<!--quoteo(post=1710852:date=Jun 7 2009, 10:22 AM:name=Nemesis_Zero)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nemesis_Zero @ Jun 7 2009, 10:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1710852"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A few points on the German youth protection system: <ul><li>Games are not actually censored in Germany. Censorship is defined as a pre-viewing of media that decides over its publication. In principle, I can publish anything I want over here.</li><li>Freedom of speech is limited by youth protection and anti-racism laws in Germany. As such, there are institutions that are allowed to redact racist media (Neo-Nazi material tends to fall under that heading), and institutions that can order media to be made inaccessible to minors (here defined as anyone below 18).</li><li>In practice, this means that if you want to offer your game in a space accessible to minors, it has to be approved by the Entertainment Software Self-Control Board (which is independent from the German state and did, for example, rate CS at 'our' PG16). If you don't want to do that, don't sell it where minors can see it.</li><li>Since publishers <i>like</i> to sell to minors, they will alter their games in ways that will make them acceptable to the board. Hence the tendency to bleed green. Yeah, we don't know how that improves things, either, but there's no rules system that can't be gamed.</li><li>In some cases (Epic, I'm looking at you), companies may decide that this process won't be economical for them, and not access the German market.</li></ul> In any case, it is not that difficult for adults to get access to imported and therefore unrated games, and parental consent trumps any of the described rules. The system is, at worst, inconvenient. Frankly, I am not even convinced it is such a wrong way of doing things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The difference is between de jure censorship, which you're talking about, and de facto censorship, which I'm talking about. Maybe games aren't "actually" censored, but if they want to make any money, they have to censor themselves. It's like saying you have freedom of religion, but if you're Christian you have to pay twice as much in taxes. Sure, you have the freedom to choose, but one choice is economically ridiculous, which means you either have to censor yourself (while the state gets to pretend they're not forcing you to do so) or just not exercise the freedom in the first place and ignore Germany.
I agree completely, censorship is very real. The interesting part, now that I think about it, is that it actually makes sense (although I don't like it). Porn is subject to the same rules, so why shouldn't violence be? Is porn worse than killing?
<!--quoteo(post=1710850:date=Jun 7 2009, 11:21 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jun 7 2009, 11:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1710850"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How many french stand-up comedians can you list? How many italian ones? How about russian ones? Japanese? Indian? You don't know german stand-up comedians because you don't speak german and they do. How much german television do you watch? How many german stand-up shows do you go to? The reason you don't know any german stand-up comedians is because you've never made an effort to know about any german stand-up comedians. I can't fault you for that - you don't speak german, so it'd be a waste of your time. I do however fault you for making an argument from ignorance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the other hand, any random non-American knows about Eddie Murphy, Dennis Leary, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Dave Chappelle, Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, etc. Because unlike French and German comedians, they are excellent trendsetters and popular enough to be exported from their country and translated into whatever language you speak. You know all of them. Admit it. No one outside of germany knows those cats, and probably not most people <i>in</i> Germany.
And that fact that you had no sense of humour about my <i>obviously over the top joke</i> now actually proves: Germans have no idea what humor is. Thanks for hooking me up with more proof, Nem and Lol. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1711297:date=Jun 8 2009, 09:48 PM:name=MonsieurEvil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MonsieurEvil @ Jun 8 2009, 09:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711297"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On the other hand, any random non-American knows about Eddie Murphy, Dennis Leary, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Dave Chappelle, Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, etc. Because unlike French and German comedians, they are excellent trendsetters and popular enough to be exported from their country and translated into whatever language you speak. You know all of them. Admit it. No one outside of germany knows those cats, and probably not most people <i>in</i> Germany.
And that fact that you had no sense of humour about my <i>obviously over the top joke</i> now actually proves: Germans have no idea what humor is. Thanks for hooking me up with more proof, Nem and Lol. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's just because American culture ends up much more widely exported than any other country. There are a million reasons for this, and Americans being inherently funnier is not one IMHO.
<!--quoteo(post=1711299:date=Jun 8 2009, 10:52 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TychoCelchuuu @ Jun 8 2009, 10:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711299"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's just because American culture ends up much more widely exported than any other country. There are a million reasons for this, and Americans being inherently funnier is not one IMHO.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, as everyone knows, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gpjk_MaCGM" target="_blank">the British wrote the funniest joke of all time.</a> Deadly stuff...
