Nah. Very few games would actually fall into that. In fact, Grand Theft Auto wouldn't even. Violence is neither glamorized nor gratuitous, is not used only for shock puroses (it is a part of the plot), is absolutely contextually relevant, doesn't have to hold the plot together any more than any PG13 movie, doesn't have particularly realistic violence (cartoon characters are not realistic), has a jail and hospital to demonstrate the consequences and effects of violence, uses weapons not designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain and damage any more than, say, the US army does, and we all know they don't use weapons designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain, right? It does not include torture or weaponry above and beyond what the US military uses, and it depicts a lead character who, while violent, can be played almost entirely without violence, if you concentrate.
I think this law holds no water. A similar case can be made for almost every game. It's far too open to interpretation.
Oh yeah. On the other hand, Super Mario Brothers (from NES) included an insane amount of violence. There was no serious value to the game, there was no consequence to killing Bowser again and again, there was no way around the violence-- you can't choose to not kill Bowser, and just try getting through the game without killing a single koopa or turtle guy-- the whole point of the game was to depose and kill King Bowser, had nothing to demonstrate the consequence or effects of any of the violence in the game, included FIREBALLS to kill enemies, and if that's not excessively painful and destructive I don't know what is, and depicted Mario and Luigi as brothers who came from another world to kill someone.
Yep. Ban Super Mario Brothers for NES, and long live Grand Theft Auto!!!
Definitely a toughie. Do we comment on Triangle Head and the need to kill people who have obviously been skinned? Or do we talk about the dangers of ignoring mental health issues... Oh wait! It falls under the "serious political value" category. SH2 talks about euthenasia and mental health. SH3 talks about religion.
I think it's the very fact that it's so open to interpretation that makes it dangerous. Depending on how anal the officials in charge of determining what can be displayed are, they may agree with you about Grand Theft Auto and the like...or, like Choggo said, they may think that anything above the level of violence in Lemmings and Frogger is unnacceptable.
You know, now that my mind is on the subject, the only games I can think of right now that have no violence at all are Dance Dance Revolution, Karaoke Revolution, and others like them, similar, older games like World Class Track Meet, and art games. Can anybody think of any others? Anyway, it at least makes me happy that nobody could say Age of Empires doesn't have some educational value and political merit...could they?
Oh, and where do you guys suppose Duck Hunt would fall? It seems to me that it could be argued either way. Again, it's all so very open to interpretation.
Oh, by the way, this whole issue angers me. I know I've always been one to point out the irony of it being acceptable to show people killing eachother in gruesome ways but not to show a naked human body, but that doesn't mean I want both to be hidden! When they start doing shit like this, where will they stop? Where do they draw the line? Okay, I have to stop now before I launch into a full blown anti-censorship rant.
Comments 9
Violence is neither glamorized nor gratuitous, is not used only for shock puroses (it is a part of the plot), is absolutely contextually relevant, doesn't have to hold the plot together any more than any PG13 movie, doesn't have particularly realistic violence (cartoon characters are not realistic), has a jail and hospital to demonstrate the consequences and effects of violence, uses weapons not designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain and damage any more than, say, the US army does, and we all know they don't use weapons designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain, right? It does not include torture or weaponry above and beyond what the US military uses, and it depicts a lead character who, while violent, can be played almost entirely without violence, if you concentrate.
I think this law holds no water. A similar case can be made for almost every game. It's far too open to interpretation.
Reply
Yep. Ban Super Mario Brothers for NES, and long live Grand Theft Auto!!!
Reply
On an unrelated note...the Silent Hill games...what do you think about those?
Reply
*nods wisely*
Reply
You know, now that my mind is on the subject, the only games I can think of right now that have no violence at all are Dance Dance Revolution, Karaoke Revolution, and others like them, similar, older games like World Class Track Meet, and art games. Can anybody think of any others? Anyway, it at least makes me happy that nobody could say Age of Empires doesn't have some educational value and political merit...could they?
Oh, and where do you guys suppose Duck Hunt would fall? It seems to me that it could be argued either way. Again, it's all so very open to interpretation.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment