221 réponses à ce sujet

[Maconbar]

GodWood wrote...

Lady light doorbell wrote...
It's not about Christian Right, it's about ethics. Do we really need to see a kid die right in front of us? What value does it bring?

Again, do we really need to see an adult die in front of us? What value does it bring?

I'm not understanding this innocent adults can be killed whereas children cannot mentality.

But it doesn't matter whether you understand it or not. What matters is that several countries ban it and others have industry-adopted standards that severely penalize child violence in video games. Bioware isn't going to make a game that they can't sell in Germany or in the Walmarts of the world.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Herr Uhl wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

But just because it shouldn't be done, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. 

...what?

I saw this coming. Just because it shouldn't be done, doesn't mean it wouldn't be beneficial to do it. There are a myriad of reasons things "shouldn't be done", but not all of them are valid.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

GodWood wrote...
I'm not understanding this innocent adults can be killed whereas children cannot mentality.

That's because it's an arbitrary distinction based on society's agreed upon cutoff for adulthood.

But it's also not strictly relevant to why Dragon Age doesn't allow the player to do it, or why they should.  So... why focus on it?

And society is a slow moving behemoth, especially when the Baby Boomers, an aging group, make up such a large amount. I don't know the numbers but I'd bet people over 40> people 1-40 by an easy margin.

[Leonia]

You know, I really can't think of anything nice to say. Editting my post.

Modifié par leonia42, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:49 .

[upsettingshorts]

Herr Uhl wrote...
Same reason that pedophilia is outlawed in most places probably.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric condition and is not outlawed as that would be thoughtcrime.  Acts perpetrated by pedophiles however are outlawed, primarily due to the fact minors cannot legally consent to sex.  Such acts  fall under the broad umbrella of various child abuses.  And guess what?  It's completely irrelevant to the topic.  

So I suggest responding to GodWood's question:

GodWood wrote...
Connor can be killed, yet people don't want it to be shown.
I do not understand why this [killing Connor] is different. [to killing an adult NPC]

I don't personally care whether it is shown or not, but it's a valid question.

Except for:

Maconbar wrote...

But it doesn't matter whether you understand it or not. What matters is that several countries ban it and others have industry-adopted standards that severely penalize child violence in video games. Bioware isn't going to make a game that they can't sell in Germany or in the Walmarts of the world.

The fact there are legal implications sort of answers the question, so the thread topic is basically concerning censorship, not our collective concept of innocence.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:51 .

[Icinix]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

But just because it shouldn't be done, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. 200 years ago owning a slave was fine, 100 years ago women weren't allowed to vote, and 50 years ago an interracial marriage would of been taboo. Even in modern times we have them, ridiculous taboos that do nothing beneficial to society. Look at Gay Marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell, both are ridiculous concepts perpetuated by the Christian Right. 

Taboos aren't always a good thing.

I wouldn't group slavery, interracial marriage, and womans rights in the same category as being able to virtually murder a child.

So believe what you choose, but thats kind of a massive jump to make, and one that I wouldn't say is entirely appropriate or respectful to the people who fought against real oppression.

The point stands though. Just because it's extreme doesn't invalidate it, the correlation is relevant.

There may be a point to sometimes pushing the boundaries of what is 'taboo', but if you want to make a fair argument, then grouping the aforementioned items is probably not the way to do it.

The music industries evolution with rock and roll perhaps would have been a better one, or clothing, books, movies etc.  Something that is related to the gaming industry.  NOT real life suffering of real people.

[GodWood]

Maconbar wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Lady light doorbell wrote...
It's not about Christian Right, it's about ethics. Do we really need to see a kid die right in front of us? What value does it bring?

Again, do we really need to see an adult die in front of us? What value does it bring?
I'm not understanding this innocent adults can be killed whereas children cannot mentality.

But it doesn't matter whether you understand it or not. What matters is that several countries ban it and others have industry-adopted standards that severely penalize child violence in video games. Bioware isn't going to make a game that they can't sell in Germany or in the Walmarts of the world.

Dude, I fully understand that.
I do not want it in Dragon Age 2 as then it'll get banned in my country [Australia]

I was just speaking in general, why is showing Connor being killed bad but killing anyone else is not.
That was my point.

[Eski.Moe]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Eski.Moe wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Eski.Moe wrote...

If children die as means of a plot point, as in a whole city gets nuked or something similar. Or young Mage Apprentices get murdered by an evil Mage or whatever (ala Star Wars) and letting us see something of the aftermath (with the actual act happening off-screen of course). 
In those types of cases, I suppose it could be alright or if the actions of your character inadvertently end up causing these types of consequences. But actively killing a child? No. Not in Dragon Age, not in any game. You notice with movies like Saw and Hostel, that there are only adults. Right? 