I just noticed that I misspelled 'Violent'. I am suck.
It's not even true, either. Eddie Murphy, yes. But I remember having to explain to people (in both Germany and Denmark) who George Carlin was when he died.
Isn't it a little arrogant of you to make yourself an expert on german stand-up comedy when you evidently knew nothing about it only two days ago? But today you claim that "most people in Germany don't know those cats?" <i>Really?</i> [Citation needed] I'm afraid.
As for Nem and I, don't worry. I think we're finding plenty to laugh at.
<!--quoteo(post=1711297:date=Jun 9 2009, 04:48 AM:name=MonsieurEvil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MonsieurEvil @ Jun 9 2009, 04:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711297"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On the other hand, any random non-American knows about Eddie Murphy, Dennis Leary, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Dave Chappelle, Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, etc. Because unlike French and German comedians, they are excellent trendsetters and popular enough to be exported from their country and translated into whatever language you speak. You know all of them. Admit it. No one outside of germany knows those cats, and probably not most people <i>in</i> Germany.
And that fact that you had no sense of humour about my <i>obviously over the top joke</i> now actually proves: Germans have no idea what humor is. Thanks for hooking me up with more proof, Nem and Lol. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I only know Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Jerry Seinfeld, Dave Chappelle. Except for Chappelle (who's not funny at all), I only know them as actors. American stand-up shows don't get broadcasted on German television, so I doubt that any "comedians" who aren't also movie stars are widely known in Germany.
Also, the american comedy stuff that does get shown over here (mostly sitcoms) is usually as flat as it can get.
<!--quoteo(post=1711300:date=Jun 9 2009, 12:56 PM:name=MonsieurEvil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MonsieurEvil @ Jun 9 2009, 12:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711300"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just noticed that I misspelled 'Violent'. I am suck.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll just fix that for you, old man. Shall I change your nappy while I'm at it?
On the subject: I don't see why games are judged any differently from other forms of media, say movies. In America it's perfectly legal for someone to sell an R18 rated game to a twelve year old, it's just merchant's discretion. The system works well enough, so why not just copy it across to games? I say there's little difference between pressing "X" to wrap a plastic bag around a hobo's face in a game and watching passively while someone is slowly killed by a fiendish clockwork device attached to their head in a movie. I don't see the distinction, does anyone else?
I think it's the "interactivity" people balk at. In one case you're watching a convincing (and/or CGI-enhanced) magic trick that makes it seem like a real person is getting brutally murdered, in the other case you're actively killing a virtual approximation of a real person. We may condemn those who (more or less) witnessed Kitty Genovese's death, but it was Winston Moseley who went to jail for it.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
Interactivity is indeed the key complaint. While in a film you may see someone get brutally murdered and enjoy watching it (come on, there are some screen deaths that are just ultimately badass), it's different to choosing to kill that person yourself.
What the anti-game folk can't seem to comprehend is the disconnect between moving a mouse and clicking (or using a controller and pressing X, or the shoulder trigger, or whatever you fancy console ownin' folk do) and actually doing it in real life. They seem to be of the opinion that doing it in the game makes you more likely to do it in real life, or even more bizarrely, actively trains you to do it in real life. If someone can't see the difference between playing a game and cappin' some noob in the face and getting a gun and shooting someone in real life, they have mental problems that are going to surface whether they play a game or not.
I guess once computer tech reaches a point where it's complete and total immersion, where you move your arm to move the character's arm, and you feel their pain and sensations, there may be some merit to those complaints. But at the moment it's still a fairly big disconnect between a game and real life, even with that cool new thing they showed at E3 where it tracks your body movements.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
Heh, I can just picture a wife and mother comming home from work to see her son standing in front of the TV choking the air as were it a real person - he's doing this while screaming "DIE ###### DIEE!!" so that the voice recognition will get to know him.
Wow, I can not form sentences in english today. Good thing my oral english exam is tomorrow!
<!--quoteo(post=1711388:date=Jun 9 2009, 02:49 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Jun 9 2009, 02:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711388"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I guess once computer tech reaches a point where it's complete and total immersion, where you move your arm to move the character's arm, and you feel their pain and sensations, there may be some merit to those complaints. But at the moment it's still a fairly big disconnect between a game and real life, even with that cool new thing they showed at E3 where it tracks your body movements.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Though, once we have true VR, nobody will care about "killer games" anymore. We'll all be too busy playing Super Magical Harem Land. Until some mentally unstable young man flips out and rapes all his classmates during the lunch break.
