Chief of Germany's national police union wants to ban violent games

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/03/23/chief-of-germanys-national-police-union-wants-to-ban-violent-ga/

Germany has ALWAYS been harsh on violence in video games for years since the NES days to be honest with you all. So seeing that one shooting happens causes an uproar is no big surprise honestly.

Let's break down the rules of German Laws or how wacky they really are

1. No Blood or Violence
2. No words that contain: NINJA, BLOOD, or KILL in the title (i.e. TMNT is called Teenage Mutant HERO Turtles in Euro)
3. No violent images on the cover of the game (Resident Evil covers have to be black labeled or changed)
4. Because of this, it's too expensive to change the game for other surrounding European countries, so everyone in Europe is forced to play the watered-down crappy Germany edition
5. And who said Germany has no stronghold on economic oppression in Europe? 1946 called, the WAR IS OVER people!

Ugh, it shouldn't take 65 years for Germany to get rid of fascism. >_>

Is it fascism, or is it social responsibility?

Personally I don't see anything wrong with a society wanting to downplay violence. We don't condone violent behavior in real life interactions, why should we endorse it in virtual interactions? Because its fun? What kind of statement does that make about the society in which we live, where virtual violence is considered a form of recreation?

Is a game better because it has violence?

stealth toilet said:

Is it fascism, or is it social responsibility?

Personally I don't see anything wrong with a society wanting to downplay violence. We don't condone violent behavior in real life interactions, why should we endorse it in virtual interactions? Because its fun? What kind of statement does that make about the society in which we live, where virtual violence is considered a form of recreation?

Is a game better because it has violence?

Click to expand...

then they should get rid of violence in Tv, books, and all the other types of entertainment.... i don't believe games should be singled out in this situation

Mega you forgot one they also won't allow any WWII games in because regulations they have barring nazi imagery from being in games apparently it doesn't matter if shooting swatikzas or not to the Germans.

stealth toilet said:

Is it fascism, or is it social responsibility?

Click to expand...

In this case, social responsibility has manifested itself as fascism. The government feels an obligation to protect its people (social responsibility), but it does so through censorship (fascism).

stealth toilet said:

Personally I don't see anything wrong with a society wanting to downplay violence. We don't condone violent behavior in real life interactions, why should we endorse it in virtual interactions? Because its fun? What kind of statement does that make about the society in which we live, where virtual violence is considered a form of recreation?

Click to expand...

I too don't see anything wrong with a game having less violence or a developer deciding to tone down the violence, but I certainly do have a problem with it when the government is forcing the change down the developer's throats.

Violence is not just included in games because it is "fun". It can be impactful and powerful when used right. To make game developers get rid of violence can hurt the final product. Imagine if all violence was taken out of a game like BioShock? Without some of the horrible acts Ryan committed, we could not truly understand his undying and dare I say inspiring devotion to the world he believed that man deserved. We also would not be able to see the flaws of that world and why this devotion was perhaps misplaced. So many thematic elements would be lost if violence could not be portrayed in the game.

Violence is not pretty and it should not be glorified, but we, as a society should not just hide behind censors and nanny governments, telling us what is and isn't appropriate. We have to face society's problems, not hide from them.

Homicidal Cherry53 said:

In this case, social responsibility has manifested itself as fascism. The government feels an obligation to protect its people (social responsibility), but it does so through censorship (fascism).

Click to expand...

I don't think you can equate censorship with fascism. Every society incorporates some form of self censorship, just as every individual tends to censor themselves as well. In our North American society we tend to throw around the phrase "politically correct" a lot, but really we use it as an umbrella term to designate that which need not be censored. For example, if I was to make some sort of ethnic slur or racist remark in public, I would be censored, and that would be appropriate. Its not acceptable for me to slander people because of their race, and enforcing that by law doesn't mean I'm being oppressed by a fascist, it means a governing body is protecting the members of its society from those elements which are harmful and unproductive.

Perhaps more to the point, sex is something that is far more taboo to portray in a North American video game, even though it is a perfectly normal, socially acceptable, act for a human being to do. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas had a rating of M, despite the fact that playing the game specifically involved killing dozens, if not hundreds, of people. However, as soon as a sex scene was found in the game, it received a rating of AO in North America. I would certainly consider that an over-reaction and certainly an indicator of some mixed up priorities within our society, but I accept that such a rating reflects the cultural values of most Americans (despite how backwards I may personally feel it to be). I don't think its fascist to censor the game for having a sex scene, if said sex scene upsets the cultural values of the society that censors it.

Homicidal Cherry53 said:

I too don't see anything wrong with a game having less violence or a developer deciding to tone down the violence, but I certainly do have a problem with it when the government is forcing the change down the developer's throats.

Click to expand...

But the government (at least ideally) reflects the values of the people they represent. And while you may feel the government of Germany is "forcing" change upon the developers, it may simply be that they're holding them up to a higher standard. They aren't forcing anyone to sell games in Germany, they are simply saying that if someone does wish to sell a game in Germany, then it is going to have to be up to code with what the German people expect.

