GTA: Vice City forced to censor their game

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What does trashy have to do with it? And GTA, Max Payne, and (I've heard) Midnight Club, are GREAT games. So what if think they are 'trashy'?

So what indeed - just 'spressing an opinion. I was just a tad taken aback - most game publishers have some variety in their games - everyone of these was, BASED ON THE DESCRIPTIONS BY TAKE TWO, either "excessively, gratuitously violent" or involved the gamer roleplaying as someone who performed illegal, generally violent acts. I mean its one thing to decide to design a game and then it turns out a certain way. Its another to be so consistent at it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
I am soo glad that Vice City is now entirely free of offensive content.

Of course its not - kill people on city streets is still acceptable, apparently. Kill people of a particular ethnic group was crossing a line - even Take Two and ESA wouldnt defend that.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Youre not going to play semantic games - the first poster called what going on censorship - i said that the word censorship was being misused. You then came down on me for that. Er this IS a semantic "game" if you will. If youre not concerned with semantics why not just say "I, Osweld, dont like what the Take Two did and what the protestors did, whatever you call it"

Oh, blah. You're the one who's denying that it's censorship. I hate playing semantics, but if that's what we're going to do, why not ask the dictionary?

Censorship

1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor
3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor

Don't see anything about STATE or FORCE yet.

But let's continue down the line...

: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

We're geting somewhere, now. To examine, and suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. Now, who is doing that? The lobby groups are! Of course, they (thankfully) don't have the power to personally censor the media - they have to resort to pressuring the producers into doing it volountairily. Which is why, as I said, they are equally guilty. The lobby groups for initiating it, and the producer for bending over.

[Imran Siddiqui]

to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

Yes, as in an authority examining in order ot suppress or delete. Where do you think the term came from? The Roman censors decided what was fit for publication.

[Nubclear]

People:

I think LotM is trolling you

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, as in an authority examining in order ot suppress or delete. Where do you think the term came from? The Roman censors decided what was fit for publication.

And now we have acronyms to take their place.

Yeah, there is a meaning of the word "censor" which refers to an official government position... but that's nothing more then a job description. Seems that most everyone is a junior censor these days.

[Standup]

To me censoring or censorship is attempting to impose your views on someone else or attempting to restrict someone elses view/book/film whatever. You are imposing your value judgements on something/someone else.

Governments just tend to be more successful generally but i think it applies equally well to pressure groups.

[Skanky Burns]

To me, as long as the gameplay is the same, I will be able to equally ignore the game's message regardless of whether it is the initial offensive comments or whatever they filled the gap with.

It is a game, and the "message" was not an integral part of the gameplay nor the story.

[Imran Siddiqui]

To me censoring or censorship is attempting to impose your views on someone else or attempting to restrict someone elses view/book/film whatever. You are imposing your value judgements on something/someone else.

I think that is too encompasing. So a minority advocacy group protesting a publisher from publishing an obviously racist novel is engaging in censorship?

[Az]

It sure tries to do so. The fact that its' market force isn't strong enough doesn't mean that it's not attempting censorship.

Thing is, is censorship always wrong? I think it isn't, esp. if content is attempting to present lies or dubious claims as true, I have no problem to ban this content.

[Standup]

So a minority advocacy group protesting a publisher from publishing an obviously racist novel is engaging in censorship?

Well i would call that censorship its just in this case i'd be more inclined to want to ban such a novel. As Azazel says, we shouldn't always assume that censorship is wrong or a bad thing.

There was a debate in the UK last year about whether the British National Party - a far right group - should be allowed a party political broadcast on the BBC. There were a lot of calls for censorship and banning the broadcast. Now i don't agree with their views at all but at the same time i'm not sure i'm entitled to call for the suppression of their views just because i don't agree. The contents of the broadcast itself wasn't illegal so should it be censored because the majority of people don't agree with it or find it offensive ?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Of course its not - kill people on city streets is still acceptable, apparently. Kill people of a particular ethnic group was crossing a line - even Take Two and ESA wouldnt defend that.

My sarcasm completely flew over your head, didn't it.

[SnowFire]

Ignoring all the semantic issues of whether it's censorship when it's not the government being hte pressure group, it WAS the government being the pressure group in this case. Bloomberg didn't just say he didn't like the game, he was blathering about filing a human rights violation with the UN or some crap like that if Take 2 didn't change their tune. So I'd say that makes it censorship.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The fact that its' market force isn't strong enough doesn't mean that it's not attempting censorship.

IMO it does mean that it is not censorship. From the root of the word, it plainly means government filtration. Under your definition censorship can be a product of free speech?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by SnowFire
Ignoring all the semantic issues of whether it's censorship when it's not the government being hte pressure group, it WAS the government being the pressure group in this case. Bloomberg didn't just say he didn't like the game, he was blathering about filing a human rights violation with the UN or some crap like that if Take 2 didn't change their tune. So I'd say that makes it censorship.

If you think the UN is a government

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

My sarcasm completely flew over your head, didn't it.

whoosh!