<!--quoteo(post=1711300:date=Jun 9 2009, 05:56 AM:name=MonsieurEvil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MonsieurEvil @ Jun 9 2009, 05:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711300"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually, as everyone knows, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gpjk_MaCGM" target="_blank">the British wrote the funniest joke of all time.</a> Deadly stuff...
I just noticed that I misspelled 'Violent'. I am suck.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Zat's not <b>funny</b>! *slap slap slap slap*
<!--quoteo(post=1711245:date=Jun 8 2009, 09:54 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TychoCelchuuu @ Jun 8 2009, 09:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711245"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The difference is between de jure censorship, which you're talking about, and de facto censorship, which I'm talking about. Maybe games aren't "actually" censored, but if they want to make any money, they have to censor themselves. It's like saying you have freedom of religion, but if you're Christian you have to pay twice as much in taxes. Sure, you have the freedom to choose, but one choice is economically ridiculous, which means you either have to censor yourself (while the state gets to pretend they're not forcing you to do so) or just not exercise the freedom in the first place and ignore Germany.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hey kids! Watch Nem make an argument he's only semi-comfortable with, because he feels it deserves to be raised!
You know, I like the idea of free speech as unencroachable principle. I, too, have been buldegoned by "Think of the children!" once too often.
Still, I acknowledge that games can have an effect on people. If they didn't, what point would there be to them? Moreso, I acknowledge that games had profound effects on me, personally. I know that games like Alpha Centauri, Deus Ex, Psychonauts or Mafia have made me think, laugh and cry. This is why I want to work in the field, after all.
Now, if I say that games can have positive effects on people - and as I noted, a large part of my life's choices are based on this opinion - then what would you call me if I claimed that this same medium <i>can not</i> have negative effects? It'd be like saying that films can be used to create masterpieces like Schindler's List, while stuff like Leni Riefenstein's (beautifully shot and composed) Nazi propaganda is impossible. Of course it isn't. If a medium can influence people, it can influence them in negative ways.
And so, yes, there <i>is</i> stuff I just don't want in the hands of children. I don't want my two-year old half-brother to experience the contemporary equivalent of Manhunt (or Saw, or Cannibal Corpse's music) in ten years' time.
Of course, he won't, because I'll be around and be able to warn his parents if the issue should come up. And so, many (including parts of me) will now argue that it's the parents' responsibility to keep this stuff out of a child's hands.
Quick show of hands here - whom's parents had an exact idea of what games their children owned and played?
We live in an age of cheap information. I'd argue that if it was not possible for my parents, who are very intelligent people and really tried, to keep tabs on what I played, it won't be possible for today's parents, either. Keep in mind: I'm not saying that the parents aren't still the most suitable instance of youth protection, just saying that they might have a valid need for assistance.
The system implemented in Germany still permits a games market that sees about 20% of its revenue based on action games, which is essentially equivalent to other national markets. Apart from very rare exceptions, the same products are available over here (AFAIK, the youth protection scheme claimed two plausible releases in the last five years). Additionally, as the group of grown-up gamers continues to grow, it becomes easier and easier to access unaltered games. Even today, if I were so inclined, it'd take me a visit to the local game store to get the unaltered version TF2 (frankly, I don't care enough about the shape of the gibs). Further, if a game could be demonstrated to have artistic merit (according to the widest definition I'm aware of; a definition that includes the fields of satire and similiar political speech), it suddenly would be subject to Article 5(3) of the Grundgesetz and <i>could not</i> be redacted in any way. Nobody had to try yet, though.
Sure, localization costs for the German market are somewhat higher. I'm not certain whether that's too high a price to pay.
Saying a game makes you feel something is different from saying a game makes you do something. There is a gigantic leap to be made between on the one hand feeling anything, even the most intense emotions, from a game, which makes sense, and on the other hand actually doing something immoral and illegal because of a game and only because of a game. Nobody is saying games don't mean anything. People are only saying that violent games don't cause murders, because no matter how much impact a game has on you, murdering someone is the sort of thing that takes more encouragement then playing GTA IV.
