papalazeru wrote:c'mon....If we are all going to 'Cry Wolf' about media and censorship...why don't books have a rating?
papalazeru wrote:If that's the case...put ratings on books.
Whose to say someone reads Mein Campf and then goes round killing everyone right? If they can do it with so much media why not censor or rate books?
papalazeru wrote:c'mon....If we are all going to 'Cry Wolf' about media and censorship...why don't books have a rating?
papalazeru wrote:Exactly...but I don't see anyone complaining about books 'cept some silly fundamentalist muslims about the 'Satanic Rites'.
Pacino86845 wrote:papalazeru wrote:Exactly...but I don't see anyone complaining about books 'cept some silly fundamentalist muslims about the 'Satanic Rites'.
That would be "The Satanic Verses," and lots of people have complained about books and continue to do so.
Doc Holliday wrote:Pacino86845 wrote:papalazeru wrote:Exactly...but I don't see anyone complaining about books 'cept some silly fundamentalist muslims about the 'Satanic Rites'.
That would be "The Satanic Verses," and lots of people have complained about books and continue to do so.
Chavs for example - most often when either
a) the pop-up doesn't work,
or b) when they "already had that sticker...."
MonkeyM666 wrote:Oh come on now, even though books are violent and such they're pretty different from visual media. You don't see someone get killed, you imagine it. I'm not saying that books shouldn't be rated, or can't frak you up and scare you but to hold them on the same level as games or films, in the same convo as Manhunt 2 where is a bit flippant IMHO.
MonkeyM666 wrote:Yeah but I read about disembowelment in school, I didn't act it out with a wii controller or see it in full Technicolor glory.
I just don't think that books are on the same level as it doesn't take imagination to see a games violence, it's shown to you. The imagination of the director/creator is what’s used not your own. A kids imagination may not be the same as a 38 year old filmmaker from Holland.
ThisIsTheGirl wrote:I think what Papa is saying is that when people do complain about books, their complaints are largely -and IMO correctly- ignored. But in the case of videogames, any dissenting voices are amplified, usually by the media.
As for the difference between books and games - yes, they ARE different. In my opinion, books are much, much worse.
Like you say Monkey - you don't see, you IMAGINE. So somebody who sees a character get killed in a game has merely witnessed an external, virtual event. Somebody who reads the same thing in a book, may have been invited to get inside the mind of the killer, to think as they do - and, in some way, to imagine what it would actually be like to kill somebody.
I find violent imagery in books stays with me for a lot longer than imagery from movies or games - because in a book, you make the pictures yourself, and they are likely to be far worse than anything you can create with some nifty CGI and a balloon full of fake blood. In books, everything is internalised in the reader. This is partly why I have choosen my books very carefully ever since I read American Psycho back in the early 90s....
papalazeru wrote:What I'm trying to say (nice try in putting words in my mouth)
MonkeyM666 wrote:haha... Well you've all made very good points. I know exactly what you're all saying and it's fair enough and I do agree, to a point (I did post that above, I'm sure that I did) I'm just not sure if the issue of books is on par with games and films with the mind of an impressionable child. Books do have an internal censor, the language barrier. A 6 year old kid couldn’t read or understand Poe or Mein Kampf, but can completely understand when someone is seen torn asunder, or for games ripping someone in two.
papalazeru wrote:MonkeyM666 wrote:haha... Well you've all made very good points. I know exactly what you're all saying and it's fair enough and I do agree, to a point (I did post that above, I'm sure that I did) I'm just not sure if the issue of books is on par with games and films with the mind of an impressionable child. Books do have an internal censor, the language barrier. A 6 year old kid couldn’t read or understand Poe or Mein Kampf, but can completely understand when someone is seen torn asunder, or for games ripping someone in two.
OK...you bring up whether kids can understand but the bible is taught in schools which has very graphic imagery, especially Judas spilling his guts on a field.
@ TITG...It's not about complaining about books, it's more about there's no censorship surrounding books yet other mediums there is.
Lolita is a prime example, if you took it at it's most exploitative level, it's paedophilia (looking at it from a Daily Mail perspective), yet it's also highly regarded as a literary work and yet if anyone were to post a paedophilic story on the net you would be arrested or lynch mobbed.
papalazeru wrote: @ TITG...It's not about complaining about books, it's more about there's no censorship surrounding books yet other mediums there is.