It's apparent that my view of the pinnacle of gaming vastly differs from yours.

So you're going to tell me seeing someone have gut a guy to get a key to some comtraption that's strapped to his head is less disgusting as killing a child?

Really?

Did I say that? I find both equally as repulsive but I was just stating that you did not see children in such situations in the movie. Besides, Saw is a completely different animal than DA and marketed towards a different group.

Bull****. DAO was rated M, M stand for "Mature 17+". M is the equivalent of R in movies. They're both marketed at young adults, if children are playing the game the blame falls on the parents, not the industry. Maybe parents should be more invested in their child before they blame the video game, or any other industry.

Lol. Just because they have the same (or corresponding) ratings doesn't mean they're targetted to the same group. "A gritty fantasy game where you choose to play as a dwarf, elf or a human and battle dragons on your quest with dark undertones!" and "a psychological thriller with gore, mutilation and horror!" hardly seem aimed at the same group. So thanks, but no thanks.

Modifié par Eski.Moe, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:53 .

[Sabariel]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

I saw this coming. Just because it shouldn't be done, doesn't mean it wouldn't be beneficial to do it. There are a myriad of reasons things "shouldn't be done", but not all of them are valid.

What benefit would come of being able to off little Timmy on-screen?

[Eski.Moe]

Sabariel wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

I saw this coming. Just because it shouldn't be done, doesn't mean it wouldn't be beneficial to do it. There are a myriad of reasons things "shouldn't be done", but not all of them are valid.

What benefit would come of being able to off little Timmy on-screen?

ZOMG REALISM!?

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Maconbar wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Lady light doorbell wrote...
It's not about Christian Right, it's about ethics. Do we really need to see a kid die right in front of us? What value does it bring?

Again, do we really need to see an adult die in front of us? What value does it bring?

I'm not understanding this innocent adults can be killed whereas children cannot mentality.

But it doesn't matter whether you understand it or not. What matters is that several countries ban it and others have industry-adopted standards that severely penalize child violence in video games. Bioware isn't going to make a game that they can't sell in Germany or in the Walmarts of the world.

And you don't think that's a problem? That the overzealous have so much power?

Herr Uhl wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Lady light doorbell wrote...
It's not about Christian Right, it's about ethics. Do we really need to see a kid die right in front of us? What value does it bring?

Again, do we really need to see an adult die in front of us? What value does it bring?

I'm not understanding this innocent adults can be killed whereas children cannot mentality.

Same reason that pedophilia is outlawed in most places probably.

No...

For one, children see an adult as an authority figure so they feel intimidated, so even if it's "consensual" it's under duress and not truly consensual. On top of that children aren't mature enough to make such a huge life decision, so they can't consent.

[upsettingshorts]

Sabariel wrote...
What benefit would come of being able to off little Timmy on-screen?

Deeper emotional consequences for the player character who chose the "Kill Connor" solution to the quest.  Revulsion and horror at the tragic fate of the boy are perfectly relevant emotions to convey for that scene.  To exclude them is either an artistic decision (open to criticism over the choice) or censorship (open to criticism over the law) .

I would say that artistic reasons for excluding the scene are more valid, such as that showing the death is gratuitous or exploitative.    

I'm typically against calls for censorship in any form, however.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:54 .

[Leonia]

This is a video game, not a March to Change Society's Views on Everything. This is supposed to be entertainment.

Sure, I'm against censorship in art as well, but some things are just the way they are and if it's not hurting anything.. then there's little reason to get upset about it.

Modifié par leonia42, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:56 .

[Eski.Moe]

I agree that some of the restrictions imposed by some countries are pretty ridiculous when it comes to video games. My native home of Australia being a prime example with the absence of an 'R' rating and weird bannings but there's a point where you've just got to draw the line really.
I'm just going to repeat a question from before, how is killing children indiscriminately going to improve the game? How will it enrich Dragon Age?

Modifié par Eski.Moe, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:58 .

[upsettingshorts]

leonia42 wrote...

This is a video game, not a March to Change Society's Views on Everything. This entertainment people.

I could argue that showing Connor's death would make Isolde much more tolerable as a character.  Because we as the player only have to deal with the consequences of killing her son in an abstract way, she is more likely to come off as extremely annoying. 

It is possible to make a case for showing his death purely for artistic reasons and it wouldn't be childish or exploitative to do so. 

Murdering Fallout 3's Little Lamplight kids for being annoying?  Different issue entirely.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:57 .

[Herr Uhl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...
Same reason that pedophilia is outlawed in most places probably.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric condition and is not outlawed as that would be thoughtcrime.  Acts perpetrated by pedophiles however are outlawed, primarily due to the fact minors cannot legally consent to sex.  Such acts  fall under the broad umbrella of various child abuses.  And guess what?  It's completely irrelevant to the topic.  

Because children are pure by default. It comes with instincts, you protect things that are small. Would you choose to save a random adult or a random kid?

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Icinix wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

But just because it shouldn't be done, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. 200 years ago owning a slave was fine, 100 years ago women weren't allowed to vote, and 50 years ago an interracial marriage would of been taboo. Even in modern times we have them, ridiculous taboos that do nothing beneficial to society. Look at Gay Marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell, both are ridiculous concepts perpetuated by the Christian Right. 

Taboos aren't always a good thing.

I wouldn't group slavery, interracial marriage, and womans rights in the same category as being able to virtually murder a child.

So believe what you choose, but thats kind of a massive jump to make, and one that I wouldn't say is entirely appropriate or respectful to the people who fought against real oppression.

The point stands though. Just because it's extreme doesn't invalidate it, the correlation is relevant.

There may be a point to sometimes pushing the boundaries of what is 'taboo', but if you want to make a fair argument, then grouping the aforementioned items is probably not the way to do it.

The music industries evolution with rock and roll perhaps would have been a better one, or clothing, books, movies etc.  Something that is related to the gaming industry.  NOT real life suffering of real people.

Touche, I merely chose the others because they seemed the most relevant, the emergence of Rock didn't cross my mind. I tip my hat to you good sir.

Eski.Moe wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Eski.Moe wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Eski.Moe wrote...

If children die as means of a plot point, as in a whole city gets nuked or something similar. Or young Mage Apprentices get murdered by an evil Mage or whatever (ala Star Wars) and letting us see something of the aftermath (with the actual act happening off-screen of course). 
In those types of cases, I suppose it could be alright or if the actions of your character inadvertently end up causing these types of consequences. But actively killing a child? No. Not in Dragon Age, not in any game. You notice with movies like Saw and Hostel, that there are only adults. Right? 

It's apparent that my view of the pinnacle of gaming vastly differs from yours.

So you're going to tell me seeing someone have gut a guy to get a key to some comtraption that's strapped to his head is less disgusting as killing a child?

Really?

Did I say that? I find both equally as repulsive but I was just stating that you did not see children in such situations in the movie. Besides, Saw is a completely different animal than DA and marketed towards a different group. 

Bull****. DAO was rated M, M stand for "Mature 17+". M is the equivalent of R in movies. They're both marketed at young adults, if children are playing the game the blame falls on the parents, not the industry. Maybe parents should be more invested in their child before they blame the video game, or any other industry.

Lol. Just because they have the same (or corresponding) ratings doesn't mean they're targetted to the same group. "A gritty fantasy game where you choose to play as a dwarf, elf or a human and battle dragons on your quest with dark undertones!" and "a psychological thriller with gore, mutilation and horror!" hardly seem aimed at the same group. So thanks, but no thanks. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png[/smilie]

Well they're either

a) Aimed at the same group
or
Unfairly rated

If A we reach the question of why is it ok in movies? If B we reach the question why does the ESRB fail to rate correctly. Both of which are societal problems, and both of which I'd argue are true. 

[upsettingshorts]

Herr Uhl wrote...
Because children are pure by default

What the heck does pure mean?  How is that even relevant?

Herr Uhl wrote...
Would you choose to save a random adult or a random kid?

False dilemma.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:59 .

[Leonia]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

This is a video game, not a March to Change Society's Views on Everything. This entertainment people.

I could argue that showing Connor's death would make Isolde much more tolerable as a character.  Because we as the player only have to deal with the consequences of killing her son in an abstract way, she is more likely to come off as extremely annoying. 

It is possible to make a case for showing his death purely for artistic reasons and it wouldn't be childish or exploitative to do so. 

Murdering Fallout 3's Little Lamplight kids for being annoying?  Different issue entirely.

The only thing that would have made Isolde tolerable is a change in voice-actress..

[upsettingshorts]

Anyway, I had no intention of defending this topic as I don't have a horse in this race. It'll either be shown or it won't, and I'm sure I don't care. Still, felt obliged to tackle censorship I suppose...

leonia42 wrote...
The only thing that would have made Isolde tolerable is a change in voice-actress..

Heh, I said I could argue.  I didn't say I'd be convincing.  Sounded logical though didn't it?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 12:03 .

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sabariel wrote...
What benefit would come of being able to off little Timmy on-screen?

Deeper emotional consequences for the player character who chose the "Kill Connor" solution to the quest.  Revulsion and horror at the tragic fate of the boy are perfectly relevant emotions to convey for that scene.  To exclude them is either an artistic decision (open to criticism over the choice) or censorship (open to criticism over the law) .