We're very close to the point where action movies will have to have a crawl along the bottom of the screen saying:
<b>Professional stuntman on a closed course. Do not attempt.</b>
Where does it end? You are not going to stop psychotic children from being nutso. I was just watching a show about a juvenille prison in California, where children there murdered 26 other children inmates and staff, besides the ones they murdered to get thrown in there. Was it the video games and movies? I doubt it - <i>they did this from 1894 to the 1940's</i>.
To quote Chris Rock (Ha, in your face, Lolfighter!):
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206636/quotes" target="_blank">"Everybody is wanting to know what music were the kids listening to, or what movies were they watching. Who gives a **** what they was watching! Whatever happened to crazy? What, you can't be crazy no more? Should we eliminate crazy from the dictionary?"</a>
Now maybe I can go find some famous German comedian quotes on IMDB for ol' barrel of laughs Nemesis...
<!--quoteo(post=1711543:date=Jun 10 2009, 03:37 AM:name=MonsieurEvil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MonsieurEvil @ Jun 10 2009, 03:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711543"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now maybe I can go find some famous German comedian quotes on IMDB for ol' barrel of laughs Nemesis...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So noone took the time to translate and explain memorable quotes from German comedians at an English website...
<!--quoteo(post=1711513:date=Jun 9 2009, 10:54 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TychoCelchuuu @ Jun 9 2009, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711513"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nobody is saying games don't mean anything. People are only saying that violent games don't cause murders, because no matter how much impact a game has on you, murdering someone is the sort of thing that takes more encouragement then playing GTA IV.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> (Taking this as a stand-in to MonsE's post as well, just to snub him <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> )
I tend to make the exact same argument, but if we're honest, it's a straw man. A convenient one, because those "Games turn our children into murderers!"-arguments have been thrown up by the opposition, but still: Even if the monocausal explanations proposed by the Killerspiele-people are wrong - and they are, ridiculously so - that does not rule out negative effects incurred by experiencing video games.
Many like to note that games like CS or NS train teamwork and strategic thinking - clear-cut changes of behaviour, though they are positive ones. None of us will argue that by playing these games, one becomes a full-fledged strategist, but there's some effect there. Conversely, I'm willing to acknowledge that there can be a weak aggression-enhancing effect to the consumption of games - and most rigorous research I'm aware of supports this (with magnitudes of one to six percent of variance explanation).
Aggression does not equate violence, and a weak effect means that there are usually other variables involved until a true change occurs in a person, but again: I can think of a couple of reasons why impressionable minds shouldn't get easy access to something that will - all developmental psychologists agree there - be more likely to influence them in significant ways than it would be for a grown person.
And let me note, this is not about violence alone (though that one gets the most play 'cause action games are so prevalent). More interesting arguments about frustration thresholds, mysognistic stereotypes, and conflict resolution patterns are waiting in the wings <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsE+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MonsE)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now maybe I can go find some famous German comedian quotes on IMDB for ol' barrel of laughs Nemesis...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Try IMDB.de <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
You could definitely say that violent video games, if played enough by someone of whose personality displays an unusual amount of plasticity, can be one of many factors that eventually contribute to their murderous rampage, but then the question is whether this characteristic is alone a good enough reason to ban the games. Given the much clearer link between aggression and sports like American football or rugby, or the clearly explicit violence in movies and TV and books (or even music lyrics), and the sort of training that <i>every single soldier goes through</i> that is designed in large part to make someone able to kill with few compunctions, and all the other things in our world that add up into that pile of "GRR" that makes someone snap, the question isn't "did games add a little to that" but "should we ban games." Clearly "makes an already impressionable, violent person slightly more likely to commit murder" isn't alone a reason to ban anything; there has to be more there. The only "more" you can add for games is to say they have no value and can therefore be banned without committing an evil. This, I would say, is evidently wrong, and I can't think of any other reasons to ban games before we ban football or violent movies or joining the army.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
I was expecting those charts that imply, violencent/deadly crimes have dropped since the release of Doom... Ah well...
Also Harald Schmidt is more like the unfunny clone of David Letterman... But what about Otto Waalkes, Werner (comics), Rudi Carell (Oh wait he's actually Dutch <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />). Meh, point is. If you don't speak the language GTFO with your "facts" <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Umm... Tycho - I know my posts were pretty long, but I did not talk about the murder argument, nor did I try to defend a ban of video games at any point...
