PDA

View Full Version : Censorship for Deus Ex HR



TheUnbeholden
23rd Oct 2011, 08:05
We know that games usually are censored in some way in some countries, Japan, Germany and Australia are the main 3 where it seems to happen.

...and the worst case scenario is a banning of it. Like the banning of Manhunt in Australia.
Scary part is it can also happen to mods like to the School Shooter mod getting banned on ModDB.
http://www.moddb.com/members/prez/blogs/why-the-why-we-removed-the-school-shooter-mod-pissed-me-the-hell-off

But there are also miracles that happen every once and a while, like Dead Island not being censored at all for Australia.
Apparently Deus Ex HR couldn't avoid being censored in Japan.
http://gamepolitics.com/2011/08/08/deus-ex-human-revolution-slightly-censored-japan

I'm wondering as to what people think about censorship in general, and whether its important for games? Should it be harsher or more lenient? Is there any evidence that violence in video games promote violence on impressionable children? (if so, then what about violence in movies?) Or Should there be a 18+ rating for video games? (which is a big issue in Australia as its the reason why games are banned.. if any game exceeds classification then it gets automatically rejected)
http://www.r18games.com.au/ (according to the site this big issue has only just been discussed about in June of this year in a meeting of Attorneys Generals, where finally 18+ rating will be introduced to Australia)

Personally I believe it all comes down to predominant cultural values. It has to conform to social & ethical values held by the majority when it comes down to it, either that or keeping a low profile :).
Freedom (to be able to do more without legal penalties) vs Restriction (which can give comfort and safety) vs Something in Between. I think as a lawyer so I would say reach a mutual agreement between the majority parties.

VectorM
23rd Oct 2011, 09:28
Censorship should simply not exist at all, anywhere.

gyron
23rd Oct 2011, 09:45
But it will. Most people can't take life (including art) as it is, so they will always need to be protected from it.

As for Germany and Australia I understand that they try to get away from their former "violent" image with this over-zealous censorship. Give it 10-15 years and it will come to normal European/North-American level. No idea about Japan: how the country that gave us Tokyo Gore Police can censor anything is beyond me.

Imperator
23rd Oct 2011, 09:56
I get sick and tired of moralising idiots scapegoating games to cover for their bad parenting. If glorification of actual real life war supposedly doesn't cause violent crime....then why would a fictional game? Creative media is just an exploration of what is real, in some way or another. Want to,stop violence in games? Stop it in real life first, not the other way around.

Bullet dodger
23rd Oct 2011, 10:47
I am from australia and honestly I don't get it why a computer game need to be censored or age restrected this viciously. I am a grown up, I want to see heads/limbs fall, I want to see blood everywhere. For young kids need some restriction obvious but I reckon this should be the parents responsibility to control what level of violence they play on.
We can restrict what sort of movie they watch by entering a code on the tv/setbox so why we can not have a same or similar method used for games?

gyron
23rd Oct 2011, 10:54
For young kids need some restriction obvious but I reckon this should be the parents responsibility to control what level of violence they play on. We can restrict what sort of movie they watch by entering a code on the tv/setbox so why we can not have a same or similar method used for games?
A lot of parents have no idea what their children play, because they don't understand games/computers or simply don't care, hence the need of government regulations.


...glorification of actual real life war supposedly doesn't cause violent crime
You can't prove this -- or the opposite.


Want to,stop violence in games? Stop it in real life first, not the other way around.
That's beside the point. Bureaucrats who come up with censorship laws have no power nor responsibility for this. They're not covering "bad parenting" because censorship exists for political reasons first and foremost, non-political censorship just tags along and not such a big deal. If you have internet access and know how to use google, there isn't much restriction on how offensive or forbidden media you can find. If we're talking about games, just import a foreign version or pirate it if you don't like your country's laws.

By the way, "children protection" rhetoric is a recent invention: for example, Marquis de Sade's writing was banned 200 years ago for having the same sort of content as modern 'adult' media, but no one mentioned children back then. Sex/violence censorship just makes sure that general population (of any age) does not get exposed to what it can't chew -- how it gets justified is irrelevant.

jd10013
23rd Oct 2011, 12:04
I get sick and tired of moralising idiots scapegoating games to cover for their bad parenting. If glorification of actual real life war supposedly doesn't cause violent crime....then why would a fictional game? Creative media is just an exploration of what is real, in some way or another. Want to,stop violence in games? Stop it in real life first, not the other way around.


I don't think Morality has anything to do with it. for something like this to happen in Japan makes sense. that's a pretty strict, morally based society. but in supposedly "progressive" places like Germany? when I think of Europe, morality doesn't exactly come to mind. especially from a country that has legalized prostitution. almost every form of amoral behavior has been legalized somewhere in the union, so I don't buy the morality argument. I'm not saying I'm for or against what they've done, but morals clearly aren't the first order of business on the continent.

jd10013
23rd Oct 2011, 12:08
You can't prove this -- or the opposite.


yes, there have been plenty of studies done and no correlation between violent video games and violent behavior has been found. the only link that has been demonstrably proven in criminal behavior is being raised by a single parent, especially a mom. it's somewhere north (at least in the states) of 90% of criminals come from single parent backgrounds.

gyron
23rd Oct 2011, 12:50
yes, there have been plenty of studies done and no correlation between violent video games and violent behavior has been found.
These studies never produce a proof in a strict sense (and never will). That's why no one is putting the end to censorship and why there enough studies trying to show the exact opposite.

