Hey all.

This is my first post on this forum but i have been a long time reader. I've been working on an assignment for a subject i have and the topic i've come to is along the lines of Censorship of Video Games (btw i live in Australia so i've got a few examples to work with.. GTA 4, fallout 3..) and I will also be discussing the idea that Video Games (some) are a great source of expression of ideas and issues in society aswell as another form of art. Any thought on this will be greatly appreciated.

One question i also have is that with the monopoly that EA is trying to run, taking out the competition especially the smaller yet successful companies like bioware (well, not taking out but buying out), do you feel the variation of ideas and the originality or creativity will run dry?

Another thought, just with the whole negativity that parents and media have with video games, do you think video games aren't taken as seriously as films, novels and other forms which are known as art or expressive mediums? I really think a huge percentage of games aren't fleshed out as they could be but certain companies such as Bioware, 2k Games and Valve (probably more but i'm working off the top of my head) have take huge leaps to present games as something more than flashy forms of entertainment. I mean, i love video games (i've been playing them since i was around 3-5 with the master system) and i enjoy a lot of games without stories or without substance. Games just for fun. But on the other hand there's great opportunities to present more than that. I'd love to do so myself but i have no skills in the gaming area.

Anyways, sorry for my ramblings but yes, these are my ideas and they have probably been covered before but hopefully i can get some feedback.

Thanks! :)

Firstly, welcome to the forums.

Now to your points:

I think there are certainly two valid sides of the argument with censorship in video games. For agreeing with censorship in video games, one might argue that due to the increasing realism of games children and teenagers might draw experiences from those very games to influence their actions in life. You might want to link that argument to examples of violence supposedly being influenced by video games, such as that shooting that was supposedly due to GTA IV or that boy who stabbed his parents because they took his console away. On the other side of the argument, one might simply point out that it is quite blatant that video games aren't real, and that people are smart enough to realise that video games aren't a reflection of real life and so aren't influenced by them. In terms of censorship, it simply depends on how much of a resemblance people think they bear with films. If they think the resemblance is strong, the censorship should be the same. If not, then obviously it is the opposite.

With your question regarding EA, I do not think that 'buying out the competition' will have a negative effect on the originality or creativity of games. Whilst developers such as Bioware and Pandemic are now part of the EA team, they still have control over their creativity and originality. There is a great difference between developer and publisher in my opinion - whilst EA will want to ensure that the games being made by these developers are ones of quality, i'm sure they are well aware that leaving them alone will create a more positive effect on both the outcome of the game and the relationship between EA and developer. I think EA have enough experience to know that they will ship a better product if they leave the developers to do what they do best.

Onto your final point, I don't think that games aren't taken as seriously as films or other expressive art forms yet. A significant event that has helped to bridge the gap between games and films is the release of GTA IV. You have probably heard this, but the makers of Iron Man were so worried about their film being released around the same time as GTA IV that they thought it would affect their revenue. People are starting to realise that developers are making a huge effort to make games less actual video games and more 'interactive films'. In my opinion, eventually people will acknowledge that video games are effectively interactive films. I think video games have always been considered an expressive art form, albeit mildly. The companies you have mentioned have made a large effort in making video games a greater and stronger form of entertainment. However I feel that other companies have taken note of this and have put greater emphasis on story where before they might not have done.

Well, hope that help!

A good paper always presents both sides of the argument. I wrote a similar one when I was in college, here's a book I used that argued the other side (i.e. desensitizes children): http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&id=EIXLxO3MwQ0C...

Personally, I feel they are attacking the wrong medium. Films (especially more modern films) are getting to the point where gratuitous violence is the main selling point and is taken in favor over a cohesive plot. Comparatively, video games are much more tame. I still like me some violent films though :D

I do remember reading somewhere that they were considering passing a bill that required a large warning label (similar to the surgeon general warning on cigarettes) in addition to the ESRB warning to be added to the packaging of explicitly violent video games. I dunno what happened with that though...

Thanks heaps for the replies! Yeah i agree with all of the points and will definitely use the advice!

Btw, I basically did this (created a post) to get feedback on the topics i'm interested in for my PIP (personal interest project for a subject called society and culture) and as a primary source I thought this would be a great idea. Just to get a little help to form my ideas and also get an indication on how gamers actually feel about the state of gaming and to give my pip some grounding.

With the censorship problem, the one that Fallout 3 is facing, I'm a little confused on the stances that the Classification Board of Australia has. Reading though their guidelines there seems to be contradictory codes they follow for example they state they will protect minors from harmful images/sounds etc but also say that "adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want". And if they introduce the R18+ rating it would allow adults to play it but stop children which would solve the problem and if they children play or see it after an adult has bought it it should be the parent's responsibility. I'm not sure if you've seen Requiem For A Dream but that has some pretty messed up shite in it to do with drugs and it was allowed classification. DVD's are much cheaper and the players more available meaning there's more chance kids could come across such things.. It just doesn't make sense. But i guess i don't want to get into it too much now as there's already a post up about it. But it would be great if computer games would get the same respect as films i guess.