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
I have to say that I sort of agree with nem, but at the same time I prefer the way it works here in the US.
No, young children should probably not be watching graphic violence/sex in most cases. However the thought of the govn't banning these things (or even restricting them) rubs me the wrong way. As it stand there is no govn't legislation on movies or video games, only self regulation via the MPAA and ESRB. Now, this is not much better as far as I can see (it forces developers to fit into a type if they want their games/movie sold), but it did keep the govn't from stepping in and regulating. All of this can also still be trumped by a parent/guardian allowing/disallowing their kids to see/play stuff, thus leaving the ultimate power in the hands of the parents.
However, that then brings up these questions: 1) Do parents want/need help from the govn't to make informed decisions/enforce their decisions? 2) Do we trust parents to make wise decisions even if they are informed?
<!--quoteo(post=1711646:date=Jun 10 2009, 09:32 AM:name=Nemesis_Zero)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nemesis_Zero @ Jun 10 2009, 09:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711646"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Umm... Tycho - I know my posts were pretty long, but I did not talk about the murder argument, nor did I try to defend a ban of video games at any point...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's almost semantics when you say the games aren't banned, because if they want to make any money in Germany they have to censor themselves with robots or green blood or whatever. The argument against banning them is the same as the argument about censoring them.
So - you're telling me that being asked to change the color of (or, more likely, cut) a few particles to get a lower age rating, is the same as being unable to publish, <i>full stop</i>? The last time I saw a game exchange humans with robots was Half-Life (I'm certain there are more recent examples, my point is that they are sparse).
Which is beside the point, actually, because games like Quake 3, El Matador, or Gears of War 2, all of which were not made available to children, sold very well over here as far as I know.
Can it be - and this is not meant mockingly, it's a question I had to ask myself - that we invoke the slippery slope mainly because it makes our arguments infinitely easier?
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1711830:date=Jun 11 2009, 09:59 AM:name=Nemesis_Zero)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nemesis_Zero @ Jun 11 2009, 09:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711830"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So - you're telling me that being asked to change the color of (or, more likely, cut) a few particles to get a lower age rating, is the same as being unable to publish, <i>full stop</i>? The last time I saw a game exchange humans with robots was Half-Life (I'm certain there are more recent examples, my point is that they are sparse).
Which is beside the point, actually, because games like Quake 3, El Matador, or Gears of War 2, all of which were not made available to children, sold very well over here as far as I know.
Can it be - and this is not meant mockingly, it's a question I had to ask myself - that we invoke the slippery slope mainly because it makes our arguments infinitely easier?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Out of curiosity, how do they make a game 'not available' to children?
That being said, Thycho's argument does hold water: Censorship is simply the suppression of speech. A ban on a game is censorship. Going over it with a black marker is also censorship. True, the government hasn't said 'well, we are going to cut these items out', but they do say 'if you want your games sold in XYZ then they can't have them'. Forcing some one to censor their work is the same as doing it for them. An argument against both of these as being bad isn't necessarily a slippery slope, it could simply be that you do not approve of either of these actions. Yes, banning a game out right is worse then censoring it, but both are still bad and should be stopped.
This is where I take issue with the ESRB and the MPAA. The rating system forces developers to self censor or else get a dreaded AO or NC-17 (amusing that AO is 18+ and NC-17 is 17), which means your game/movie will not be sold by ANY mainstream vendors, and you might as well not waste the $$ on getting it rated in the first place. Admittedly, this is better then the alternative of actual bans, and at least the MPAA takes mitigating factors into their ratings (IIRC Schindler's List should have been NC-17).
Only a quick explanation right now because I'm heading out, but it should be noted that the USK-rating board is an independet trade body, much like the MPAA or ERSB. Only if they refuse to give a game an age rating (i.e.: assume that it must not be played by children) can the governmental BPjM (after another testing) issue an indictment, after which advertising or selling the product where minors can see them carries a fee.
<!--quoteo(post=1711840:date=Jun 11 2009, 05:02 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jun 11 2009, 05:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711840"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you mean fee or fine?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> He means fine.
You might however even end up with some jail time.
