That's why I don't think we should censor. We should stick with ratings. While still being rather arbitrary, it doesn't keep stuff out of the hands of people who still want it, yet warns those who don't wish to be offended by it.

...What do you mean it doesn't keep stuff out of the hands of people who still want it? Rating systems are effectively censorship. Large retailers like Walmart, Best Buy and Gamestop won't carry products rated AO or NC-17, so they simply don't get made.

It's only slightly more coy than the outright bans in the UK, Germany and Australia.

Well, the argument there is that with child pornography you're exploiting young, innocent, and immature children.. That was hands down the worst argument I've ever heard in my life.

That would be the stores censoring. The ESRB isn't telling the stores not to sell those products.



Hmm:

Depicting the senseless murder of countless innocent people OR
Depicting the senseless abuse of countless innocent children.

Yeah, I don't think they're that different.

It wouldn't affect you more to see a little kid get raped than an adult get shot?


....thats ****ing sick.

"WHAT?!"

What's the difference?

Instead of overt censorship the ESRB/ESA and MPAA just use their "voluntary" ratings systems to inflict an insurmountable economic disincentive on the production of certain kinds of goods containing certain types of content or a depiction of certain unpopular political or economic messages. The ratings boards are a product of massive collusion between the largest content producers and the largest retailers. The MPAA is quite brazen about functioning as a barrier-of-entry to the industry, with their 'appeal process' that can only ever be successful if the film is being produced by Disney, Viacom, Warner, Fox, Sony or Universal.

The documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" does a great job of illustrating this sort of behavior. Oh yeah, it was given an NC-17 rating because it contains clips from R-rated movies.

Okay... at this point you're probably asking where I'm going with this. After all, I just admitted that the ratings systems are voluntary. Corporate censorship isn't the same thing as state censorship, right?

1.) The US federal government has threatened to take over or enforce industry regulation if self-regulation isn't successful,
2.) The ratings agencies have the authority to fine retailers for violations,
3.) US courts have enforced retailers' and publishers' "voluntary" participation in the ratings systems,
4.) Some states have laws that sanction the MPAA and ESRB ratings systems.
5.) The MPAA was created by and is operated by long-time Washington insiders, including Jack Valenti (a professional lobbyist) and Dan Glickman (congressman for 18 years.)
6.) Exercise for the reader: out of Disney, Warner, Universal, Sony, Viacom and Fox, the 'big 6' members of the MPAA, which companies have not produced propaganda for the United States government? (Spoiler: 0 .) Interesting that the government would support the MPAA instead of violating the constitution on their own, isn't it?

It's starting to look like state censorship to me!

I don't have time to invest in the MP, so I'll wait till it's cheap 2nd hand and buy it for the SP.

Also, I'll be avoiding spoilers like the youtube stuff up there and you know, wait and see.

(NB I'm the sort of person who hates reading the back of the DVD box to see what a film's about. I'd rather just let the expert storytellers tell me the story, than the marketing folk who write the blurbs...)

All of this is a good argument for the flaws in ESRB, except that none of it is an actual argument towards censorship. As I said before, to which you never actually addressed, the ESRB does not force retailers to prohibit sales of >R ratings. The only thing you even mentioned was an "economic disincentive" on the production of certain kinds of content.

Excuse me if I fail to see the connection to how ratings are at fault for that. If the retailers were not censoring, that is, refusing to carry certain rated content, the only reason that content would not sell well is because people do not like the content that is inside it. Heaven forbid the rating system keeps people from buying things they don't want to buy!

No, it prevents me from being able to buy things I want to buy.

No it doesn't. The ratings do not stop you from buying an Adult Only game. Retailers do.

You can still buy AO games.

The No Russian video was awesome.

The ratings boards hand out NC-17 and AO ratings with full knowledge that those ratings restrict access to the market. Watch "This Film Is Not Yet Rated."

Retailers have very little choice in the sort of content they carry. They're under constant legal or other pressure from special interest groups (i.e. parents and the religious.)

Losses from carrying adult only merchandise => adult only merchandise not carried => adult only ratings being a death sentence for a product => adult only products not being created => jon`c not able to buy or produce adult only content = censorship.

I don't see why this is so hard.

Hey sweet, I wanna buy an AO copy of GTA:SA.

...Oh right, it was pulled from the shelves for a month until they could release a patched version.

Bah, nm, don't feel like getting involved.

So let me get this straight, you think retailers would have no issues selling such content earning a rating of AO if the ratings didn't exist? That's a load of crap.

If, using your first example, the ESRB were to no longer issue AO ratings, the M rating would suddenly become the catchall. Retailers would then consider not holding M rated games, or even worse, each retail chain would start analyzing the games individually.

If retailers cannot, with good financial sense, sell products that earn an AO rating, then perhaps, just perhaps, companies shouldn't make AO games because they don't sell. Supply and demand of a niche market is not censorship.

Strawman.

Retailers cannot sell these products due to coercion by special interest groups (i.e. parents, the religious and government.) The actual market outcomes from an AO rating cannot be evaluated due to this censorship.

It's not a strawman, especially since you continued to address the topic anyway. It's not a deviation that I've made.

Sounds to me like you need to talk to those special interest groups, or the retailers who allow themselves to be coerced by them.

If you believe the AO rating content market feasibility cannot be ascertained with the ratings in place, and use that as a defense, you're being hypocritical.

And I quote:



In short, I wasn't making the wild guesses as to the market success/failure of AO content. You were.

They could have offered a version to stores that wanted to sell them. However, the content "additions" were too trivial to justify the second copy, and you can get them in a free mod anyway. There just isn't enough market demand for games that have the content you want.

It's less censorship and more "No one gives a ****." The porn industry is huge, because people like porn, in spite of the fact that many business don't want to carry it. Porn in games is not huge because it's a stupid idea that does not work.

So it's not censorship so much as it is you whining because every one else realizes that the things you want in a game are stupid and not worth caring about.




No one is willing to make a game that alienates 80% their potential user base so that the 3% of their customers who think video game porn is a good idea can be disappointed.

Creating child porn exploits a child. Making a violent video game doesn't exploit anyone as far as I can tell.

Although you seem to mean artistic depictions of nude/sexualized children. In that case... I really don't know. I don't even know if that would be illegal.

If it isn't then 4chan and Deviantart had better look out.

Obviously. But that's why I meant:



I believe it is, actually. Which is why even 4chan doesn't allow it.

What I like about games is the fact that I'm the most saintlike goodness there is. And my enemies are the most evil bastards imaginable. At the same time the 'good guys' are being depicted as a group, just like the 'bad guys' are. This way, I can 'kill' a bunch of really evil guys (AKA Allies versus Nazi-Germany, Some guy out of a dungeon versus Daedroth, Nanosuit guy versus evil Koreans and aliens). I like the game even more when it's not photorealistic (think cartoony, bad graphics, funny glitches), it reminds me I'm doing something that isn't real.

When games get better graphics, and the big fat frickin' thick line between good and evil is being blurred, and I'm going to do things I do not like. I will simply refuse to do them. I like killing people in Borderlands, they give me XP, so I can get some of those new skills, use some better cell-shaded guns. I do not like to kill harmless accurately mathematical depictions of humans, subsurface scattering, waving hair, actual emotions.

Not going to add to the Childporn/Warcrime discussing here. But I think the point was that they're both pretty offensive and disgusting. When I see those things (childporn/warcrimes) on TV, they make me sick. If I see them in movies (childporn/warcrimes), my stomach twitches. I do not know what kind of effect it (talking about warcrimes, not childporn here) has on me in an interactive media, but I'm not interested in finding out what it does to me. Most of the time a game makes me 'feel good' while playing, I'm saving the world, or I'm evil in this fantasy land. I also think the comparison between a game like GTA and MW2 is not right. I do not have concrete arguments for this. It just feels different for me.

That's why IW put a 'do you want to play this or not?' function in the game. Everybody knows what's going to happen, if you don't like it, don't do it. It's like renting a movie, you could watch that great new psychological thriller/horror and get the crap scared out of you a couple of times. Or you can rent that new comedy, which will get a couple of laughs out of you.

Yes it is. I never once claimed that retailers would sell adult-rated games if they were not rated adult-only.

Like I said, and continue to say: censorship is censorship regardless of who is doing it or why. Content producers are being denied access to the means for self-expression (in this case the free market) by the actions of predatory monopolies, a like-minded majority and the government. This is very nearly the dictionary definition of censorship.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

When did I ever say I was personally interested in purchasing an AO game? Interesting that you believe something is only being censored when it's something you enjoy.

By that admission, ratings aren't the issue here. The retailers are, which is only what I've been saying all along here.



Now there's a strawman. We're not talking about censorship in general. We're talking about ESRB, and how ratings are not censorship.



Yeah that's convenient. Which is why I quoted what you said in the first place. If you want to blow it off, fine with me, but at least say so.

No, the public is the issue here, for the portion of the ratings system that is effective and not simply being used as a barrier to entering the industry.

If you think restating my arguments about how the ratings systems result in censorship is a strawman then I would allege you are not reading my posts as closely as you believe you are.

My only claim about the losses retailers would suffer due to carrying adult-only materials relates to losses in other areas of their business as a consequence, not carrying those materials at a loss. You are either trying to put words into my mouth or you are not reading my posts.

There isn't any ineffectual portion of the ratings system. As I've said probably five times now, the ratings are not censorship. Retailers are censoring, and they're doing that for various reasons, including ones you've listed earlier. But that's irrelevant (see also: strawman).



Funny, that isn't what you said. Let me quote you so you can remember:



Nowhere in that paragraph do I read anything about the ratings system. You're pulling it off-topic. I don't really care to argue about censorship in general. I only care about the ratings system.



No, third option: you can't keep your arguments straight to start with. I've actually quoted your posts to clarify what I am speaking of, as well as to avoid "putting words in your mouth".

