Will you be importing The Witcher?

Originally Posted by Lethal Weapon
To reverse your argument, sex and violence in entertainment often serve as a safe outlet for repressed instincts. Say what if porn were to be banned tomorrow by all countries worldwide? Would you really be surprised if we would then experience a sudden increase in the number of rapes?

The egyptian rape riots are a good example. In that country sex is suppressed (which leads to sexual frustration) and there are fasts where you must totally clear your mind of sex for long times and then when the fast ends (first day of Eid) it all comes out like a bomb:

It was the first day of Eid, and a new film was opening downtown. Mobs of males gatherd trying to get in, but when the show was sold out, they decided they will destroy the box office. After accomplishing that, they went on what can only be described as a sexual frenxy: They ran around grabbing any and every girl in sight, whether a niqabi, a Hijabi or uncoverd. Whether egyptian or foreigner. Even pregnant ones.

They grabbed them, molested them, tried to rip their cloths off and rape them, all in front of the police, who didn't do shit. The good people of downtown tried their best to protect the girls. Shop owners would let the girls in and lock the doors, while the mobs tried to break in. Taxi drivers put the girls in the cars while the mobs were trying to break the glass and grab the girls out. It was a disgusting pandamonium of sexual assaults that lasted for 5 houres from 7:30 PM to 12:30 am, and it truns my stomach just to think about it.

http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/10/30…ment-incident/

'm just trying to get you all to see that it isn't just about you. Censorship is in place for a very valid reason. How effective it is anyone can guess, but if one life is saved or changed for the better, then isn't it worth it? If you cry "no!" I say you are devoid of normal feelings of goodwill and you have probably played too many violent video games.

So the reason why games must be cencored is because some nutjob somewhere may flip out because of seeing a nipple in a rpg game? Sounds rather ineffective precautionary measure to me. If this nutjob is eager to see nipples, he is more likely to enter a night club where the ammount of nipples will probably make his head explode in 5 seconds! or he could just search porn with google like rest of the humankind

Nipples and The Matrix have nothing to do with each other, and how anyone made that connection from what I wrote is beyond me. I was talking about censorship in general, as is a lot of other people on this thread, whether that be about sex, violence, or both. Trying to convince me that there would actually be more violence and rapes if those ideas were removed from entertainment is a complete waste of time for me and you. Imo that is as illogical as you seem to think I'm being.

@ Dez - As long as people take the attitude of "how is this one thing going to make a difference?" problems will escalate on any level that reasoning is applied to, whether it be censoring games or global warming.

I weep for the species.

@ Dhruin: You jest about banning religion, but mark my words - It absolutely will happen sooner than you think.

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
You are suggesting, however, that since someone can get something somewhere, the world should just throw in the towel and let anything go. Would you suggest stocking store shelves with instruction kits on "how to make a car-bomb," just becuase someone somewhere can get a hold of the same on the internet?
As to your question regarding seeing twelve nipples…. I wouldn't know how that affects a disturbed person, because I'm a normal one. But I do know that many convicted serial killers were addicted to porn. That is a documented fact.

No, not let anything go. I wast trying to point out the ridiculousness absurdity of censoring nipples when there are games featuring extreme violence like torture, serial killing and mass-killing cops and blowing things up. I'm not saying we should let anything pass. I just don't understand how does a goddamn nipple in a video game harm anyone in this world with all the filth available EVEN to minors.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Plenty of nutjobs have heard voices from God, too. Who's with me to ban all religion?

Me! Me!

Originally Posted by Lethal Weapon
@Jabberwocky
Most psychologists agree that a man's character has already been determined roughly by the age of five or six. Everything that happens since then just adds 'flavour'. It would take really significant, life-changing events to 'wake up' latent behavioral patterns.

To reverse your argument, sex and violence in entertainment often serve as a safe outlet for repressed instincts. Say what if porn were to be banned tomorrow by all countries worldwide? Would you really be surprised if we would then experience a sudden increase in the number of rapes? Maybe for each teen that commits a crime after playing a violent videogame, there are ten others that don't. In this case for the one that did commit the crime, obviously the videogame was not enough to satiate his urges.

All very good points.

and what about the news? I mean not even games or movies are so violent and obscure as what you hear and see in the news every day.
yes violent games and movies and musiccan have an effect on people, but most of the effect is numbing down feelings but not make people turn into violent beings. There has to be something wrong already and then even other things could have triggered it.
Why don't we sensor the news better? it has a rating. That is enough the rest is up to the person itself or if it is a minor: his parents.

Btw does anyone know wich version will apear in belgium? because I already saw the witcher at game mania folder.

The thing still is this, though: The Witcher are rated 18+ in most of Europe,
and 17+ in the US. In the US this means that a children under the age of 17+ can't buy this game at all. They will need their parents or guardians to buy The Witcher for them.