Comments
<ul><li>Games are not actually censored in Germany. Censorship is defined as a pre-viewing of media that decides over its publication. In principle, I can publish anything I want over here.</li><li>Freedom of speech is limited by youth protection and anti-racism laws in Germany. As such, there are institutions that are allowed to redact racist media (Neo-Nazi material tends to fall under that heading), and institutions that can order media to be made inaccessible to minors (here defined as anyone below 18).</li><li>In practice, this means that if you want to offer your game in a space accessible to minors, it has to be approved by the Entertainment Software Self-Control Board (which is independent from the German state and did, for example, rate CS at 'our' PG16). If you don't want to do that, don't sell it where minors can see it.</li><li>Since publishers <i>like</i> to sell to minors, they will alter their games in ways that will make them acceptable to the board. Hence the tendency to bleed green. Yeah, we don't know how that improves things, either, but there's no rules system that can't be gamed.</li><li>In some cases (Epic, I'm looking at you), companies may decide that this process won't be economical for them, and not access the German market.</li></ul>
In any case, it is not that difficult for adults to get access to imported and therefore unrated games, and parental consent trumps any of the described rules. The system is, at worst, inconvenient. Frankly, I am not even convinced it is such a wrong way of doing things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The difference is between de jure censorship, which you're talking about, and de facto censorship, which I'm talking about. Maybe games aren't "actually" censored, but if they want to make any money, they have to censor themselves. It's like saying you have freedom of religion, but if you're Christian you have to pay twice as much in taxes. Sure, you have the freedom to choose, but one choice is economically ridiculous, which means you either have to censor yourself (while the state gets to pretend they're not forcing you to do so) or just not exercise the freedom in the first place and ignore Germany.
On the other hand, any random non-American knows about Eddie Murphy, Dennis Leary, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Dave Chappelle, Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, etc. Because unlike French and German comedians, they are excellent trendsetters and popular enough to be exported from their country and translated into whatever language you speak. You know all of them. Admit it. No one outside of germany knows those cats, and probably not most people <i>in</i> Germany.
And that fact that you had no sense of humour about my <i>obviously over the top joke</i> now actually proves: Germans have no idea what humor is. Thanks for hooking me up with more proof, Nem and Lol. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
And that fact that you had no sense of humour about my <i>obviously over the top joke</i> now actually proves: Germans have no idea what humor is. Thanks for hooking me up with more proof, Nem and Lol. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's just because American culture ends up much more widely exported than any other country. There are a million reasons for this, and Americans being inherently funnier is not one IMHO.
Actually, as everyone knows, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gpjk_MaCGM" target="_blank">the British wrote the funniest joke of all time.</a> Deadly stuff...
I just noticed that I misspelled 'Violent'. I am suck.
Isn't it a little arrogant of you to make yourself an expert on german stand-up comedy when you evidently knew nothing about it only two days ago? But today you claim that "most people in Germany don't know those cats?" <i>Really?</i> [Citation needed] I'm afraid.
As for Nem and I, don't worry. I think we're finding plenty to laugh at.
And that fact that you had no sense of humour about my <i>obviously over the top joke</i> now actually proves: Germans have no idea what humor is. Thanks for hooking me up with more proof, Nem and Lol. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I only know Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Jerry Seinfeld, Dave Chappelle.
Except for Chappelle (who's not funny at all), I only know them as actors.
American stand-up shows don't get broadcasted on German television, so I doubt that any "comedians" who aren't also movie stars are widely known in Germany.
Also, the american comedy stuff that does get shown over here (mostly sitcoms) is usually as flat as it can get.
I'll just fix that for you, old man. Shall I change your nappy while I'm at it?
On the subject: I don't see why games are judged any differently from other forms of media, say movies. In America it's perfectly legal for someone to sell an R18 rated game to a twelve year old, it's just merchant's discretion. The system works well enough, so why not just copy it across to games? I say there's little difference between pressing "X" to wrap a plastic bag around a hobo's face in a game and watching passively while someone is slowly killed by a fiendish clockwork device attached to their head in a movie. I don't see the distinction, does anyone else?
--Scythe--
What the anti-game folk can't seem to comprehend is the disconnect between moving a mouse and clicking (or using a controller and pressing X, or the shoulder trigger, or whatever you fancy console ownin' folk do) and actually doing it in real life. They seem to be of the opinion that doing it in the game makes you more likely to do it in real life, or even more bizarrely, actively trains you to do it in real life. If someone can't see the difference between playing a game and cappin' some noob in the face and getting a gun and shooting someone in real life, they have mental problems that are going to surface whether they play a game or not.