I would say that artistic reasons for excluding the scene are more valid, such as that showing the death is gratuitous or exploitative.    

I'm typically against calls for censorship in any form, however.

Hear, hear!

leonia42 wrote...
This is a video game, not a March to Change Society's Views on Everything. This is supposed to be entertainment.

Sure, I'm against censorship in art as well, but some things are just the way they are and if it's not hurting anything.. then there's little reason to get upset about it.

Based on your post I take it you feel that video games have less artistic merit than movies or literature? If so then I think we've reached the problem.

As for the march, you are moral not for what you do, but for what you don't do. I see an injustice here, and I would be a lesser person to not try and remedy it. It is a shame that so many people feel differently, that are fine to sit back and watch injustice take place.

[Herr Uhl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...
Because children are pure by default

What the heck does pure mean?  How is that even relevant?

I don't know, it is something attributed to children and angels. Unsullied?

But are you denying that instinct drives us to protect and take care of things that have similar features to small children? It comes with that.

[Sabariel]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sabariel wrote...
What benefit would come of being able to off little Timmy on-screen?

Deeper emotional consequences for the player character who chose the "Kill Connor" solution to the quest.  Revulsion and horror at the tragic fate of the boy are perfectly relevant emotions to convey for that scene.  To exclude them is either an artistic decision (open to criticism over the choice) or censorship (open to criticism over the law) .

I would say that artistic reasons for excluding the scene are more valid, such as that showing the death is gratuitous or exploitative.    

I'm typically against calls for censorship in any form, however.

As I said before, you don't need an on-screen throat slitting to have a deep emotional experience. I felt guilty enough with Connor's off-screen death as it was.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...
Same reason that pedophilia is outlawed in most places probably.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric condition and is not outlawed as that would be thoughtcrime.  Acts perpetrated by pedophiles however are outlawed, primarily due to the fact minors cannot legally consent to sex.  Such acts  fall under the broad umbrella of various child abuses.  And guess what?  It's completely irrelevant to the topic.  

Because children are pure by default. It comes with instincts, you protect things that are small. Would you choose to save a random adult or a random kid?

Instinct's aren't always rational. 

[Leonia]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sabariel wrote...
What benefit would come of being able to off little Timmy on-screen?

Deeper emotional consequences for the player character who chose the "Kill Connor" solution to the quest.  Revulsion and horror at the tragic fate of the boy are perfectly relevant emotions to convey for that scene.  To exclude them is either an artistic decision (open to criticism over the choice) or censorship (open to criticism over the law) .

I would say that artistic reasons for excluding the scene are more valid, such as that showing the death is gratuitous or exploitative.    

I'm typically against calls for censorship in any form, however.

Hear, hear!

leonia42 wrote...
This is a video game, not a March to Change Society's Views on Everything. This is supposed to be entertainment.

Sure, I'm against censorship in art as well, but some things are just the way they are and if it's not hurting anything.. then there's little reason to get upset about it.

Based on your post I take it you feel that video games have less artistic merit than movies or literature? If so then I think we've reached the problem.

As for the march, you are moral not for what you do, but for what you don't do. I see an injustice here, and I would be a lesser person to not try and remedy it. It is a shame that so many people feel differently, that are fine to sit back and watch injustice take place.

Not at all. I just think it takes time to get people to overcome taboos, you can't just pull the rug out from under everyone and  expect them to be ok with it. Games are art, no doubt about it. Censorship is bad, no doubt about it. But you have to find the middle ground and when a company can't legally show some sort of scene, regardless of your views on censorship, well.. they aren't going to show it. We could debate all day. I have no problems with personally seeing Conner's death on-screen but the rest of society? They're just not ready for that sort of thing and you have to be cautious of that. 

I see games as art platforms sure, but they aren't designed with the idea of "Let's push our moral views on our customers". They probably wouldn't sell many copies if they did that.

Modifié par leonia42, 16 octobre 2010 - 12:07 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sabariel wrote...
As I said before, you don't need an on-screen throat slitting to have a deep emotional experience. I felt guilty enough with Connor's off-screen death as it was.

You don't need it, I don't need it - but it's perfectly relevant for people who do require desire a more visceral connection to violence in order to develop an emotional connection to it to ask for it.  Nor should it be assumed, necessarily, that those asking to witness Connor's death have something "wrong" with them - as there isn't any real child being killed, it's just a story.

Herr Uhl wrote...
But are you denying that instinct drives us to protect and take care of things that have similar features to small children? It comes with that.

I'm denying nothing.  I'm simply saying that it isn't relevant to the discussion.  No actual children are in danger.  No actual children are being harmed.  This thread is either about the artistic merits of violence or censorship of violence, depending on Bioware's motivations for killing Connor off camera.  Either is a valid debate.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 12:08 .