I agree, however, that not all games, tv-shows, movies or even the news, should be viewed by all children. But I also need to re-state or say again that I do strongly believe that it is the parents responsibility to monitor, watch and supervise their childrens use of the media, from news content on tv over what movies they see to what games they play. And that's why we have game ratings, to help inform parents about games - then they can decide…

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
4) By claiming that all censorship is bad, and that nothing should be censored, you are ultimately saying that you are in approval of the fact that a mentally disturbed person will have access to any and all forms of entertainment that could influence them in a negative way, and that they should be free to make that choice same as you.

Damn straight.

It would be very simple to reduce the crime rate to zero.

Just throw everybody in jail. Problem solved.

However, I think it's pretty obvious that the solution is worse than the problem.

The same goes for censorship. Yes, the cost of free speech is that, ultimately, some people will die because of it. If I say "Elbonia is bad!" it's quite possible that statistically someone who already really, really hates Elbonia and hears me say it will be tipped over to the point where he'll beat a random Elbonian to death with a tire iron when he bumps into him on the street.

(Try substituting "Iran," "Israel," "America," or "France" for Elbonia and see how the thought sounds, for kicks.)

Does this mean that it should be forbidden to say "Elbonia is bad?"

I don't think so.

Similarly, it's quite possible that someone who's already seriously disturbed will be pushed over the edge by a really bad session of multiplayer Team Fortress 2. Does that mean we should ban Team Fortress 2?

I don't think so.

What we should do is try to do something about the seriously disturbed people once we recognize that they're seriously disturbed. Restricting everybody else's freedoms in order to stop the disturbed people from getting more disturbed is not the right solution.

What do you think?

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
@ Dez - As long as people take the attitude of "how is this one thing going to make a difference?" problems will escalate on any level that reasoning is applied to, whether it be censoring games or global warming.

Another red herring. Think of what we're doing here is cost/benefit analysis. What we *should* be asking is:

1. What are the (social) costs of censorship?
2. What are the (social) benefits of censorship?
3. Can we think of (socially) less expensive ways of getting the same (or greater) (social) benefits?

I can think of many, many cheaper and more effective ways to e.g. reduce violent and/or sexual crimes than censorship. Hell, many of them are in use -- violent crime rates are *falling,* not rising, in most of the industrialized world.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
Does this mean that it should be forbidden to say "Elbonia is bad?"

But … but … but … think of the MUD!??!?!



I completely agree. The only 'censorship' should be when the expression of free speech crosses over into potential *direct* physical harm to others - for example, making threats such as running into a crowded area and saying "I have a gun and I'm going to start shooting".

Expressing unpopular ideas should be *protected* as vehemently as crimes are prosecuted, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
The same goes for censorship. Yes, the cost of free speech is that, ultimately, some people will die because of it. If I say "Elbonia is bad!" it's quite possible that statistically someone who already really, really hates Elbonia and hears me say it will be tipped over to the point where he'll beat a random Elbonian to death with a tire iron when he bumps into him on the street.

(Try substituting "Iran," "Israel," "America," or "France" for Elbonia and see how the thought sounds, for kicks.)

Yeah, but even the French hate the French, so that one gets special permission.

Really, this comes down to whether we need to legislate parental responsibility in order to make it happen across the board. We generally seem to agree that the first line of defense against budding nutjobs (and, to a lesser level of agreement, against general filth) should be parental involvement. Now, it seems Jabberwocky is convinced that many parents have shirked the job of raising their children (and 5 minutes in any nearby Chuck E Cheese should convince anyone that Jabberwocky's on to something there). It then follows that all of us are put at risk by that ineptitude. The next leap would be that government, tasked to protect society as a whole, would be obligated to defend its citizens against the threat. Since it's not practical for government to control individuals, the next alternative would be to try to limit situations that would call for parental involvement--censorship.

dte, you are a genious. Not that I think you are agreeing with me, but the fact that you actually understand my approach to the whole topic.

I'm only delving into the issue of censorship as a whole. I'm not trying to state what I think should and shouldn't be censored. You want nipples (I have to throw that word in here to stay on topic :) that's fine. I'm not judging you for it. I will be playing the Witcher too, and if the USA allowed nipples to be in there then I would play that version. But the whole idea of regulating society based solely on parental leadership is woefully oblivious to the real state of the world.

I think I need to remind you all that in the UK as well as in Germany, it is forbidden by LAW to sell a 16+ or 18+ game to any person under the age of 16+ or 18+ . If you do anyway, you can get prosecuted for this.

Technically, why the ESRB or PEGI doesn't have legislation behind them to back them up doing what UK or Germany is doing re: rating games and children etc. in theory a 5 year old could buy GTA or Bioshock. Im pretty sure that 99% of Danish game stor owners would tell them they weren't old enough for this game or they needed to get another game or to get their mother or father. In many stores in the US, like Wal-Mart etc. the story policy would be to keep the game from being sold to people under the age of seventeenn. Or to put it another way: Only people old enough can buy the game, meaning that only people from age 17 and up, are able to buy the game. The industry is regulating itself, there's really no need for censorship.

