This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Rankkor
There is an obvious difference between killing innocent people in a murder simulator than there is fighting literal demons from Hell.
I agree that there's a difference. One would think that a game where all you do is kill demons everywhere, wouldn't get much flack from the media, no matter how violent. But DooM was subjected to the same types of complaints as HatreD does. Despite having acceptable targets, people still wanted it removed from stores back in its day.
So one article claimed that. Sure. The majority of other people claiming that they were Nazis were not doing so because of the minorities in the game.
Really? I haven't read any other than did. Most of the controversy I've heard about the game, was about its violence, with certain groups of people spinning the story to try to make the game look like something its not (Such as that website claiming its about killing ethnic minorities, or Feminist Frequency claiming its about killing women)
Also, have you considered that you're sensationalizing this just as much as the people you seem to despise are?
Really? how so?
You're falling right into their trap, and frankly I expected better from you. You never struck me as a hypocrite, and I'd hate to see it start now.
What? D= how?
Post by
Monday
Sorry, I'm being dramatic. I'm mostly just concerned that you're annoyed at these people opposed to the game and claim that they're sensationalizing this, and then turn around and talk about freedom of speech and whatnot in a somewhat hyperbolic fashion. To me, it seems like you're doing the same thing they are, just from the opposite viewpoint.
Really? I haven't read any other than did. Most of the controversy I've heard about the game, was about its violence, with certain groups of people spinning the story to try to make the game look like something its not (Such as that website claiming its about killing ethnic minorities, or Feminist Frequency claiming its about killing women
I'm just talking about the claims that they're Nazis. It originally started over their shirt, and not the actual content. Most people are aware that they're not, now.
Post by
asakawa
This game (Hatred) should absolutely be "Adults Only". As should all the GTA games. I don't know the ESRB but PEGI (European equivalent) gave all the GTA games an 18 rating. Games should be properly rated and their sale properly restricted, just like we do with films.
If the issue is that bad games journalism (or more often bad mainstream journalism when covering games) usually takes a myopic view of a game in order to create controversy then sure, bad journalism is bad. I'm right there with ya. Fox news in America recently reported that England's Birmingham City is 100% Muslim and a "no-go zone" for non-Muslims (At
21%
there's around as many Muslims as atheists in Birmingham). Just like the idiot that sees a youtube clip of a GTA character killing a woman and decries the game as "misogynist murder sim!", I imagine that someone saw a mosque in Birmingham on Google maps and went to town. Foolish people say foolish stuff. We should repudiate it and ridicule the ignoramuses (alliteration is fun).
So, what's the concern? You say "this kind of media censorship" - do you mean that the media are calling out for the game to be banned or for shops to remove it from shelves? That isn't censorship. Perhaps I'm missing your real point Rank.
Btw, do you have a link to the Feminist Frequency or Anita Sarkeesian comment about the game? I couldn't find it.
Post by
Rankkor
This game (Hatred) should absolutely be "Adults Only". As should all the GTA games. I don't know the ESRB but PEGI (European equivalent) gave all the GTA games an 18 rating. Games should be properly rated and their sale properly restricted, just like we do with films.
Actually, the ESRB gave all the GTA games an M rating (Which is more than a fair rating). Though to be fair, I'm not exactly sure what's the difference between M and AO. Maybe a visit to wikipedia is in order.
If the issue is that bad games journalism (or more often bad mainstream journalism when covering games) usually takes a myopic view of a game in order to create controversy then sure, bad journalism is bad. I'm right there with ya. Fox news in America recently reported that England's Birmingham City is 100% Muslim and a "no-go zone" for non-Muslims (At
21%
there's around as many Muslims as atheists in Birmingham). Just like the idiot that sees a youtube clip of a GTA character killing a woman and decries the game as "misogynist murder sim!", I imagine that someone saw a mosque in Birmingham on Google maps and went to town. Foolish people say foolish stuff. We should repudiate it and ridicule the ignoramuses (alliteration is fun).
Anything anyone says about Fox News, isn't ever gonna surprise me. Remember how they went to town with Mass Effect, just because someone on the production team heard someone said "it was like porn", and that right there, was the whole extent of their research, nothing more. With those 4 little words, they created this big polemic on how the game was essentially "Playboy In Space". They're the biggest disgrace to journalism I've seen (Along with the media here in venezuela, but that's a different can of worms for different reasons)
So, what's the concern? You say "this kind of media censorship" - do you mean that the media are calling out for the game to be banned or for shops to remove it from shelves?
That isn't censorship.
Yes it is. Videogames, are very much like movies, books, TV shows, paintings, etc. They're a form of expression, They're a form of art. Are they
good
art? depends on who you ask, but they're a form of media, used to express an idea. They're every bit as valid as any painting, or sculpture, or movie, or comic book, or tv show, or book, or movie, etc etc.
When someone demands (not asks, demands) that a game is prohibited from sale, exclusively on the grounds that they don't like the content, that right there is censorship. Its no different than trying to make magazines like Charlie stop printing, just because some people are offended by their satire articles.
The real solution when someone doesn't like a game, is to simply not buy it. If a child is getting a hold of a game with innapropriate content, that's the parent's fault. There's so many amazing parental control tools available these days to prevent a kid from being exposed to elements one doesn't like. When a game with content that is offensive to some, is called to be removed from stores, that right there man, is censorship of media. The game was briefly removed from the steam greenlight system exclusively out of the controversy alone (But then Steam apologized to the developers and put the game back on)
Btw, do you have a link to the Feminist Frequency or Anita Sarkeesian comment about the game? I couldn't find it.
:S me neither, I had both links and was planning on putting them both when I initially wrote the post, but then my piece of crap PC rebooted on me, and all the tabs I had opened on my browser were closed.(##RESPBREAK##)520##DELIM##Rankkor##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
So, what's the concern? You say "this kind of media censorship" - do you mean that the media are calling out for the game to be banned or for shops to remove it from shelves?
That isn't censorship.
Yes it is. Videogames, are very much like movies, books, TV shows, paintings, etc. They're a form of expression, They're a form of art.
You think I'm saying it's not censorship because I don't think games aren't valid expression? Hi, have we met?
When someone demands (not asks, demands) that a game is prohibited from sale, exclusively on the grounds that they don't like the content, that right there is censorship.
Nope. When the government prohibits the production and sale,
then
it's censorship. When valve removes a game from it's store, that's just a private company making a decision that's well within their rights to make.
Free Speech includes the stuff you don't like and people calling for games to be banned, for increased censorship - for the free speech of others to be curtailed! - should also be protected speech. They can call for and campaign for anything they wish. I respect their right to do so but, of course, I'm not gonna vote for idiocy like that. In effect you're trying to do to
them
what they're trying to do to this game. If I hate Van Goch's paintings then I'm well within my rights to hold a placard outside of galleries, write articles online about how it should be banned and destroyed. You're well within your rights to ignore me and go and enjoy the paintings. I'm not censoring anything.
Just rebut them. Disagree vociferously. I'm right there with you. Calling it censorship is hyperbole and doesn't help your cause.
Btw, do you have a link to the Feminist Frequency or Anita Sarkeesian comment about the game? I couldn't find it.
:S me neither, I had both links and was planning on putting them both when I initially wrote the post, but then my piece of crap PC rebooted on me, and all the tabs I had opened on my browser were closed.
I'd appreciate if you could find it. People have a tendency to push the Feminist button these days whenever they want to cook up a storm. I'd rather see what was actually said rather than a report of a report.
Post by
Rankkor
You think I'm saying it's not censorship because I don't think games aren't valid expression? Hi, have we met?
Sorry, misinterpreted what you said. My bad.
If I hate Van Goch's paintings then I'm well within my rights to hold a placard outside of galleries, write articles online about how it should be banned and destroyed. You're well within your rights to ignore me and go and enjoy the paintings. I'm not censoring anything.
That's not how I see it.
When I can't enjoy something, just because someone else doesn't like it, and they prevent me from consuming what I like, that, to me, is censorship. It doesn't matter if the prohibition came from the government, or from a store caving into a group of people arming up a fuss.