I guess once computer tech reaches a point where it's complete and total immersion, where you move your arm to move the character's arm, and you feel their pain and sensations, there may be some merit to those complaints. But at the moment it's still a fairly big disconnect between a game and real life, even with that cool new thing they showed at E3 where it tracks your body movements.
Wow, I can not form sentences in english today. Good thing my oral english exam is tomorrow!
Though, once we have true VR, nobody will care about "killer games" anymore. We'll all be too busy playing Super Magical Harem Land. Until some mentally unstable young man flips out and rapes all his classmates during the lunch break.
I just noticed that I misspelled 'Violent'. I am suck.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Zat's not <b>funny</b>! *slap slap slap slap*
Hey kids! Watch Nem make an argument he's only semi-comfortable with, because he feels it deserves to be raised!
You know, I like the idea of free speech as unencroachable principle. I, too, have been buldegoned by "Think of the children!" once too often.
Still, I acknowledge that games can have an effect on people. If they didn't, what point would there be to them? Moreso, I acknowledge that games had profound effects on me, personally. I know that games like Alpha Centauri, Deus Ex, Psychonauts or Mafia have made me think, laugh and cry. This is why I want to work in the field, after all.
Now, if I say that games can have positive effects on people - and as I noted, a large part of my life's choices are based on this opinion - then what would you call me if I claimed that this same medium <i>can not</i> have negative effects? It'd be like saying that films can be used to create masterpieces like Schindler's List, while stuff like Leni Riefenstein's (beautifully shot and composed) Nazi propaganda is impossible. Of course it isn't. If a medium can influence people, it can influence them in negative ways.
And so, yes, there <i>is</i> stuff I just don't want in the hands of children. I don't want my two-year old half-brother to experience the contemporary equivalent of Manhunt (or Saw, or Cannibal Corpse's music) in ten years' time.
Of course, he won't, because I'll be around and be able to warn his parents if the issue should come up. And so, many (including parts of me) will now argue that it's the parents' responsibility to keep this stuff out of a child's hands.
Quick show of hands here - whom's parents had an exact idea of what games their children owned and played?
We live in an age of cheap information. I'd argue that if it was not possible for my parents, who are very intelligent people and really tried, to keep tabs on what I played, it won't be possible for today's parents, either. Keep in mind: I'm not saying that the parents aren't still the most suitable instance of youth protection, just saying that they might have a valid need for assistance.
The system implemented in Germany still permits a games market that sees about 20% of its revenue based on action games, which is essentially equivalent to other national markets. Apart from very rare exceptions, the same products are available over here (AFAIK, the youth protection scheme claimed two plausible releases in the last five years). Additionally, as the group of grown-up gamers continues to grow, it becomes easier and easier to access unaltered games. Even today, if I were so inclined, it'd take me a visit to the local game store to get the unaltered version TF2 (frankly, I don't care enough about the shape of the gibs).
Further, if a game could be demonstrated to have artistic merit (according to the widest definition I'm aware of; a definition that includes the fields of satire and similiar political speech), it suddenly would be subject to Article 5(3) of the Grundgesetz and <i>could not</i> be redacted in any way. Nobody had to try yet, though.
Sure, localization costs for the German market are somewhat higher. I'm not certain whether that's too high a price to pay.
<b>Professional stuntman on a closed course. Do not attempt.</b>
Where does it end? You are not going to stop psychotic children from being nutso. I was just watching a show about a juvenille prison in California, where children there murdered 26 other children inmates and staff, besides the ones they murdered to get thrown in there. Was it the video games and movies? I doubt it - <i>they did this from 1894 to the 1940's</i>.
To quote Chris Rock (Ha, in your face, Lolfighter!):
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206636/quotes" target="_blank">"Everybody is wanting to know what music were the kids listening to, or what movies were they watching. Who gives a **** what they was watching! Whatever happened to crazy? What, you can't be crazy no more? Should we eliminate crazy from the dictionary?"</a>
Now maybe I can go find some famous German comedian quotes on IMDB for ol' barrel of laughs Nemesis...