As for the nipples in The Witcher, I don't care about this. I care more about the sex cards of which I have seen two, I believe, over at the rpgcodex. It may be realistic and in tune with the books, but I don't mind that they will be gone in the US version. If they had been left in the US version, the game most definetely would have gotten an AO rating, which means that it couldn't get sold at game stores at all. I just hope there's a good story reason for the sex card mini-game? to be in the Witcher…

While we're on this subject. When I last visisted my Blockbuster Video & Game store, my eye got two young buys aged 10-12, I think. Naturally, I thought thery were going to buy a very violent game, but no, they were going to buy -The SIMS2, I think. This just goes to show that you have to question everything - even the validity of your own prejudices.

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
I will be playing the Witcher too, and if the USA allowed nipples to be in there then I would play that version.

The US does allow nipples. Ratings aren't censorship; they're tools for parents. Businesses are mindful of them and how they affect sales, and that's really what we're talking about here, aren't we?

All kidding aside, my wife works at a school with kids ages four through fourteen and sees all kinds of parents. I coach flag football over there sometimes, and so I get some exposure too. The only parents anyone ever shakes their heads over are the ones who allow their children to watch any kind of movie or play any kind of game they want.

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
I'm only delving into the issue of censorship as a whole. I'm not trying to state what I think should and shouldn't be censored…. But the whole idea of regulating society based solely on parental leadership is woefully oblivious to the real state of the world.

I can see your point, Jabberwocky. The state of the world (at least from the viewpoint of homo sapiens) is a reflection of the state of human beings. Without laws and rules, there would be chaos. Society evolves tools to deal with man's counter-social impulses out of necessity, and viewed from that standpoint, censorship is part of the desire to protect the innocent.

Unfortunately, it's also a tool for manipulation and oppression. It's like everything else, a lot depends on the context. My personal tendencies are to allow for as much individual freedom as possible because once the limits start, they snowball.

AFA parental leadership, there are a lot of forces that shape people into who they are; parental care, example and involvement are some of the primary ones. Yes, there's plenty of peer shaping and social and cultural influence as well, but they don't use the term "formative years" without reason. Your authority figures as a child have the most opportunity to program your mind into positive or negative channels.

If they aren't there to shape you for whatever reason, then the outside forces become substitutes, one of the reasons why gangs are so attractive to kids from dysfunctional families. You need someone to belong to and show you how to make choices. I agree it shouldn't be up to the media, whose primary concern is to produce more consumers.

But to me, removing visual stimuli like violence in TV and games doesn't really address the issue of why a person becomes violent. The Victorian era was one of the most outwardly repressive and controlling sexually and morally ever, but Jack the Ripper found his outlet, and god knows how many wars, murders, and rapes went on. They just didn't have the means to spread the news instantaneously through TV and the internet to and from all areas of the world, magnifying things in the process as we do today.

As I've said, I grew up in an era of censorship, banned books and McCarthyism, and I don't think the loosening of those particular reins is the reason we see more incidences of violent and other aberrant behaviour. IMO, I think we see more violence not because there actually *is* more violence pound for pound, but because a.) there are now a lot of people whose job it is to tell us all about it, and b.) because the population of the earth has vastly increased in our lifetimes and there are just a lot more crazy people out there.

Hey, a bit simplistic, but I was just a horticulture major

And just to be on topic for a moment, my UK import of the Witcher is now processing!!

2 minute minor to magerette for not using the word "nipples" in her post.

@Jabberwocky: Finally, someone notices… Wile E Coyote, Soooooooper Genius. I just might have to change my avatar. I agree with your analysis of the situation, but I'm not ready to let absentee parents off the hook, particularly if that involves the government. I really work hard at being a parent, and I want all the other parents to share in my misery. We'll see how successful I was in 10-15 years. Of course, if one of the Wild Dogs turns out to be an ax murderer, we'll blame that on Mrs dte's influence.

Originally Posted by dteowner
2 minute minor to magerette for not using the word "nipples" in her post….

We'll see how successful I was in 10-15 years. Of course, if one of the Wild Dogs turns out to be an ax murderer, we'll blame that on Mrs dte's influence.

oh wait I almost forgot:… Nipples!

Let's all hope the game is as good as some of the conversation around it.

Nipples!

Originally Posted by aries100
While we're on this subject. When I last visisted my Blockbuster Video & Game store, my eye got two young buys aged 10-12, I think. Naturally, I thought thery were going to buy a very violent game, but no, they were going to buy -The SIMS2, I think. This just goes to show that you have to question everything - even the validity of your own prejudices.

http://images.tomshardware.com/2005/…aked/sims2.jpg

Thers a whole collection of skins and patches that make witcher look lame in comparison.

not that it matters, but that link is dead, for me at least

Yep, dead for me too. I'm guessing it's anatomically correct Johnny Holmes and Jenna Jameson skins for Sims2, demonstrating that even the most innocent game can be corrupted by naughty children badly in need of a little corporal punishment.