Lolita is a prime example, if you took it at it's most exploitative level, it's paedophilia (looking at it from a Daily Mail perspective), yet it's also highly regarded as a literary work and yet if anyone were to post a paedophilic story on the net you would be arrested or lynch mobbed.
Due to its subject matter, Nabokov was unable to find an American publisher for Lolita. After four refused, he finally resorted to the Olympia Press in Paris. Although the first printing of 5,000 copies sold out, there were no substantial reviews. Eventually, at the end of 1954, Graham Greene, in an interview with the (London) Times, called it one of the best novels of 1954. This statement provoked a response from the (London) Sunday Express whose editor called it "the filthiest book I have ever read" and "sheer unrestrained pornography." British Customs officers were then instructed by a panicked Home Office to seize all copies entering the United Kingdom. In December 1956 the French followed suit and the Minister of the Interior banned Lolita (the ban lasted for two years). Its eventual British publication by Weidenfeld & Nicolson caused a scandal which contributed to the end of the political career of one of the publishers, Nigel Nicolson. [1]
By complete contrast, American officials were initially nervous, but the first American edition was issued without problems by G.P. Putnam's Sons in 1958, and was a bestseller, the first book since Gone with the Wind to sell 100,000 copies in the first three weeks of publication.
Today, it is considered by many one of the finest novels written in the 20th century. In 1998, it was named the fourth greatest English language novel of the 20th century by the Modern Library.
papalazeru wrote:It could be one of the finest games of the 21st Century.
MonkeyM666 wrote:papalazeru wrote:It could be one of the finest games of the 21st Century.
BIG BIG CALL PAPA!
Maybe it would be.... you never know. I'd say that the body hardwired Halo 12 that comes out in 2098 will kick its ass...
An investigation will be held as how to prevent underage children to buy games with adult content. 'Kijkwijzer' (dutch rating company) will simply judge the game on it's content and suggest an age restriction and a description of the content. If the 'problem' of underage children buying adult rated games or films continue to rise, buying these games will probably gonna require minors to prove their age by showing an identity card. Much like with buying alcoholic beaverages. 16+ for beers and 21+ for stronger liquor. If the store sells it nonetheless they can get a penalty.
This are but options of measures we can take to protect and prevent children from buying adult only content, but we can never control a parential decission. If a parent decides to buy an adult rated game for their kids then that's their decission. We can only advice.
We will never ban games. Like films, books and music, games can not be touched with censorship. This is enclosed in the right of freedom of speech.
Evil Hobbit wrote:A press release today about the subject by the Dutch authority states the following;An investigation will be held as how to prevent underage children to buy games with adult content. 'Kijkwijzer' (dutch rating company) will simply judge the game on it's content and suggest an age restriction and a description of the content. If the 'problem' of underage children buying adult rated games or films continue to rise, buying these games will probably gonna require minors to prove their age by showing an identity card. Much like with buying alcoholic beaverages. 16+ for beers and 21+ for stronger liquor. If the store sells it nonetheless they can get a penalty.
This are but options of measures we can take to protect and prevent children from buying adult only content, but we can never control a parential decission. If a parent decides to buy an adult rated game for their kids then that's their decission. We can only advice.
We will never ban games. Like films, books and music, games can not be touched with censorship. This is enclosed in the right of freedom of speech.
That sums it up pretty much. Now I just hope Take Two continues to release it. The store still states that it'' be released on July 13. But Take Two says, the game is on hold. We shall see
doglips wrote:Just stop reading the Mail itself.......
Evil Hobbit wrote:A press release today about the subject by the Dutch authority states the following;An investigation will be held as how to prevent underage children to buy games with adult content. 'Kijkwijzer' (dutch rating company) will simply judge the game on it's content and suggest an age restriction and a description of the content. If the 'problem' of underage children buying adult rated games or films continue to rise, buying these games will probably gonna require minors to prove their age by showing an identity card. Much like with buying alcoholic beaverages. 16+ for beers and 21+ for stronger liquor. If the store sells it nonetheless they can get a penalty.
This are but options of measures we can take to protect and prevent children from buying adult only content, but we can never control a parential decission. If a parent decides to buy an adult rated game for their kids then that's their decission. We can only advice.
We will never ban games. Like films, books and music, games can not be touched with censorship. This is enclosed in the right of freedom of speech.
That sums it up pretty much. Now I just hope Take Two continues to release it. The store still states that it'' be released on July 13. But Take Two says, the game is on hold. We shall see
ThisIsTheGirl wrote:In the BBFC's statement, they quite clearly take a similar line to you - at least, that's how I took their reference to the game presenting an "unjustifiable" risk of harm to both adults and minors. My problem with this is these repeated references to things like "formative years".