So noone took the time to translate and explain memorable quotes from German comedians at an English website...
Talk about surpise...
(Taking this as a stand-in to MonsE's post as well, just to snub him <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> )
I tend to make the exact same argument, but if we're honest, it's a straw man. A convenient one, because those "Games turn our children into murderers!"-arguments have been thrown up by the opposition, but still: Even if the monocausal explanations proposed by the Killerspiele-people are wrong - and they are, ridiculously so - that does not rule out negative effects incurred by experiencing video games.
Many like to note that games like CS or NS train teamwork and strategic thinking - clear-cut changes of behaviour, though they are positive ones. None of us will argue that by playing these games, one becomes a full-fledged strategist, but there's some effect there. Conversely, I'm willing to acknowledge that there can be a weak aggression-enhancing effect to the consumption of games - and most rigorous research I'm aware of supports this (with magnitudes of one to six percent of variance explanation).
Aggression does not equate violence, and a weak effect means that there are usually other variables involved until a true change occurs in a person, but again: I can think of a couple of reasons why impressionable minds shouldn't get easy access to something that will - all developmental psychologists agree there - be more likely to influence them in significant ways than it would be for a grown person.
And let me note, this is not about violence alone (though that one gets the most play 'cause action games are so prevalent). More interesting arguments about frustration thresholds, mysognistic stereotypes, and conflict resolution patterns are waiting in the wings <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsE+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MonsE)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now maybe I can go find some famous German comedian quotes on IMDB for ol' barrel of laughs Nemesis...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try IMDB.de <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Also Harald Schmidt is more like the unfunny clone of David Letterman... But what about Otto Waalkes, Werner (comics), Rudi Carell (Oh wait he's actually Dutch <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />). Meh, point is. If you don't speak the language GTFO with your "facts" <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
No, young children should probably not be watching graphic violence/sex in most cases. However the thought of the govn't banning these things (or even restricting them) rubs me the wrong way. As it stand there is no govn't legislation on movies or video games, only self regulation via the MPAA and ESRB. Now, this is not much better as far as I can see (it forces developers to fit into a type if they want their games/movie sold), but it did keep the govn't from stepping in and regulating. All of this can also still be trumped by a parent/guardian allowing/disallowing their kids to see/play stuff, thus leaving the ultimate power in the hands of the parents.
However, that then brings up these questions:
1) Do parents want/need help from the govn't to make informed decisions/enforce their decisions?
2) Do we trust parents to make wise decisions even if they are informed?
It's almost semantics when you say the games aren't banned, because if they want to make any money in Germany they have to censor themselves with robots or green blood or whatever. The argument against banning them is the same as the argument about censoring them.
Which is beside the point, actually, because games like Quake 3, El Matador, or Gears of War 2, all of which were not made available to children, sold very well over here as far as I know.
Can it be - and this is not meant mockingly, it's a question I had to ask myself - that we invoke the slippery slope mainly because it makes our arguments infinitely easier?
Which is beside the point, actually, because games like Quake 3, El Matador, or Gears of War 2, all of which were not made available to children, sold very well over here as far as I know.
Can it be - and this is not meant mockingly, it's a question I had to ask myself - that we invoke the slippery slope mainly because it makes our arguments infinitely easier?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Out of curiosity, how do they make a game 'not available' to children?
That being said, Thycho's argument does hold water:
Censorship is simply the suppression of speech. A ban on a game is censorship. Going over it with a black marker is also censorship. True, the government hasn't said 'well, we are going to cut these items out', but they do say 'if you want your games sold in XYZ then they can't have them'. Forcing some one to censor their work is the same as doing it for them. An argument against both of these as being bad isn't necessarily a slippery slope, it could simply be that you do not approve of either of these actions. Yes, banning a game out right is worse then censoring it, but both are still bad and should be stopped.
This is where I take issue with the ESRB and the MPAA. The rating system forces developers to self censor or else get a dreaded AO or NC-17 (amusing that AO is 18+ and NC-17 is 17), which means your game/movie will not be sold by ANY mainstream vendors, and you might as well not waste the $$ on getting it rated in the first place. Admittedly, this is better then the alternative of actual bans, and at least the MPAA takes mitigating factors into their ratings (IIRC Schindler's List should have been NC-17).
He means fine.
You might however even end up with some jail time.