. But when it comes to the kinds of material that get banned in situations like this, it's never simply because "someone might get offended if they see it". It's always more serious - the material in question goes beyond mere offense, and actively supports and promotes (or casts in a positive light) something that the overwhelming majority of the population find abhorrent and that the laws finds seriously criminal. To quote a commentator from a recent law reform, it's about restricting the ability to promote or propagate ideas that simply have no place in a civilised society.
If defamation (libel and slander) are to remain illegal, then why shouldn't other subjects be open to censorship? After all, some might say, defamation is just lies. Lies that can be countered with rebuttals. Why should one person's reputation or sensibilities affect what can be said by every other person in the country?
The censorship regimes in place just allow society to say, "you're a sick smurf for wanting to turn something like that into a game, and an even sicker smurf for trying to market it." It's a sign of a very impotent society when 'anything goes' and any idea, no matter how repugnant, has to be treated as equally valid and equally valuable to avoid offending depraved degenerates.
Clearly, none of you have been on /b/ enough.
there was a picture here
It Promotes this kind of behavior? I hardly think Violent games are there to promote Violent behavior. And there are a large number of games that make Violent behavior look good, like GTA. However it hardly tells people that doing such things is good.Offense is certainly unavoidable, hence why there's plenty of "offensive" matter available in every medium. But when it comes to the kinds of material that get banned in situations like this, it's never simply because "someone might get offended if they see it". It's always more serious - the material in question goes beyond mere offense, and actively supports and promotes (or casts in a positive light) something that the overwhelming majority of the population find abhorrent and that the laws finds seriously criminal. To quote a commentator from a recent law reform, it's about restricting the ability to promote or propagate ideas that simply have no place in a civilised society.
If defamation (libel and slander) are to remain illegal, then why shouldn't other subjects be open to censorship? After all, some might say, defamation is just lies. Lies that can be countered with rebuttals. Why should one person's reputation or sensibilities affect what can be said by every other person in the country?
The censorship regimes in place just allow society to say, "you're a sick smurf for wanting to turn something like that into a game, and an even sicker smurf for trying to market it." It's a sign of a very impotent society when 'anything goes' and any idea, no matter how repugnant, has to be treated as equally valid and equally valuable to avoid offending depraved degenerates.
Adn Liable and Slander are Illegal because they tell you flat out lies about other people, and try to pass it off as truth. Its basicly there to ruin someones life, these games are not like that at all.
And Society can be Civilized and still play the game. So long as they don't act it out. If they do then they are hardly a civilized Society.
In this context, 'promote' has a slightly non-standard meaning. Like lots of words when they turn up in a legal context. 'Promotion' here refers to portraying something as positive or favourable, presenting it as good or in such a way as to make it seem enjoyable.
What if it's not intended to 'ruin someone's life'? Suppose it's just for fun - or better yet, for profit? People make money off lies all the time. Good, wholesome business practice, some would say. Just because some people use defamation for personal vengeance shouldn't incriminate anyone who uses it with a less-personal motive like profiteering.Adn Liable and Slander are Illegal because they tell you flat out lies about other people, and try to pass it off as truth. Its basicly there to ruin someones life, these games are not like that at all.
Source? Google has failed me, only led me to a gonintendo comment.
I consider a society which censors to be uncivilized.
That aside, my statement ought to amply highlight the point that what constitutes civilized varies. There are some who think the fact that divorce is permitted is the height of moral degradation. There are some (Like me) who really don't give a crap about anything like this just as long as everyone involved is involved through their own choice to be.
Because it is about reputation, and reputation is something that can be held onto when everything else is gone. Mud sticks, sadly, and as long as it does reputation demands legal protection. Although I could see the case made that if you legalize slander and libel, people will have to learn to think more critically about accusations because they know false ones could be made.If defamation (libel and slander) are to remain illegal, then why shouldn't other subjects be open to censorship? After all, some might say, defamation is just lies. Lies that can be countered with rebuttals. Why should one person's reputation or sensibilities affect what can be said by every other person in the country?
Whoa, whoa, nobody's saying anything about this stuff being equal. I didn't care much for Manhunt. I found some of it quite unpleasant, actually. As I said above, I don't think the industry would be a lesser place if it hadn't been made. I do not attach much value to these games. But the value I attach to games does not have any bearing on what is and is not permissable. Equality before the law doesn't mean equality in any other sense whatsoever.The censorship regimes in place just allow society to say, "you're a sick smurf for wanting to turn something like that into a game, and an even sicker smurf for trying to market it." It's a sign of a very impotent society when 'anything goes' and any idea, no matter how repugnant, has to be treated as equally valid and equally valuable to avoid offending depraved degenerates.
I claim it to be a sign of a very rich, healthy, strong society when anything goes and any idea, no matter how repugnant, has to be treated as worthy of being aired and published, even if it's disgusting and will never take off. Especially if it's offensive and unpleasant, in fact. A weak society cannot suffer the presence of such things, a strong society can.
Motive isn't really relevant when it comes to defamation (Or most other crimes, for that matter). It might impact sentencing a bit, but not much and it won't do anything more. Just the same as this game - motive isn't important much. Even if Rockstar WANT to encourage violence, that's their right as far as I'm concerned. Free speech is pretty much an absolute. I'm wary even of the clauses I state earlier.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