ThisIsTheGirl wrote:Because of course, the truth is, ratings DO achieve something - certainly in the case of movies: they prevent immediate access to those too young to watch them. I'm not saying that kids don't eventually get their hands on these movies, but it is made difficult for them, which is all one can hope to achieve - the rest is up to those in charge of the kids.
ThisIsTheGirl wrote:I have huge difficulty in relating any random act of violence I see or read about in the paper to a movie or videogame. There were something like 7 teen murders in the UK last weekend, and I'd be willing to bet hard cash that the kids responsible were more influenced by hip-hop lyrics than videogames. And yet, we haven't heard calls to step up enforcement of the "Parental Advisory" warning labels. Again, for me so much of this comes back to parenting - banning a videogame/movie/album on the grounds of its content sounds like a classic case of shutting the stable door after the horse has well and truly bolted, which leaves me with the feeling that it will ultimately achieve nothing. It's legislating against what people MIGHT do, instead of trying to create a situation which encourages people to simply behave better.
ThisIsTheGirl wrote:Another big problem is that, while I might respect all of your reasons for feeling the way you do, I think there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that this line of thinking can lead to wild generalisations in the mainstream press. That kid who shot up his college in Virginia a couple of months back - he was obsessed with Oldboy, right? There were calls for Oldboy to be banned in the wake of that tragedy. For me, the thought process which would lead someone to say the Manhunt 2 ban was a good idea, is just a precursor to the type of thinking which sees people blaming Oldboy for Virginia, or blaming Rambo for Hungerford, as also happened at the time, I believe.
In closing, I will say "guns don't kill people, rappers do. I seen it in a documentary on BBC2"
ThisIsTheGirl wrote:Excellent - maybe I'll finally have someone to accompany me when I go reaping bloody justice on the strumpets of the night....
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A federal judge ruled on Monday a California law to label violent video games and bar their sale to minors was unconstitutional, prompting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to say he would appeal the ruling.
California passed a law in 2005 regulating video games with strong support from Schwarzenegger, the former star of many violent action films. Legislators argued violent video games could bring psychological harm and spark aggressive behavior in minors.
The Video Software Dealers Association and the Entertainment Software Association promptly sued to block the law, arguing their games were protected under the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
Judge Ronald Whyte, who had previously granted a preliminary injunction against the law, issued a permanent order that also cited conclusions from judges facing similar laws in other states.
"At this point, there has been no showing that violent video games as defined in the Act, in the absence of other violent media, cause injury to children," he wrote in his decision. "In addition, the evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, Internet sites or other speech-related exposures."
"Although some reputable professional individuals and organizations have expressed particular concern about the interactive nature of video games, there is no generally accepted study that supports that concern."
Schwarzenegger, who once starred in the "Terminator" movies, said he would appeal the case to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"I signed this important measure to ensure that parents are involved in determining which video games are appropriate for their children," Schwarzenegger said in a statement.
"Many of these games are made for adults and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents."
In his ruling, Judge Whyte said he was sympathetic to the goals of the legislation, but said it improperly set free speech restrictions.
UK, October 8, 2007 - Rockstar's attempts to publish its Manhunt 2 in the UK, following the British Board of Film Classification's decision to deny the game a rating, has hit another brick wall. The BBFC has now rejected a revised edition of the game, saying that, although it recognises that changes have been made, they don't go far enough to address concerns raised with the original submission.
David Cooke, director of the BBFC said: "The impact of the revisions on the bleakness and callousness of tone, or the essential nature of the gameplay, is clearly insufficient. There has been a reduction in the visual detail in some of the 'execution kills', but in others they retain their original visceral and casually sadistic nature.
"We did make suggestions for further changes to the game, but the distributor has chosen not to make them, and as a result we have rejected the game on both platforms. The decision on whether or not an appeal goes ahead lies with the distributor."
In June the BBFC refused to give Manhunt 2 a classification, saying its "unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone [...] constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing".
Rockstar's appeal against the decision was suspended while the developer offered up a revised version of the game. We contacted Rockstar for comment and a statement is set for release shortly.
Over in the US, the revised version of Manhunt 2 was finally granted an 'M' rating by the ESRB, following the original submission's kiss-of-death 'AO' classification. The updated game will now hit US stores on October 29.
Source: http://wii.ign.com/articles/825/825520p1.html
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests