GAMING AND CENSORSHIP - WHAT'S YOUR COMMENT?


ED. Note - One of the most interesting facets of publishing a magazine like Game Bytes is the closeness between the readers of the magazine and those of us who put it together. We felt it would be interesting to put a thought-provoking question out among the readers each month and publish the bulk of the responses.

This month - the controversy surrounding gaming and governmental censorship.


I also saw your post regarding the censorship issue. There have been several "vigorous" discussions - I wouldn't credit them with the title of debates - on MPS: Across the Rhine, prompted by S+'s articles concerning the absence of SS units in the game. Although MPS posted (at least on Genie, and probably on others) that the reason was purely a commercial one on being able to sell the game in Germany, the perceived self-censorship on the grounds of "Political Correctness" seemed to get a lot of collective goats.

MPS clearly stated that there would be add-in expansions later that would include these units. Since most of the major American software companies are probably operating on the same global circumstances as MPS, where they have to be aware of the local laws in various countries, that they would be quite capable of producing their games in compliance of these laws. The "expansive" or "constricting" - depending on your point of view - laws about censorship in the USA are not universal. No other western countries appear to be having a problem with this sort of thing...yet. If any of these major markets decide to narrow the parameters of acceptable software, then - just like Microprose has with ATR - publishers will have to decide to either modify their product, or to publish multiple variants for each market.

This last option would be a fairly expensive exercise. This whole issue is a real minefield. I would have thought that economic Darwinism would deal with any truly tacky and tasteless games - such as the Robo-porn items.

My $0.02 worth.

                                          -anonymous 

Paul Fleming writes...

Dear Sir,

I saw a posting asking for opinions on Censorship, and as this is a subject I feel strongly about I decided to write my opinions.

I am against censorship. Why? It takes away our basic freedom of choice. Because people may be offended by a particular computer game, it doesn't mean the rest of us are. For those that don't like it, the decision is this simple: don't buy it, don't play it.

Many people say that playing a violent game such as Doom will cause people to emulate the activities of the hero. This really is a fallacy. I will admit I don't have any figures but it seems to me that most deaths are drug related. So why don't governments try to stop drug trafficking and leave games and other parts of the entertainment industry alone? It is a lot easier to point the finger at a computer game than it is to stop drug manufacter, thus governments take the easy option. Minority religious groups help push this point of view by claiming to be offended by a demon in Doom or a Pentagram in Ultima 8.

Who are the losers in censorship? I feel that people who really lose out are the manufacturers of a game, particularly if the game is banned in one nation and not in others. With a game freely available in say the USA and banned in Australia, it is easy to send it by phone and before you know it the game is being played on many Australian computers. Some people may then say well why not release a censored version? The problem with this is that the offending code must be either taken out or rewritten, play testing must then be done again, all this is at greater expense to the creators of the game.

Can people be psychologically effected by computers games and then do some really crazy thing such as going on a killing spree? Maybe, but what people must realize is that their are many other factors involved and the person in question would have committed this act with or without playing a violent computer game.


It has always been my opinion that people are inherently responsible for their own actions. What one person does, especially in the privacy of their own home, is their business alone. If someone chooses to watch, listen to, or read material which others may find offensive, it is their right to do so. It is also the right of those who find the material offensive to change the channel, turn off the radio, or not buy the book.

Children, of course, are a different story. It is perfectly fine for parents to regulate what their children are exposed to, but that should be their responsibility, not that of the government. Many parents today are simply not doing the job and instead are calling upon the government to do so for them. If they are too lazy to bother with raising their children, they should not have had them in the first place.

The best solution that I have seen thus far is a voluntary rating system. The politicians have hinted that they would accept such a solution and I hope that the game companies take them up on it. A goverment-imposed system is going to be detrimental and will only serve to further complicate the issues.

Skip Sauls


I don't think anything should be done. I don't like censorship.

I can't understand why people are so turned on by stupid games like Wolfenstein 3D and DOOM, in which you essentially run around and kill every living thing you encounter. But, I don't think it's right to tell someone else they can't do that if that's what they like to do.

Stephen Michael Schimpf


Philosophical: Violence has been a part of the human spirit since our creation. We first needed the instinct to fight and hunt in order to survive. As mankind progressed the need to hunt and fight was diminished. Today everything is controlled and the natural primal part of us needs a means to express itself. Be it through television, art, games, or gang violence.

With that said, I find it very calming to play a violent game for some time because it lets me get out pent up aggressions. As an adult, I can distinguish between driving my motorcycle down the road an driving "Road Rash II" on the Sega. Small children often mimic the games that they play and fail to see the difference between the game character and themselves. In most cases, the game character has abilities that exceed the child's and they see them as super heros. This boils down to a question of who bears the responsibility to make the decision as to if a game is suitable for a given audience.

We are all responsible for our actions, but as parents we are also held responsible for our children's actions. It is the parent's responsibility to control what a child has access to and what he does not. Unlike broadcast television the games are not freely available and the child must obtain the game in order to play it. This is the key to the control of the child's activities and the responsibility of the parent.

Censorship should not be performed by a society because there are individuals who are capable of using the violent games as a vent for frustration. Censorship is the responsibility of a parent, and once a child is old enough to distinguish between what is happening in the game and what is correct for his behaviour, he should be allowed to make the decision for himself. Censorship by society is just a copout by parents who don't have the backbone to provide control over their children's actions and want someone else to control their lives. Responsible parents remove the cartridges which are unsuitable for their children and don't use the game as a means for babysitting.

This point of view is not based on my "rights", it is based on moral responsibility. The right to play any game or watch any television show is a whole discussion on its own. Games should not be censored, they should be treated like movies. A violent movie requires that the child have his parent to view the movie. At the toy store, games should be sold based on a rating system such that violent games require an adult to purchase. Who rates these games? Maybe that needs to be decided just as it was done for the movies.

Anonymous - whiles@relay.nswc.navy.mil


1) The industry is OK

2) I think it's about time the congress (or Canada, or anybody) has finally developed balls enough to deal with computer games. Doom made me retch. Too many companies are slipping intense violence through a cute "PC-13" label... this is supposedly all in good faith, but most people associate it with PG-13. Any movie that threw hundreds of detailed, gory deaths at you in such rapid succession as Doom would be labelled XXX. (It's true. It's been done). I scorn any game writer who isn't creative enough to write a wholesome game that doesn't need this crap to make it sell.

John P.


Lets face it, violence is everywhere, out on the streets, on the TV, and now on our Computer Screens.

We must also acknowledge the fact that violence is entertaining, and will always be around. I disaggree with showing young children scenes of carnage in the hopes that they wont become quite as jaded as I am. Games should have a facility to play in "clean" mode so children can play but without as much carnage. I believe Mortal Kombat for the Sega system had this.

My two 1/2 cents worth...

Noel Dillabough


Censorship. Be it for sex, violence, or whatever. I have absolutely no problem with ratings for games (either mandatory or voluntary). How else are you supposed to know about their content? What kids play should be monitored by the parents, not the public. What adults choose to play isn't anyone's business but their own. I do think it appropriate for the same types of laws that apply to videos apply to games, just to prevent possible games like "The Pedofile: Seducing Johnny".

William T. Overton