UK vs US version and Ghoul Engine Question...

[Zanshin]

Originally posted by Minsc

 

Well to be honest, The Tin Drum wasn't actually censored in the USA, it was banned in Louisiana; and as far as I know only there.

 

In a vain attempt to bring this back on topic......

I am quite happy for JK2 to be bloodless, not because I am against blood in "video games" (I am not) but because the Star Wars films are on the whole without blood (except for the occasional lump of Wumpa).

 

Did you know that Indianapolis banned children under a certain age from going within 10 feet of a violent video game?

This was later repealled for being unconstitutional.

 

Okay. I have heard of individual states banning certain works, but I guess it goes on to support my theory of lack of censorship nationwide in the US.

 

To be honest, I don't have any real interest in having blood in games either. It was kind of cool / shocking in Soldier of Fortune, but I don't really want to see blood when I play a game. I just want to defeat the enemies, not make them suffer.

 

BTW, I cannot really figure out why that wampa blood was added to the completely bloodless Star Wars films.

 

That bit on Indianapolis is interesting. Why do some people think that video games are more dangerous that guns?? Why would they ban video games but no one bans guns?

[Zanshin]

Originally posted by FWB

 

That I can tell you, no, it isn't. I'll ask you to go out into the middle of towna and cry out you hate blacks. You'll get a kicking within 2 mins. I in no way support such thinking, but the point is freedom of speech does not exist. We are allowed to talk providing it is kept within the confinds of what our society believes is acceptable. The laws can say anything they want, but what actually happens is another matter.

 

 

 

 

Well, I have to disagree with you on this. A person is certainly with in their constitutionally protected rights to shout "I hate blacks". Whether some one will take a vigilante attitude, and beat up that person up is a different matter. But I think in most cases, nothing will happen to that person, though potentally it could.

 

Another example is that members of the KKK have made their racist views known but they don't get beaten up and are protected by law.

 

Although we cannot control the actions of individuals, if some one was to attack a person for thier views / words, the attacker would be in the wrong, and hopefully legally prosectued for thier actions.

 

I understand your point, that society has it's own form of censorship, which goes against the freedom of speech. It concerns me because I don't want anyone imposing their morality on me and dictating what I cannot see. It's just a few steps away from mob mentality, the kind of thing that made crowds of people justify witch burining and such in tha past.

[SPY_jmr1]

That bit on Indianapolis is interesting. Why do some people think that video games are more dangerous that guns?? Why would they ban video games but no one bans guns?

 

Because their idiots! That’s why anybody does anything!!!

 

-homer simpson

 

 

:D understand this, and you understand american politics.

remember the root of the word politics; from the latin "poli" meaning many and "tic" meaning blood-sucking insect:D

[FWB]

Originally posted by Zanshin

I understand your point, that society has it's own form of censorship, which goes against the freedom of speech. It concerns me because I don't want anyone imposing their morality on me and dictating what I cannot see. It's just a few steps away from mob mentality, the kind of thing that made crowds of people justify witch burining and such in tha past.

 

But the point is these "rules" are far more important than anything "official" (and what makes something "official" anyway? Just because it is written on a piece of paper doesn't make it some form of divine law, because no such thing exists). Apart from which, they in turn influence the way in which "official" rules may be formed and applied, even if they are. There are countless times where "laws" have been broken, and there has been no "practical" reason for it. People are oppressed, constantly, spaces are controlled, groups pushed away. Just think of what happens when the homeless try to use "public" (that in itself is another questionable term, but I'll leave it out of this dicussion for now ) spaces. Apart from "security" getting called in to "move them along", areas are designed so that it hard for them to use them. That is not to say these groups don't resist, because they do, but they are not always successful. The consitution, in practise, does not apply to everyone.

 

As for the morality... too late. You're a social construction. The way you think, what you think, it has already and continues to be constructed. There is not one person who is just themself. There is a strong argument, which I subscribe to, that individuals are incapable of seeing themselves. Just as the only way you can get an empirical glance of yourself is through a mirror, you use society as a mirror and that is how you identify yourself.

 

Originally posted by Zanshin

To be honest, I don't have any real interest in having blood in games either. It was kind of cool / shocking in Soldier of Fortune, but I don't really want to see blood when I play a game. I just want to defeat the enemies, not make them suffer.

 

I agree with you on that point. I play MOHAA too, and I do use the blood patch someone bad, but only so that I can see what I hit. It is a nightmare otherwise. Apart from that, I see no reason for blood or gore. I prefer JO without the blood too... it is truer to Star Wars.

 

However, remember that as we say this, it is coming from our perspective. We do not see or believe we have the need for "blood in a game". But just because it doesn't appear to matter to you or myself, does not mean it doesn't matter to others. I know that in the MOHAA forums I frequent there was an uproar when people heard the game wasn't going to have blood and there were crys of censorship. Ok, so it is maybe not a significant issue, but I'm using it as a symbol for other more important discourses.

 

That bit on Indianapolis is interesting. Why do some people think that video games are more dangerous that guns?? Why would they ban video games but no one bans guns?

 

If you haven't figured this out already, I study/research cultural "issues" for a living - specifically focusing on the US. I would really need to look into the specific incident to make any great comments. Even speaking from what I know could end up with myself writing a paper, so I don't want to get too carried away. What I can understand is the continuous support for guns. As a social constructed object it has one purpose for me... to kill. I guess this is where it might defer to others who see it as a form of defense (but I haven't studied the gun culture indepth). I think the blame for video games came out of an unwillingness to look at the larger issue at stake. I don't want to go into things here too much, because it involves being quite critical of the US (the rest of the world isn't an angel either, but we're dicussing the US here and you DON'T want to get me started on my own country, because I'll be here all day ), and past experience on forums has told me that many people just see anything negative as an assault, even if I'm willing to whip out the literature for them, and I will find myself being flamed.