You simply can't isolate violent media influence from other factors because you can't make an individual forget his experience. To prove that there is indeed no correlation you'll have to expose him to violence first, then wait until he dies (to make sure he didn't commit a crime later), then use the time machine to go back and see how a test subject's life will go if he wasn't exposed. Since the latter is impossible the science behind these studies has to resort to weak methods (statistics or indirect measurement). At best they can show that media violence has no noticeable effect on average in a huge population -- not on individual level. And that's exactly where politicians and mass media base their case against depictions of violence -- using mass shootings, extremely sadistic crimes, etc. committed by a single perpetrators as examples.

jd10013
23rd Oct 2011, 13:34
These studies never produce a proof in a strict sense (and never will). That's why no one is putting the end to censorship and why there enough studies trying to show the exact opposite.

You simply can't isolate violent media influence from other factors because you can't make an individual forget his experience. To prove that there is indeed no correlation you'll have to expose him to violence first, then wait until he dies (to make sure he didn't commit a crime later), then use the time machine to go back and see how a test subject's life will go if he wasn't exposed. Since the latter is impossible the science behind these studies has to resort to weak methods (statistics or indirect measurement). At best they can show that media violence has no noticeable effect on average in a huge population -- not on individual level. And that's exactly where politicians and mass media base their case against depictions of violence -- using mass shootings, extremely sadistic crimes, etc. committed by a single perpetrators as examples.


your over complicating this. when criminals and violent people are studied, several common factors are discovered. one is, as I mentioned, being raised by a single parent. another one that frequently surfaces is abuse as a child. another one that frequently surfaces is mental defect, whether it be mental or emotional. but never is playing violent video games a common thread throughout the criminal/violent part of the population. there is a great deal of evidence to suggest where this behavior comes from, and NONE of it suggest video games. you'd have an argument if studies showed that a significant portion of violent people played violent games, or were exposed to violent media. but studies show that they aren't.

stop over thinking it so much.

VectorM
23rd Oct 2011, 13:38
A lot of parents have no idea what their children play, because they don't understand games/computers or simply don't care, hence the need of government regulations.

Yeah, because government bureaucrats definitely understand games and movies, and they definitely care about the childrena and not their own agenda.


These studies never produce a proof in a strict sense (and never will). That's why no one is putting the end to censorship and why there enough studies trying to show the exact opposite.

Thing is, the burden of proof does not lie on us. It lies on the government. THEY have to prove that these things are harmful and that we need to regulate them. So far, such evidence doesn't exist. Censorship is nothing more than government thugs, trying to control what you watch, and imposing their own morality on everyone else.

imported_BoB_
23rd Oct 2011, 15:58
But it will. Most people can't take life (including art) as it is, so they will always need to be protected from it.

As for Germany and Australia I understand that they try to get away from their former "violent" image with this over-zealous censorship. Give it 10-15 years and it will come to normal European/North-American level. No idea about Japan: how the country that gave us Tokyo Gore Police can censor anything is beyond me.

It's just how Japan manages sexual content. Seeing tentacles monsters do things is OK, seeing a dildo (it is what has been removed, in the Heng Sha sewers) is not.

People need to realise that every culture doesn't have the same boundaries about this sort of things, and that it's usually because of their history (don't ask me why Japan manages sexual content like that, I don't know ^^)

Cows are sacred for Hindus, it could seem weird to american or even european but there is a reason for it, that's all.

jd10013
23rd Oct 2011, 16:04
People need to realise that every culture doesn't have the same boundaries about this sort of things, and that it's usually because of their history (don't ask me why Japan manages sexual content like that, I don't know ^^)

japan has a very unique culture based on honor, respect, and morality. just look at the difference in how they behaved after the tsunami compared to how other places have behaved after a natural disaster. after hurricane Katrina hit NO, people rushed out to loot, started shooting each other, and were even taking shots at fire and rescue personnel. the LA national guard had to be called out just to make it safe for them. there was none of that in Japan after the quake. nothing but order.

gyron
23rd Oct 2011, 16:26
your over complicating this. when criminals and violent people are studied, several common factors are discovered. one is, as I mentioned, being raised by a single parent. another one that frequently surfaces is abuse as a child. another one that frequently surfaces is mental defect, whether it be mental or emotional. but never is playing violent video games a common thread throughout the criminal/violent part of the population. there is a great deal of evidence to suggest where this behavior comes from, and NONE of it suggest video games. you'd have an argument if studies showed that a significant portion of violent people played violent games, or were exposed to violent media. but studies show that they aren't.

stop over thinking it so much.

This over-thinking is called 'science' FYI. The kind of science neither side of debate can produce.

What you're talking about ("raised by a single parent", "mental defects") are factors -- one among many and not clearcut indicators by which you can tell further criminal. Nor Eric Harris neither Dylan Klebold were raised in a single parenthood, but loved videogames (Doom). How does that fit in your theory?

And what the hell are "mental defects"? Being abnormally aggressive? Boxers are professionally aggressive. Pretty much everyone in a military too. In what psychological literature you've even seen such phrasing? Nazi's eugenics manuals?

Re-read what wrote: I'm not talking about mass scale effects. It's pretty obvious violent media don't single-handedly turn children into psychopaths, since 90% of American kids play videogames today and crime isn't raising. But can media be another factor contributing to violent behavior? -- this you can't answer on a case-by-case basis. Even if in a single criminal case the answer is "yes" -- then it's enough for politicians be pro-regulation. And though there may not be such answer, as long there are no certainty in this matters (and there never will be) -- censorship will exist.

Superficial arguments you gave above ain't helping here -- and they're not exactly better than Daily Mail's output on this issue, you know.