Charlie Hebdo wasn't attacked by a government, it was attacked by a group of extremists, not associated with the french government, and yet, their attack, fueled by nothing more than disliking the message Charlie was spreading,
is
a form of censorship. It failed, because Charlie is still printing, but just as that one failed, there are many others that succeed, either because of the threat of violence, or the threat of lawsuits. (*)
Stores caving in to a group of people, out of fear of reprisal, by removing an item from their shelves, based on nothing more than the group of people threatening action dislike the message within that the product promotes, that my friend, is the very textbook definition of what censorship means.
Editorials removing a polemic book from printing, just because a bunch of people are offended by the contents of that book and are threatening to take legal action/boycot/etc if they don't cave in, is the definition of what censorship means.
A store removing a game from their shelves, based on nothing more than a bunch of people arming a fuss because they don't like the content of the game, and are threatening to take action, that is censorship. (Happened to Hatred, Happened to GTAV on Australia)
Are these stores entitled to do so? yes they are. Is it any less censorship because of that? Hell no.
Nope. When the government prohibits the production and sale, then it's censorship.
Maybe I'm projecting, after all, my government
has
prohibited the sale, distribution, and possession of videogames within our borders, so seeing this form of content blockade elsewhere, is very infuriating for me.
That being said, I still believe its censorship. Not the fault of the store, they're just doing damage control, to avoid bad PR, to avoid a lawsuit, to avoid possible violent reprisal against them. Its not their fault. Its the fault of people forcing others to shut up, just because they don't like what they're saying.
(*) Disclaimer: Yes I'm aware that there's a difference between wanting to shut someone else up via boycott, legal action, etc, and trying to shut someone else up via actual physical violence, and the threat of death. One is more extreme and wrong than the other, but to me, both versions are wrong.
I'd appreciate if you could find it. People have a tendency to push the Feminist button these days whenever they want to cook up a storm. I'd rather see what was actually said rather than a report of a report.
I'll look for it again tonight. Normally I don't "push that button" but this particular case reminded me too much of what Fox News did about Mass Effect (AKA: take a 30 second cutscene that doesn't show anything explicit, in a game where the protagonist can be male or female, and pretend that the entire 40 hour game was about a man choosing how many women he wants to bang in an explicit sex-fueled orgy) and it struck a chord with me.(##RESPBREAK##)520##DELIM##Rankkor##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
Are these stores entitled to do so? yes they are. Is it any less censorship because of that? Hell no.
It really is. But, look, we disagree what constitutes actual censorship. That's fine.
Look at it from the perspective of a store owner. They may decide to remove or not stock a product due to the product being something that they don't want to stock. I'm sure you would see this is entirely acceptable. If they don't have a particular opinion about a product then they may decide to in order to cut losses or to tighten their relationship with the demographic they see as their core raising revenue. In terms of cutting losses this may be that they don't think anyone will buy it and they avoid stock remaining unsold on their shelves, or their main demographic is so against the product that they would lose more by that demographic lowering spending than they would gain by the purchasers of the specific item buying it in their shops.
Honestly, all this is fine. Capitalism at work. Store A panders to their bigoted, idiot demographic (Store A happy), Store B (smaller, up-and-comer, trying to carve a niche) scores big points as the brave rebel by selling the item (Store B happy).
This is how it works. For every major outlet that caves in to pressure from fools there's another outlet who will profit from their decision. If the balance of opinion is so greatly weighted against the controversial item that no other outlet can make money by stocking it either then your problem isn't censorship, it's that nobody wants the item. In other words, a kickstarter that never gets backed isn't censored, it's just that nobody cares enough to make it happen.
Using terrorism and consumerism to push your opinion aren't even in the same ball park. I really think that's a distasteful comparison. Boycotts, articles, even demonstrations are what people are supposed to do when they're opposed to something. If legal action can get any traction then there's a case for a legal breach that is worthy of investigation. If the threat of legal action can cause distress or significant costs even when there is no serious case for a legal breach then the laws need tightening (this may be true but look to your law makers to squash junk lawsuits better).
Your criticism of the people who are against this game and want for its existence to be halted is exactly the same as their criticism of the game. You disagree with them strongly and think they should not be allowed to do what they're doing. They disagree strongly with the game and think it should not be allowed to go on sale. I disagree with all of you but encourage you all to have your say. Either way I'm not getting that game, it looks awful.