What you said and what I said are equivalent, whether it be direct sales of a game or loss of business for selling the game.

AO rated games don't sell well. Why? Because most stores won't carry them. Why? Because of pressure from special interest groups/etc. Does giving a game an AO rating cause this? No. Having content that earns the AO rating does.

So I'll repeat for you what I said before:



It's not good financial sense to sell a game which causes them to lose business in general. But that's a fault of the game's content, not the game's rating.

But I like mouse control

There isn't any ineffective portion of the ratings system? Really? Watch "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," investigate the controversy for yourself, and then tell me if you still feel that way.

Actually it would be a red herring, if you weren't wrong.

You're right. Outside of the context of this discussion about the ratings system and ignoring the fact that it summarizes my previous arguments about the ratings system it does indeed appear I am digressing.

I don't think you just proved what you wanted to.

You have quoted my posts about how content creators are being denied access to the free market by the ratings system in order to support your argument that I am no longer talking about ratings systems.

Your argument would be a lot more compelling if the ratings assigned to games and films were consistent.

For example, Oblivion was granted a Teen rating in spite of their ESRB submission that listed the maximum possible level of violence and graphic imagery, including a naked, mutilated male corpse. This rating was changed to 'M' after game assets showing female nudity were discovered.
The hidden sexual and violent content in GTA:SA is far less graphic, yet earned the game an AO rating.

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" contains numerous examples of inconsistent film ratings, as well as examples of the Big Six film studios abusing their preferred role in the MPAA to punish small film producers.

Since the ratings system is not a reliable source of information about the content of a game or film, it cannot be concluded that the content is the reason the product is unpopular.

Too bad I've cited the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" to support my claim that the largest partners in the film and game ratings market collusion abuse the ratings system to force smaller competitors out of the market, which you have conveniently neglected to refute.

Wow...a conspiracy theory about the ratings system for films and games. That's about even with the documentary 'Loose Change'.

Debatable as to whether you were trying to pass it off as something else, which would make it strawman. I don't really care.



I seem to recall saying from the beginning that I don't particularly care about issues with how the ratings are given out. ESRB has been used as an example, but I mean it in a general sense. Ratings are not censorship. If and where the ESRB is biased in their rating of games is another issue entirely, as the core issue here is how people are using these ratings, not the ratings themselves. If retailers and special interest groups weren't so read to jump on a game for having a specified rating, any sort of bias or conspiring (is that even a word, probably not, meh)



I've never neglected to refute it, I'm choosing to ignore this disgression, as I've already touched on at the beginning that any issues with the ESRB's issuance of ratings is a separate matter from the concept of ratings being censorship. I even was willing to admit that the ESRB is not perfect in its system. But at the core, it isn't the issue. The ratings themselves shouldn't have such power, it is retailers and such giving them that power. Pull that back, and the bias should fade away, as it would no longer affect the bottom dollar.

Right here:

I even quoted it for you so you wouldn't forget, but you still somehow managed to miss it. Bravo.



Interesting that you believe that half-assed retorts allow you to blatantly ignore any rational argument against your melodramatic tirades.

Oh noes! No one is giving me 300,000,000$ of funding so I can produce a movie based on this script I wrote! I'm being censored! Oh the humanity! The injustice!

Uhm, I'm fairly sure he was being facetious.

The most compelling refutation I've seen to my arguments is thus far tied between "No it isn't censorship" and "You didn't mean what you meant" so I beg your pardon for not giving your inflammatory assertions as much attention as you clearly believe you are entitled to.

More accurately:

Oh noes! I funded a project out-of-pocket and now its financial success is tied to the generosity of a predatory oligopoly.

oh, hai, just in case you missed it, joncy is right.

and yes, i'm completely serious.

also, you really should see that movie he suggested.

Fair enough, but the point is that it is a BS move for him to claim that it's unreasonable for us to assume that he has no interest in AO games. And it's totally irrelevant to boot.



You're basically claiming that people not liking something is a conspiracy, when it's most certainly is not. If some one puts out a movie that no one wants to go see, and theaters consequently stop showing it, it's not that the movie has been censored, it's just that no one wants to see it.



This argument is flawed because you basically end up saying that if someone is denied the opportunity to self-express because there is not enough interest in his work to fund it, he is being censored. That is an absurd extension of the word's definition, because it means that everyone everywhere is being censored and there is nothing that can be done about it. It's not any different that saying a movie producer is being censored by a lack of technology he necessary to show the move in the way he wants to.

The porn industry thrives even though chains like Walmart don't sell porn. This is because there is a demand for it that justifies it's production. AO games aren't sold because there is very little demand for games with that kind of content, and it isn't cost effective to develop for such a small audience. If the demand was significant, you could buy them at porn shops, the internet and the various retail stores that would sell AO games.

I'm basically being a dick here because you took a position that had some merit and turned it into some absurd absolute.

I skipped to page four from page one, and my head almost exploded.