Yeah, because government bureaucrats definitely understand games and movies, and they definitely care about the childrena and not their own agenda.
I guess you haven't met people filled with genuine indignation against everything that's wrong in the world. This kind truly believes that they know better than others what's good for everybody. Absence of knowledge is the least of their concerns.


Thing is, the burden of proof does not lie on us. It lies on the government. THEY have to prove that these things are harmful and that we need to regulate them. So far, such evidence doesn't exist.
Politics is not an intellectual debate between people and bureaucracy, so you're wrong here. Laws are meant to be non-changing. To change them you'll have to be the one in power, "evidence" or reason has nothing to do with it.


Censorship is nothing more than government thugs, trying to control what you watch, and imposing their own morality on everyone else.
It's not just what you watch -- most of the major things in your life are not decided by you. And unless you exist in a vacuum you do the same ("impose your own morality") on a regular basis -- only on a smaller scale. It's an inseparable part of human culture.

jd10013
23rd Oct 2011, 16:28
lol. your making a claim, for something that can not in any way be substantiated and are calling it "science"? and then saying censorship is necessary even though the reason for it can't be proven? I have a rock that keeps it from raining, would you like to purchase if from me?

VectorM
23rd Oct 2011, 16:28
Well, for starters, Japan is very homogenous and there is very little cultural tension, if any at all.

Not to meniton, that they are basically a police state, where the cops can search your house without warrant and that they force innocent people to admit to crimes on a daily basis.

Edit: What exatly is gyron arguing about exactly? I still don't get it. Is he for consorship, is he simply stating how stuff works, what?

Edit: Scratch that, he is simply crazy. Or a drone, I am not sure.

gyron
23rd Oct 2011, 16:38
lol. your making a claim, for something that can not in any way be substantiated and are calling it "science"? and then saying censorship is necessary even though the reason for it can't be proven? I have a rock that keeps it from raining, would you like to purchase if from me?
Can you even read? I have not made any "claims" nor implied that censorship is "necessary". I've tried to explain to you how this things work (or, more precisely, doesn't work) since you've shown very naive understanding of this issue -- not to endorse any point. Try again.

Neuromancer07
23rd Oct 2011, 17:40
But in supposedly "progressive" places like Germany? when I think of Europe, morality doesn't exactly come to mind. especially from a country that has legalized prostitution. almost every form of amoral behavior has been legalized somewhere in the union.

Because the truly moral thing to do is to jail people for months or years for turning, in desperation, to becoming a sex worker or deciding to consume substances in any degree of moderation. It's the height of compassion, understanding and the promotion of social welfare to brutalise people in confinement because they choose a different leisure activity than you which (with the arguable exception of prostitution) hurts no one. Also the word you're thinking of 'immoral', 'amoral' denotes something outside of morality, like walking or using drugs, but your meaning is clear... and reprehensible.

Why is it immoral to use drugs but not to eat food? You're still metabolising chemical compounds, either natural or artificial; the compounds in question have no rights nor sentience, well except those formerly comprising animals. You can say there's a criminal infrastructure to support the purchaser of drugs, in creation and sale but that's not the result of the drug itself nor the preference of the user but the expectant result of illegality. Something you seem to want to support inspite of the comically overwhelming failure of the drug war, even to the private admission of its former exponents and it kills more people (40,000 just in Mexico by prohibition-created Cartels just since the inauguration of Filpe Calderóne) than the narcotics its meant to curtail.

So yes, with its actually realistic and compassionate policies, Europe has some of the most "moral" and ethical social policies in the entire world and their efficacy is corroborated by outcomes, virtually all people barring the irrational would find ideal. No region or continent is perfect, far from it but I would also be the first to commit civil disobedience in your idea of a "moral" world.

Imperator
23rd Oct 2011, 17:45
You can't prove this -- or the opposite

You left out the word if. I wasn't stating that as a matter of fact. Way to take out of context.

My last comment was made to point out the futility of censorship, because you can't stop horrible things in happening in real life. I don't actually expect that it will ever happen.

Imperator
23rd Oct 2011, 17:51
I don't think Morality has anything to do with it. for something like this to happen in Japan makes sense. that's a pretty strict, morally based society. but in supposedly "progressive" places like Germany? when I think of Europe, morality doesn't exactly come to mind. especially from a country that has legalized prostitution. almost every form of amoral behavior has been legalized somewhere in the union, so I don't buy the morality argument. I'm not saying I'm for or against what they've done, but morals clearly aren't the first order of business on the continent.

I didn't say anything about morality. You're the one seeing it in these terms. You make me laugh. Typical moralising American; preaching from up on high atop a mound of his own excrement and unable to smell it.

Imperator
23rd Oct 2011, 17:53
yes, there have been plenty of studies done and no correlation between violent video games and violent behavior has been found. the only link that has been demonstrably proven in criminal behavior is being raised by a single parent, especially a mom. it's somewhere north (at least in the states) of 90% of criminals come from single parent backgrounds.

A least we agree here. This was my point. I said nothing of morals.

Imperator
23rd Oct 2011, 17:56
Because the truly moral thing to do is to jail people for months or years for turning, in desperation, to becoming a sex worker or deciding to consume substances in any degree of moderation. It's the height of compassion, understanding and the promotion of social welfare to brutalise people in confinement because they choose a different leisure activity than you which (with the arguable exception of prostitution) hurts no one. Also the word you're thinking of 'immoral', 'amoral' denotes something outside of morality, like walking or using drugs, but your meaning is clear... and reprehensible.

Why is it immoral to use drugs but not to eat food? You're still metabolising chemical compounds, either natural or artificial; the compounds in question have no rights nor sentience, well except those formerly comprising animals. You can say there's a criminal infrastructure to support the purchaser of drugs, in creation and sale but that's not the result of the drug itself nor the preference of the user but the expectant result of illegality. Something you seem to want to support inspite of the comically overwhelming failure of the drug war, even to the private admission of its former exponents and it kills more people (40,000 just in Mexico by prohibition-created Cartels just since the inauguration of Filpe Calderóne) than the narcotics its meant to curtail.

So yes, with its actually realistic and compassionate policies, Europe has some of the most "moral" and ethical social policies in the entire world and their efficacy is corroborated by outcomes, virtually all people barring the irrational would find ideal. No region or continent is perfect, far from it but I would also be the first to commit civil disobedience in your idea of a "moral" world.

This.

VectorM
23rd Oct 2011, 18:20
Because the truly moral thing to do is to jail people for months or years for turning, in desperation, to becoming a sex worker or deciding to consume substances in any degree of moderation. It's the height of compassion, understanding and the promotion of social welfare to brutalise people in confinement because they choose a different leisure activity than you which (with the arguable exception of prostitution) hurts no one. Also the word you're thinking of 'immoral', 'amoral' denotes something outside of morality, like walking or using drugs, but your meaning is clear... and reprehensible.

Why is it immoral to use drugs but not to eat food? You're still metabolising chemical compounds, either natural or artificial; the compounds in question have no rights nor sentience, well except those formerly comprising animals. You can say there's a criminal infrastructure to support the purchaser of drugs, in creation and sale but that's not the result of the drug itself nor the preference of the user but the expectant result of illegality. Something you seem to want to support inspite of the comically overwhelming failure of the drug war, even to the private admission of its former exponents and it kills more people (40,000 just in Mexico by prohibition-created Cartels just since the inauguration of Filpe Calderóne) than the narcotics its meant to curtail.

So yes, with its actually realistic and compassionate policies, Europe has some of the most "moral" and ethical social policies in the entire world and their efficacy is corroborated by outcomes, virtually all people barring the irrational would find ideal. No region or continent is perfect, far from it but I would also be the first to commit civil disobedience in your idea of a "moral" world.

You should write a book. I'd trow my money at you.

reindeer
29th Oct 2011, 06:48
If I want a game I want it uncut and uncensored. As I am german I buy it in Austria, our alpine neighbor.
Politics likes it easy and populistic. If anything happens - a 17year old running amok in a school and turns out this guy also played shooters - a society "jumps the gun" literally calling for harsher rules on those games. Neither the people nor the politicians actually know what they are talking about. They just look for a scapegoat . Noone really wants to know why things like that happen.. So they make new rules and people follow the hype. Most of them don´t know anything about computer games or that problems have nothing to do with those games .

When a person finds out that I play games like these ( they have only heard about Counterstrike btw ) I usually ask them about crime novels and whether they like them. Or if they knew that there is death in operas as well ( I hate operas; before a protagonist dies he is known to sing an aria for 45 minutes :-)
If a person thinks just a little bit independently he/she then starts to rethink the hole subject and where such a killing-frenzy in a child might come from other than computer games for example why it is that parents don´t want to know what their children do .

Romeo
29th Oct 2011, 08:57
Because the truly moral thing to do is to jail people for months or years for turning, in desperation, to becoming a sex worker or deciding to consume substances in any degree of moderation. It's the height of compassion, understanding and the promotion of social welfare to brutalise people in confinement because they choose a different leisure activity than you which (with the arguable exception of prostitution) hurts no one. Also the word you're thinking of 'immoral', 'amoral' denotes something outside of morality, like walking or using drugs, but your meaning is clear... and reprehensible.

Why is it immoral to use drugs but not to eat food? You're still metabolising chemical compounds, either natural or artificial; the compounds in question have no rights nor sentience, well except those formerly comprising animals. You can say there's a criminal infrastructure to support the purchaser of drugs, in creation and sale but that's not the result of the drug itself nor the preference of the user but the expectant result of illegality. Something you seem to want to support inspite of the comically overwhelming failure of the drug war, even to the private admission of its former exponents and it kills more people (40,000 just in Mexico by prohibition-created Cartels just since the inauguration of Filpe Calderóne) than the narcotics its meant to curtail.

So yes, with its actually realistic and compassionate policies, Europe has some of the most "moral" and ethical social policies in the entire world and their efficacy is corroborated by outcomes, virtually all people barring the irrational would find ideal. No region or continent is perfect, far from it but I would also be the first to commit civil disobedience in your idea of a "moral" world.
Let's see the various reasons why: Food is an absolute necessity, without it one dies. Drugs are an escape. Rather than doing something constructive and useful, one chooses simply to flee from reality. It's weakness. Two, many drugs have unpleasent side-effects, and often infringe upon those who do not use. PCP users often show heightened aggression, crack users often resort to theft to fuel their addiction and meth producers often endanger their neighborhoods. This is of course besides the fact that someone's desire to smoke something shouldn't be forced upon me for occupying the same venue, nor having their lack of inhibitions become my problem. Your argument is entirely invalid, and a part of you must know that.

As for the censorship debate, I do not support it, but I do understand it. Censorship laws, like the media forms they often govern, cater to the lowest common denominator. In a perfect world, parents would be involved in their child's day-to-day activities, negating the need for anything to off-limits to them. Problem being, many parents are either not involved, or can even be a negative influence on the child. When that child having been raised in a manner of either neglect, or where they've learned that rules don't apply to them, when they recieve either violent or sexual media, learns that either violence is a permissable form of dealing with things, or that sexual urges are their right to see to fruition. Obviously, it is not fair to those who would have to deal with the consequences of those actions. So, while the censorship is a minor evilof the many, it does so with the hope of maintaining a major evil against a few. Now, in certain contexts, I support this (I would like to see the ESRB have even more rights; There is no need for a 13 year old to have access to a game where chainsawing a little old lady is commonplace). Perhaps give them the right to punitive financial actions against parents who allow their children to play games above their catagory. This would allow countries like Australia and Germany to have their "adult" games available for the masses, while hopefully saving neglectful parents the crippling responsibility of actual parenting.

ilweran
29th Oct 2011, 11:47
Let's see the various reasons why: Food is an absolute necessity, without it one dies. Drugs are an escape. Rather than doing something constructive and useful, one chooses simply to flee from reality. It's weakness. Two, many drugs have unpleasent side-effects, and often infringe upon those who do not use. PCP users often show heightened aggression, crack users often resort to theft to fuel their addiction and meth producers often endanger their neighborhoods. This is of course besides the fact that someone's desire to smoke something shouldn't be forced upon me for occupying the same venue, nor having their lack of inhibitions become my problem. Your argument is entirely invalid, and a part of you must know that.

Games, films and books can be used to 'flee from reality', and taking drugs isn't always about weakness, many people with undiagnosed mental illness self-medicate with drugs or alcohol. I tend to think drugs should be legalised and any money saved from ending the war on drugs / raised through taxing their sale could be used to fund improved mental health and substance misuse services.

On the censorship issue, in the UK most games have age ratings on and they should be better enforced to stop them being sold directly to anyone underage, but in the end it's up to the parents. My parents were, overall, quite strict, but they let me & my sister watch 15 or 18 rated films when we were younger than that - the Terminator and Alien films spring to mind - but they didn't just leave us to our own devices and we'd been brought up having special effects explained to us. Neither of us has killed anyone, and we both seem to be fairly well balanced - even after seeing our mum laughing as she mowed down pedestrians with a tank in GTA3 and her weird vendetta against a neighbour in Animal Crossing.

ThinkVision
29th Oct 2011, 16:56
I'd just like to mention two things concerning the censorship in Japan.

1 - Showing body organs/sexual objects is not strictly prohibited as claimed by one of the sites linked to. If scenes involving body organs were out right prohibited many TV series/films and the like shown on Japanese TV would not be broadcast. As for the objects, those two can be shown as long as they are not being used at the time.

2 - Only the console versions of the Deus Ex Human Revolution are censored. PC versions, available for purchase in Japan, are uncensored. Further the PC version was also released earlier (back in August) than its console counterparts (which were released 10 days ago).

Now, as far as 1 goes, it's important to understand that Sony Japan is somewhat conservative in the content they allow on their system. Further it's also worth noting the current problem in Tokyo (and in effect, nationwide as a result of how cities tend to follow choices made in Tokyo). That is, the current governor is on a war path against anime, manga and, to an extent, games. He objects to their content under the guise that they harm the development of youth. As such, even when a game is getting a Z rating, publishers are erring on the side of caution and removing any content that the governor could possible object to so that they don't join the anime and manga publishers in the direct line of fire.

Anime publishers have taken this censorship to an all new level mind, one that shouldn't be confused with prohibited content. That is, anime broadcast on TV will have several scenes "censored" regardless of their actual content (other than the scene features a female character) just so that an "uncensored" version can be sold at an overly inflated price on Blu Ray.

As far as 2 goes, games (I define a game here as anything other than a dating sim/visual novel -- as those are covered by a separate ratings board) released on the PC are rarely censored. The only recent example of a PC game being censored that I can recall is the Japanese language version of Mafia 2. Even Fallout 3 retained its full content on the PC, dismemberment of humans and detonation of a specific nuke included. Both of those can most certainly be considered to be major taboos.

Basically, the point to this response is that unlike Germany, most censorship in Japan is not simply down to legal reasons, or due to perceived acceptable societal norms. It's simply for "business reasons".

jd10013
29th Oct 2011, 18:32
I didn't say anything about morality. You're the one seeing it in these terms. You make me laugh. Typical moralising American; preaching from up on high atop a mound of his own excrement and unable to smell it.

nice straw man you put up there. I was not stating an opinion on the adherence or disregard of morally accepted behavior. my only point was that it's odd that places like Europe that have abandoned commonly recognized morals are the ones censoring media. typical European trying to redefine morality to justify or excuse ones behavior.

Romeo
29th Oct 2011, 20:14
Games, films and books can be used to 'flee from reality', and taking drugs isn't always about weakness, many people with undiagnosed mental illness self-medicate with drugs or alcohol. I tend to think drugs should be legalised and any money saved from ending the war on drugs / raised through taxing their sale could be used to fund improved mental health and substance misuse services.

On the censorship issue, in the UK most games have age ratings on and they should be better enforced to stop them being sold directly to anyone underage, but in the end it's up to the parents. My parents were, overall, quite strict, but they let me & my sister watch 15 or 18 rated films when we were younger than that - the Terminator and Alien films spring to mind - but they didn't just leave us to our own devices and we'd been brought up having special effects explained to us. Neither of us has killed anyone, and we both seem to be fairly well balanced - even after seeing our mum laughing as she mowed down pedestrians with a tank in GTA3 and her weird vendetta against a neighbour in Animal Crossing.
Games, films and books at least have the useful trait of instilling some useful knowledge; Drugs do not. As for it not being about weakness, my only cousin is in the exact same circumstance you just listed - it does not justify the activity, not in the least. If you are coherent enough to realize your reality is not worth living without relying on a substance, you're more than able of realizing you need help. Choosing to forego that in favour of "self-medicating" (Love the idiocy of that term) is a choice, not a consequence. And while I think legalizing always looks great on paper, I find it bizarre that people expect existing drug dealers to simply stop and step aside for the government when things become legalized. Hell, compare it from the average user's perspective: Government - Taxed, publicly acknowledged, regulated, low dosage. Dealer - Untaxed, anonymous, can sell as much as you want, high dosage.

Right, and I have never played a first-person shooter and thought "Hm, this would be fun in real life." As I stated in my paragraph, the overwhelming majority of people would have no issues with media featuring violence, sexual conduct or substance abuse. But unfortunately, the government often has to cater to the stupidest chunk of the population, specifically to prevent them from attempting such acts and endangering the normal population, such as you and I. If you'd like to see an example of this, go down to the movie theatres next time a "Fast and the Furious" movie is released. Watch the parking lot directly after. You will see dozens of individuals with absolutely no racing experience, inadequate cars for racing and circumstances that make racing dangerous. Despite that, there's burnouts, street races, doughnuts and other dangerous activities. Censorship may be a plague on media, but it is not entirely unjustified.

AlexOfSpades
30th Oct 2011, 00:09
The second edit involves an unknown "sexual object” removed from one of the game's maps.

Wait, what? Can someone explain this?

Zoet
30th Oct 2011, 00:55
Wait, what? Can someone explain this?

I think it's just this.....http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1702668&postcount=1

AlexOfSpades
30th Oct 2011, 01:02
I think it's just this.....http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1702668&postcount=1

Lol as if a kid would recognize that

Zoet
30th Oct 2011, 01:31
Lol as if a kid would recognize that
Exactly. DX:HR is actually quite a tame game content-wise when you play non-lethal. Not much blood and gore (except in cutscenes), no awkward animated sex scenes at all, just quite a bit of swearing. It must be awful to be an easily offended person... You miss out on so many good things: my grandmother, for instance won't touch a book if it has a single swearword in it.

ThinkVision
30th Oct 2011, 02:46
Lol as if a kid would recognize that

Well, despite the fact that DX:HR has a CERO Z rating (Adults Only -- must be displayed in stores separately from non-Z rated games, cannot be sold to minors, etc.), I have already explained the most probable reasons for that edit.
Either Sony Japan asked it to be removed (and thus Square Enix decided it's easier to remove from the X-Box version too) or it's been removed just to avoid difficulties with the governor of Tokyo.

TheUnbeholden
30th Oct 2011, 05:42
Games, films and books at least have the useful trait of instilling some useful knowledge; Drugs do not. As for it not being about weakness, my only cousin is in the exact same circumstance you just listed - it does not justify the activity, not in the least. If you are coherent enough to realize your reality is not worth living without relying on a substance, you're more than able of realizing you need help. Choosing to forego that in favour of "self-medicating" (Love the idiocy of that term) is a choice, not a consequence. And while I think legalizing always looks great on paper, I find it bizarre that people expect existing drug dealers to simply stop and step aside for the government when things become legalized. Hell, compare it from the average user's perspective: Government - Taxed, publicly acknowledged, regulated, low dosage. Dealer - Untaxed, anonymous, can sell as much as you want, high dosage.

Actually it would be far cheaper to buy from the government if it became legalized, as the government pays off most of the pharmacy materials (it's actually one of reasons to legalize it, to keep the money out of hands of the criminals if the government can sell it cheap.. The only way we can stop these drug operations is to cut the prices so it is no longer profitable for them to smuggle the drugs in and sell them.)

And there would be no risk of getting poisoned by other chemicals the drug dealer or Drug producer may have put in it (they can mix it with other chemicals to get it over the borders) & other times they mix it with other ingredients to dilute the drug so they can sell more of it... this common practice because you can make more money while people won't get 'as high' from it... Believe it or not, but finding 100% pure cocaine was difficult in 1970's America.

Being publicly acknowledged is a bit of a weird thing for you to say, because most people don't know what prescription drugs I take except for my doctor. And you seriously said low dosage? I know someone who has prescription marijuana and get gets tons of it per month. Sure there is a limit to how much he gets but its still plenty. Enough to share with a friend.

And marijuana does not kill people (its not toxic), where as many die from alcohol as a result of the liver disease caused by it.
(theres also certain legal drugs like anti-emetics and anti-psychotics that causes many deaths).

The reason why is it isn't legalized is because of the mind altering nature of marijuana (eventhough its withdrawal state isn't as severe as Nicotine from cigarettes).

AlexOfSpades
30th Oct 2011, 06:34
I played - and finished - Doom 1 when i was 5 (shareware). Not much later, i also finished Shadow Warrior (Which includes even full nudity, besides the extreme violence). Not to mention Duke Nukem and Mortal Kombat (i always loved Scorpion on MK2!).

According to the age restrictions, i should have never played those games. Or Unreal/Quake2 at the age of 7, and later UT/Q3, and then CS...

... and if i did, i should be some sort of a violent psychopath. However i'm not. I'm an open minded guy that tries to solve everything by talking, and i always try to forgive people, and be empathic. Which means, blasting zombies with double-barrelled shotguns makes you a nice guy later in life. :3

I think that age restrictions only get on the way of the customer. A psycho kid sure will go nuts after playing a violent game, but he would anyway even if he instead went to read a book. Just check statistics. Check if after the development of videogames, world violence increased significantly. If not, then i guess its time to rethink the restriction standards.

Edit: Some games kinda invite you to do some stuff, however ; Mirror's Edge really invites me to do parkour, and Thief... hehheheheh... aw come on i bet everyone feels sneaky after playing it too!

Edit 2: WHy dont they censor the Holy Bible? It contains rape, murder and many other weird sh1t!

Like this, from Numbers Chapter 31


17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

o.O

Romeo
30th Oct 2011, 06:45
Actually it would be far cheaper to buy from the government if it became legalized, as the government pays off most of the pharmacy materials (it's actually one of reasons to legalize it, to keep the money out of hands of the criminals if the government can sell it cheap.. The only way we can stop these drug operations is to cut the prices so it is no longer profitable for them to smuggle the drugs in and sell them.)

And there would be no risk of getting poisoned by other chemicals the drug dealer or Drug producer may have put in it (they can mix it with other chemicals to get it over the borders) & other times they mix it with other ingredients to dilute the drug so they can sell more of it... this common practice because you can make more money while people won't get 'as high' from it... Believe it or not, but finding 100% pure cocaine was difficult in 1970's America.

Being publicly acknowledged is a bit of a weird thing for you to say, because most people don't know what prescription drugs I take except for my doctor. And you seriously said low dosage? I know someone who has prescription marijuana and get gets tons of it per month. Sure there is a limit to how much he gets but its still plenty. Enough to share with a friend.

And marijuana does not kill people (its not toxic), where as many die from alcohol as a result of the liver disease caused by it.
(theres also certain legal drugs like anti-emetics and anti-psychotics that causes many deaths).

The reason why is it isn't legalized is because of the mind altering nature of marijuana (eventhough its withdrawal state isn't as severe as Nicotine from cigarettes).


Well, from the simple things like marijuana, it is a plant. So, government isn't going to undercut the dealer there. For harder things, apart from questionable ethics (Is it right to fuel someone's meth or crack habit?), it is still going to be difficult to undercut. Cocaine, for example, is often taken from dirt-cheap labourers in Columbia, brought in by the cartel and then sold by dealers. The government will have more expensive labourers, will be able to skip the expense of importing, but will also want a profit just like any dealer would. One needs to question whether the base labour or the cost of importing is the larger expense. Regardless, tax is still a mammoth issue. In BC, base tax is 14%. "Sin tax" on things like alcohol, nicotene and gas often pushes things up towards 20-50% more, even if it isn't explicitely stated. Obviously even 20% on an expensive product is a warrantable concern.

That is true, and that would be one of the advantages of strict control. That being said, there's still the danger of the drug itself. Cocaine doesn't need to be laced to be lethal. As for diluting it, funny you should say that, because the biggest drug problem in BC is that most drugs are being laced with meth to push the highs to increased levels. Now, obviously removing that would have the advantage of removing some of the addictive qualities (And inherit danger) of meth, but will also be a "weaker" drug overall. Anyways, that point stems from prohibition-era alcohol, bieng substantially stronger than government-controlled alcohol.

Right off the bat, to start with, obviously the fact you know about your friend's presciption marijuana proves my point. Further solidifying that point is that where I am from, virtually the entire population knows eachother. My pharmacist knows me on a first name basis, knows where I live and knows my Diabetes presciptions by heart. Obviously, going to her for a line of coke would be an incredibly awkward transaction. As would walking home with it. As would be going to get a presciption for it. On a related note, seeing as how your friend has enough to share, that in itself almost highlights a lack of control already. It may work with marijuana, but it will not with things like cocaine, heroin, ecstacy, etc. And on that same note, it still isn't right; I'm not even allowed to take out too much insulin - something which has no benefits to any non-diabetic, and something I actually need to survive.

No, it isn't toxic, but like all forms of smoke, ravages the lungs. People seem to have it in their head that the only dangerous smoke comes from cigarettes. And most studies have mentioned that a joint of marijuana is more damaging than a cigarette to the lungs, because the marijuana smoke is held in longer, prolonging the damage. Your point is already invalid, but to further tear it apart, let's compare what you're actually talking about: Excessive alcohol intake (As one drink is not damaging, and frankly, has been shown to be beneficial) will damage the liver, in the exact same method excessive smoke of any kind will damage the lungs.

As for your final point, I agree with the statement. Personally, I would almost like to see more control over the other commonly abused things in my province: Alcohol and cigarettes. The biggest reason why? When that heavy drinker blows out his liver, and when that smoker gets lung cancer, they go to the provincially-funded public hospitals. Which are funded by taxes. They're also the biggest contribution to why we have a 30% income tax rate in BC. Less people in the hospital means less staff and hospitals are needed, meaning less tax is needed to cover them.

ilweran
30th Oct 2011, 10:11
As for it not being about weakness, my only cousin is in the exact same circumstance you just listed - it does not justify the activity, not in the least. If you are coherent enough to realize your reality is not worth living without relying on a substance, you're more than able of realizing you need help. Choosing to forego that in favour of "self-medicating" (Love the idiocy of that term) is a choice, not a consequence.

What if you don't have access to that help? I only know about the UK, and mainly the area the charity I work for covers, but many GP's have very little time or sympathy for (and even knowledge of) mental health problems. Add to that the stigma around mental health problems and the fact that people may not be able to pinpoint what is wrong... it's not always quite as simple as 'there's something wrong, I'll go see my doctor and he'll fix it'. Plus psychiatric meds can have horrendous side effects, and I imagine many people would still be scared of being 'sectioned'.

I never said it was a good choice but people don't always see the choices available, and if they have a mental illness that could further limit the options they perceive themselves as having. If you're suffering from paranoia and think your GP is part of a plot to poison you you're not likely to think that's a good place to go for help - I've had someone phone me up who believed that mental health services were in league with the mysterious 'them' and that 'they' were putting something in the water.

Romeo
1st Nov 2011, 11:05
What if you don't have access to that help? I only know about the UK, and mainly the area the charity I work for covers, but many GP's have very little time or sympathy for (and even knowledge of) mental health problems. Add to that the stigma around mental health problems and the fact that people may not be able to pinpoint what is wrong... it's not always quite as simple as 'there's something wrong, I'll go see my doctor and he'll fix it'. Plus psychiatric meds can have horrendous side effects, and I imagine many people would still be scared of being 'sectioned'.

I never said it was a good choice but people don't always see the choices available, and if they have a mental illness that could further limit the options they perceive themselves as having. If you're suffering from paranoia and think your GP is part of a plot to poison you you're not likely to think that's a good place to go for help - I've had someone phone me up who believed that mental health services were in league with the mysterious 'them' and that 'they' were putting something in the water.
Most civilized coutries have access to mental health facilities. Because most countries recognize that cleaning someone up and getting them re-integrated with society means they can be added to the work force, which is beneficial to the economy. In Canada specifically, we not only have many mental health facilities, the tab is paid for by the government at that, negating any fiscal excuse. As I've said, being closely related to someone suffering mental illness, I'm all-too-aware of the difficulty in diagnosis. But that's not a reason to substitute professional guidance with street drugs. If you honestly believe that you've got more experience than them, you're hopelessly naive. Same too goes for anti-depressents versus narcotics. Anyone who's honestly preaching that something like cocaine is a better alternative to a psychiatrist's presciption is an idiot, end of story.

I'm well aware that there are some who's circumstances will not get them to go in for help on their own. Does that make the use of narcotics justified? They're certainly not doing that individual any favours, are they? My point was never that psychiatry is the answer to everything - my point is and has always been that drugs are the weakest possible "solution" in every circumstance. Reliance on anything is a weakness. An example would be rather than finding out the root cause of restlessness at night, one simply gets prescribed sleeping pills. The pills may work, but they are certainly the worst solution to be had.

ilweran
1st Nov 2011, 15:04
I never said it was a good idea or that I was recommending it, just that the situation isn't always as clear cut as 'self medication=being weak and stupid'.


Most civilized coutries have access to mental health facilities.

Not everyone within those countries can necessarily easily access those services. In my area they are just introducing the idea that services can't refuse to treat someone because they normally reside in a different area - it's thought homeless people in particular may be falling through this gap at the moment, and they're a group that are vulnerable for a number of reasons. And that's people who are already known to services, imagine if they weren't. We often expect the most vulnerable people to be able to push for and fight to get the treatment they need at the time they're least able to.

Romeo
2nd Nov 2011, 02:04
I never said it was a good idea or that I was recommending it, just that the situation isn't always as clear cut as 'self medication=being weak and stupid'.



Not everyone within those countries can necessarily easily access those services. In my area they are just introducing the idea that services can't refuse to treat someone because they normally reside in a different area - it's thought homeless people in particular may be falling through this gap at the moment, and they're a group that are vulnerable for a number of reasons. And that's people who are already known to services, imagine if they weren't. We often expect the most vulnerable people to be able to push for and fight to get the treatment they need at the time they're least able to.
It is still weak, and especially stupid. You're already in a bad situation. Addiction and further mental impairment are most certainly not the way to help improve the situation.

I recognize that is a difficulty, but that's something that needs to be rectified by the government, or at least altered. Ultimately, I still find it exceptionally difficult to blame anyone BUT those in that situation. Sure, with mental illness someone else almost needs to force help upon them, but those who've ended up on the streets on account of poor decisions, I have no pity for. Even in that situation, where help is available, the government in BC is finding it hard to justify the continued existence of those facilities, as most in that situation are seeing "Drugs + Welfare for no effort > No drugs + Having to work". As cruel as it sounds, help almost needs to be forced upon those who can be re-integrated, by both forced rehab and by pulling welfare for a failure to find employment.

PugPug
2nd Nov 2011, 05:22
re: japan, where is there a sex organ exposed in DX:HR?

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
26th Mar 2012, 20:55
Who cares? Movies are snipped so they receive a 12 certificate instead of a 15, so more people get to see them. They probably cut loads out of Deus Ex Human Revolution to get a 15.

Reven
26th Mar 2012, 21:35
re: japan, where is there a sex organ exposed in DX:HR?

Its most likely considered to be lewd which is a cultural taboo to the Japanese.

Livesundersink
9th Apr 2012, 12:11
I don't think Morality has anything to do with it. for something like this to happen in Japan makes sense. that's a pretty strict, morally based society. but in supposedly "progressive" places like Germany? when I think of Europe, morality doesn't exactly come to mind. especially from a country that has legalized prostitution. almost every form of amoral behavior has been legalized somewhere in the union, so I don't buy the morality argument. I'm not saying I'm for or against what they've done, but morals clearly aren't the first order of business on the continent.

Does it offend you that there are countries in the world that don't follow the strict "moral" code of the united states?. what the hell does prostitution have to do with any of this?, i'm australian and until recently we didn't have a 18+ rating for video games, so most of what little video game censorship that goes on in this country is rather minor and almost on the order of unnoticeable and merely done to protect the younger audience because games that would be rated 18+ are instead rated 15+ (although i would say they don't need any protection cause their minds are already corrupted beyond salvation) the one person who opposed an 18+ rating in australia is no longer in office and appeared to be living in the 1950's believing video games diminish intelligence and cause violence. thankfully he has since disappeared and we are moving on with this issue. oh and btw europe is a continent not a country please get your facts right :)