I'll look for it again tonight. Normally I don't "push that button" but this particular case reminded me too much of what Fox News did about Mass Effect (AKA: take a 30 second cutscene that doesn't show anything explicit, in a game where the protagonist can be male or female, and pretend that the entire 40 hour game was about a man choosing how many women he wants to bang in an explicit sex-fueled orgy) and it struck a chord with me.I understand. I agree with a great deal of Sarkeesian's gender-based criticism of games and have found that the things that I have not agreed with have often been misreported and it's the report I've disagreed with rather than the original comment.. I don't need to agree with everything she or Feminist Frequency says so I don't mind it happening in this case but I'd appreciate knowing for sure what I'm disagreeing with instead of getting it filtered (possibly) several times through some (possibly) biassed lenses.
Post by
Rankkor
Look at it from the perspective of a store owner. They may decide to remove or not stock a product due to the product being something that they don't want to stock. I'm sure you would see this is entirely acceptable. If they don't have a particular opinion about a product then they may decide to in order to cut losses or to tighten their relationship with the demographic they see as their core raising revenue. In terms of cutting losses this may be that they don't think anyone will buy it and they avoid stock remaining unsold on their shelves, or their main demographic is so against the product that they would lose more by that demographic lowering spending than they would gain by the purchasers of the specific item buying it in their shops.
I agree man, like I said, this is not the fault of the store, they're a business, and they need to make a profit to stay in business. When they make decisions, they make them with the business's interest first hand, and that's completely okay.
I said so above, where I disagree is with the people who forced them into that position in the first place.
Honestly, all this is fine. Capitalism at work. Store A panders to their bigoted, idiot demographic (Store A happy), Store B (smaller, up-and-comer, trying to carve a niche) scores big points as the brave rebel by selling the item (Store B happy).
I think you forget the part where Store B has to inflate the prices because due to the low sales of the product, they have to charge extra to make an actual profit. I've seen it happen here, so you can understand why it pisses me off.
This is how it works. For every major outlet that caves in to pressure from fools there's another outlet who will profit from their decision. If the balance of opinion is so greatly weighted against the controversial item that no other outlet can make money by stocking it either then your problem isn't censorship, it's that nobody wants the item. In other words, a kickstarter that never gets backed isn't censored, it's just that nobody cares enough to make it happen.
The problem however, is when the boycotters manage to make it so that no outlet for the media under attack exists. If you hate a painter, and manage to convince every single art gallery in your city to not display his works, you're essentially denying everyone else who does like the painter, the chance to enjoy his work.
Using terrorism and consumerism to push your opinion aren't even in the same ball park. I really think that's a distasteful comparison.
Look, I said that I understood perfectly that there's a vast difference between using terrorism and physical violence to block certain content, and using legal and non-violent ways. I get that. Doesn't mean I have to think the latter is acceptable.
Boycotts, articles, even demonstrations are what people are supposed to do when they're opposed to something. If legal action can get any traction then there's a case for a legal breach that is worthy of investigation. If the threat of legal action can cause distress or significant costs even when there is no serious case for a legal breach then the laws need tightening (this may be true but look to your law makers to squash junk lawsuits better).
Not quite the same. I'll elaborate on the next segment.
Your criticism of the people who are against this game and want for its existence to be halted is exactly the same as their criticism of the game.
There is a vast
VAST
difference between them and me.
They see a form of expression that they find repulsive, and are taking active steps to prevent that form of expression from seeing the light of day.
I see a form of expression that I find repulsive, and I'm saying that I find them repulsive. I'm not taking any actions to
force them to shut up.
They however, are, taking actions to force someone else to shut up.
You disagree with them strongly and think they should not be allowed to
do
what they're doing.
Exactly. Heavy emphasis on the word "do". Saying something, expressing yourself, is a fundamental right every person has.
DOING
something, to prevent others from expressing themselves however, is something I find repulsive.
Lemme give you an example:
I hate communism. I've made no secret of it, I'm one of the most anti-communist people on the world. Lets pretend that the guy next door to me however, loves communism, he thinks its the best thing to have ever happened to the world.
I have a right to say I hate it. He has the right to say he loves it. I can express to the guy that I think his ideas suck. And he can express back to me that his ideas are awesome and I'm in the wrong.