Homicidal Cherry53 said:

Violence is not just included in games because it is "fun". It can be impactful and powerful when used right. To make game developers get rid of violence can hurt the final product. Imagine if all violence was taken out of a game like BioShock? Without some of the horrible acts Ryan committed, we could not truly understand his undying and dare I say inspiring devotion to the world he believed that man deserved. We also would not be able to see the flaws of that world and why this devotion was perhaps misplaced. So many thematic elements would be lost if violence could not be portrayed in the game.

Click to expand...

I had written out some stuff here that got deleted, so I'll sum it up real quick like. Games that involve violence tend to either 1) glorify it, 2) make it fun, or 3) reward it. Even Bioshock does this. In fact, the single moments in the game which actually make the player aware of the violent acts they are perpetrating were hailed as an incredibly innovative gameplay mechanic (or whatever, point is, it was exceptional to see in a video game). But the vast majority of the killing you do in the game is not given nearly as much weight or depth as these single moments, and so even in Bioshock the lesson is the same: 1) violence is necessary, 2) violence will give you material gains, 3) violence is fun.

Homicidal Cherry53 said:

Violence is not pretty and it should not be glorified, but we, as a society should not just hide behind censors and nanny governments, telling us what is and isn't appropriate. We have to face society's problems, not hide from them.

Click to expand...

Again, in a democracy, the values of those in government positions represent the values of the people. So in actuality, government rulings about violence in video games is society dealing with the problem. If you want to argue that this is not the case, that democracies are not effective at representing the people, that there needs to be a revolution or what have you, by all means, go for it. But that's another discussion for another time.

Is it really so shocking that there are people out there who don't necessarily want more violence in video games?

stealth toilet said:

I don't think you can equate censorship with fascism. Every society incorporates some form of self censorship, just as every individual tends to censor themselves as well. In our North American society we tend to throw around the phrase "politically correct" a lot, but really we use it as an umbrella term to designate that which need not be censored. For example, if I was to make some sort of ethnic slur or racist remark in public, I would be censored, and that would be appropriate. Its not acceptable for me to slander people because of their race, and enforcing that by law doesn't mean I'm being oppressed by a fascist, it means a governing body is protecting the members of its society from those elements which are harmful and unproductive.

Click to expand...

"Political correctness", however is rarely made into any kind of legislation. If you say a racial slur in front of an audience, you will likely become a social pariah and anger a lot of people, but you will not be fined for it. The government will not throw you in jail. It is simply not in the government's power to stop people from expressing or saying something that offends the sensibilities of its people. That is a power that is far too easily abused. Basically, even if censorship is not fascism in and of itself (and that is something I am willing to accept, given the broad definition of fascism), it can lead to fascism far too easily. It is not a precedent I would like to set, especially after eight years of a president who treated the Bill of Rights like toilet paper.

stealth toilet said:

But the government (at least ideally) reflects the values of the people they represent. And while you may feel the government of Germany is "forcing" change upon the developers, it may simply be that they're holding them up to a higher standard. They aren't forcing anyone to sell games in Germany, they are simply saying that if someone does wish to sell a game in Germany, then it is going to have to be up to code with what the German people expect.

Click to expand...

Again, it is not what the German people expect, but what the majority (assuming this thing even passes) expects. The minority wants these games with violence in them, so why is it the place of the government to tell them they are wrong because their opinion isn't that of the majority? Their decision to buy the game will affect no one but themselves so what business is it of the majority to tell the minority what is best for them?

I had written out some stuff here that got deleted, so I'll sum it up real quick like. Games that involve violence tend to either 1) glorify it, 2) make it fun, or 3) reward it. Even Bioshock does this. In fact, the single moments in the game which actually make the player aware of the violent acts they are perpetrating were hailed as an incredibly innovative gameplay mechanic (or whatever, point is, it was exceptional to see in a video game). But the vast majority of the killing you do in the game is not given nearly as much weight or depth as these single moments, and so even in Bioshock the lesson is the same: 1) violence is necessary, 2) violence will give you material gains, 3) violence is fun.

Click to expand...

You're not gonna believe this, but I accidentally deleted this section of my post too. :lol

Maybe you were not explicitly given a choice in regards to all of the splicers you killed, but, at least for me, they certainly carried weight and depth. I whole-heartedly pitied the splicers. They had been transformed into violent animals, but there was some part of them that seemed human. Some part of them recognized what they had become and they somehow seemed sorry for everything they did. There was always that note of despair in their mad ravings that made killing them something that never seemed like a fun time, nor did it seem like something you had to do to finish some objective.

Is it really so shocking that there are people out there who don't necessarily want more violence in video games?

Click to expand...

No, but there are also those who want more violence, and those who are content with whatever decision the developer makes regarding violence (indifferent). Those who want less violence should not be allowed to speak for these other two groups.