You know where the line is drawn? when I take steps to prevent the guy from spouting how awesome communism is. Doesn't matter if I do it through non-violent ways, I'm still pushing for the other guy to shut up. If I'm allowed to talk, he should be allowed to talk too. If I disagree with his views, the only action I should take is in the voting booths, to make sure no communist politician wins. I should never EVER attempt to shut this man up. This includes boycotting his speeches, vandalizing his fliers or posters, organizing fellow anti-communist friends to ensure his voice isn't heard.
The people who hate the game? they have every right to say so. By all means, scream to the four winds how much you despise it, give the game negative reviews and of course, never buy it. But taking any sort of steps to prohibiting complete strangers from buying it? that's taking it WAY too far.
I disagree with all of you but encourage you all to have your say.
Well of course, because that's how differences of opinion should be handled. You don't agree with my point of view, and you explicitly say so, but you're not taking any actual steps to prevent me to speak up. That's the big difference.
That example of the painter you gave? IF you just say that the painter sucks, if you give negative reviews to his work, if you tell others about how much of a talentless hack he is and how offensive his art is, you're excercising your free speech right.
If you prevent others from seeing his work just because you don't happen to like it? that's taking it too far. Don't you think?
Either way I'm not getting that game, it looks awful.
Well yes =P on that note we agree. The game is average at best, mediocre at worst. The actual game isn't important. What incenses me, is the lengths some people will go to suppress a form of media, just because they don't happen to like it.
That's despicable. if they don't like a game, they can say so, and avoid it, and recommend others to avoid it. But prohibiting others? no way.
How would you feel if some anti-alcohol nutjob smacks your beer out of your hands just because he hates beer? If the nutjob just tells you that beer is bad, well cool. If he actually takes steps to take that beer of your hands, he's a terrible person.(##RESPBREAK##)520##DELIM##Rankkor##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
The problem however, is when the boycotters manage to make it so that no outlet for the media under attack exists. If you hate a painter, and manage to convince every single art gallery in your city to not display his works, you're essentially denying everyone else who does like the painter, the chance to enjoy his work.
This is completely nonsensical. If there's no legal recourse and all we're talking about is the tide of public opinion then if there's a market for something then there will emerge a vendor that will sell it.
And this leads to my question here, what exactly are they doing to stop you from playing the game if you wanted to? An Adult rating only stops people who patently shouldn't be playing it anyway. Articles (especially ones that present factual inaccuracies) don't prevent anyone from doing anything. Perhaps I'm missing the part where someone burnt a game shop down or something.
Post by
Rankkor
This is completely nonsensical. If there's no legal recourse and all we're talking about is the tide of public opinion then if there's a market for something then there will emerge a vendor that will sell it.
Ask the people in Australia, where Saints Row 4 was prohibited from being sold. It was eventually revoked, but the people who disliked the content of the game, actually had their way and prevented others from enjoying something they didn't like. And in order for the banning of the game to be revoked, the game developers had to remove 2 weapons from the game, and 1 mission. AKA: Censorship.
South Park: The Stick of Truth also had to censor 2 scenes of it, in order to be sold in Australia.
Recently, they also got the 2 biggest chain stores to stop selling GTA 5. There's lots of cases of non-government enforced forms of censorship where people actually manage to suppress a form of media, by blocking it off a specific region. That's despicable.
And this leads to my question here, what exactly are they doing to stop you from playing the game if you wanted to? An Adult rating only stops people who patently shouldn't be playing it anyway.
An AO rating is a death sentence to a game's financial viability, as every large retailer will refuse to stock AO games, and every single one of the current major console makers refuse to license them. It differs heavily from the Mature Rating, which is similar, and also prevents minors from getting access to the game, but still makes it economically viable.
When a game gets the AO however, its extremely limited the amount of profits it will generate, which in turn makes prospects of sequels unlikely at best unless heavy content censorship is involved to ensure the AO rating isn't given again.
Its similar to when you want to get rid of a TV show in the US, you put it on the dreaded "Friday Night Death Sloth".
The show is still broadcasting, sure, but its doing so at one of the slots with the least amount of viewers, ensuring low ratings, and a swift cancellation.
Articles (especially ones that present factual inaccuracies) don't prevent anyone from doing anything.
By themselves, the articles are harmless. But if enough people start repeating their (Factually inaccurate messages) that's where the more drastic measures are taken. It was articles like those, from extremist ultranationalists, that got every single videogame abolished from my country, believe it or not. (Granted, in that case, the liars were backed by a tyrannical regime, but still.....)(##RESPBREAK##)520##DELIM##Rankkor##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
Australia certainly does have very strict, true government censorship of games. I think it's OTT but that's their politics over there. They need to campaign to change things, vote for different leaders and make that happen. Germany has, perhaps a more understandable shyness about certain things in games, and the government prevents their release unless altered over there.
Censorship does exist in the world, I'm not saying it doesn't. What I am saying is that the GTA:V debacle over there absolutely is not censorship. It's the perfect example of what we're talking about. Everybody is doing the right thing. I disagree with the petition which is idiotic but that's a perfectly reasonable way to campaign for something you think is important. I think the retailers were wrong to think that there was such a tide of public opinion about the game based on the crappy petition but they made the judgement that it was better for their business to remove the title and that's absolutely fine too. It provokes an interesting discussion about (especially violent) games and their public perception but it's not censorship.
Game (and film) ratings and classification in America, such as I understand it as an outsider, seems very weird to me. AFAIK it's non-governmental, self-regulatory and unenforced aside from opt-in, though everyone generally does opt in. They wield a certain amount of power for sure but I'm not sure how one goes about changing things in that system (though films like This Film Is Not Yet Rated probably help to nudge things along - definite recommendation!)
Censorship in general these days is a little different to how it used to be (or how the perception often remains). No ratings board (of any reasonable reputation) actually cuts scenes and so on, They just refuse classification (at specific levels) and give notes on the things that would need to be cut for classifications to be given. The production company then makes the cuts and reapplies for classification. I know this is a subtle difference but it is important because it does put a certain amount of power back in the hands of the producers. They are told exactly what is problematic and given the chance to remove it. When the first Hunger Games film came to Britain the cut they submitted for classification earned a 15 rating. The producers wanted a 12A rating and the BBFC told them exactly what needed to be cut to make that happen. The cuts were made by the producers and the film released as a 12A with just a few seconds of footage removed.
If an AO rating is as bad for business as you say then presumably the producers of the game could make the required changes to bring it in as an M. That said, I imagine that they never dreamed they'd have this kind of amazing publicity and will actually use the AO rating as a selling point - the game devs do appear to be douchey enough to relish the rating and the notoriety.
However, is there any evidence that the ESRB is so bad at their job that they gave that rating based on infamy and hyperbole rather than by playing the game themselves and deciding on the rating? If so then again the problem is the ESRB and not the bad articles - campaign for
them
to change. I doubt there really is evidence of this though, the game is certainly extreme (unlike GTA the very purpose is murder, it rewards killing innocents) and I imagine the ESRB wanted to reflect its extremity in their rating. From what I have seen (I haven't played it so my opinion is as credible as the writers of the crappy articles - i.e. not very) it is entirely deserving of that rating. GTA games being at the lower but still non-child rating seems to fit well within that system.
Edit: You think the articles are stupid and the people ill-informed and misguided and foolish. You want to register your annoyance with the whole mess and decry the stupidity of the easily led.
I get ya, I agree.
It's not a free speech issue or a censorship issue. It's just not.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Rankkor
Lost for words over this .
It's sad how low some people will sink.
Sad to say this but that's a daily occurrence here. A man was shot a few blocks from where I live, and no authorities arrived for up to
nine hours
after his death. By then, his body had been scavenged of everything he had on him, leaving him quite literally naked on the street.
Yes, people are desperate enough to steal the blood-soaked bullet-ridden clothes off a freshly killed man if no cops are around to stop you.
Usually when anyone is killed, its up to the families to protect the body until the authorities arrive, and depending on the location, they can take from 2 hours to almost half a day to get there.
Post by
asakawa
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-34869620
:,(
Post by
Rankkor
Sad sad thing that was :(
Hopefully her death wont be in vain, and more people in her position will be treated better.(##RESPBREAK##)520##DELIM##Rankkor##DELIM##
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.