Should DayZ Be Censored?

[3rdparty 229]

Now before I begin, this is not going to be a spilling of grim imagery, that frequent browsers would have probably seen; the occasional violent or "procreative" thread :)

Nor is this a thread about whether DayZ should be censored (that was just to unknowingly reel you in :) of course it will be. Thats reality of dealing with large industry and wide commercial access.

If all youve got to post is a loyal recitation of censorship law or "doesnt matter anyway censorship censorship", please dont post.

Its about what you think about censoring a game like this. Personally to me, games are a form of art media. And all media push the boundaries of taboos. No matter how much it freaks people out, taboos get broken, we move on, then it becomes the norm.

Games are really the last frontier for breaking taboos, and thats due to their potential for being immersive. Personally i think censorship is bullshit anywhooo.

What makes me post this thread is that Day Z is already pushing this frontier by introducing practically a new sub genre of fps. Survival; essentially looking after yourself in a virtual world. After this.. the only thing left to improve really is virtual reality simulations and we could be looking at very strange gaming future indeed. Just incase peeps think im going on a bit of a tangent, this is an interesting documentary trailer worth watching that might help ye see what im trying to get at: http://criticalpathp...iler/index.html

What I ask to you, the reader, how far can emotional connection with your in game character be made, if a world which is essentially simulating apocalyptic biological genocide, does not contain the brutality and injustice you would of expect of it.

(I dont wanna finish my point of view because i wouldnt mind seeing what peeps think about this)

Brought over from General Discussion because i think more frequent posters here will know what threads im talking about

Edited July 28, 2012 by 3rdParty

[ODoyleRulez 195]

Game does a good job making you think and react. Could go further i am sure, and I bet it will.

As for censorship, NOTHING should ever be censored. A warning beforehand is enough. Take the kids out of the room, change the channel, whatever. But never censor.

[eP Reject 2]

what...?

[ODoyleRulez 195]

what...?

I think he/she is worried about things getting added that may eventually end up to censorship. Least that is the vibe I am getting out of it.

[eP Reject 2]

I think he/she is worried about things getting added that may eventually end up to censorship. Least that is the vibe I am getting out of it.

Yea, did not sleep so alot of it went over my head. >.<

[3rdparty 229]

Yea, did not sleep so alot of it went over my head. >.<

:) Its the idea of how immersive can this game be, if sandbox human behaviour is limited by censorship.

There have already been examples of far grimmer harsher games then this, but mostly because alot of the events are scripted and dominated by NPCs.

The censorship in games seems to be at a stage where it is split between what is allowed to be shown, and what can be simulated.

[ODoyleRulez 195]

:) Its the idea of how immersive can this game be, if sandbox human behaviour is limited by censorship.

There have already been examples of far grimmer harsher games then this, but mostly because alot of the events are scripted and dominated by NPCs.

The censorship in games seems to be at a stage where it is split between what is allowed to be shown, and what can be simulated.

I don't think there is anything to worry about. The idea is to make it even deeper.

The only thing that would get the game in any real trouble would be if it became a zombie survival porn simulator. People like bumping uglies in the middle of the street. I don't think any of us really see that as a level of depth we need in this game anyway lol.

Games have a rating system for a reason. So parents can monitor their kids.. not saying many do. But at least it means we can all wash our hands of any complaints from now on. Unless you live in like Germany or Aussie.. the rating's boards over there are batshit retarded. Doesn't stop people from ordering the games they want online though.

[3rdparty 229]

:) I hooope so (not the zombie porn :S) Because if the history of censorship is anything to go by, taboos get broken sooner or later anwayz, and are usually hailed as masterpieces a further decade or two down the line ^_^

[subvision 14]

I live in germany. And here games get censored, even the ones for 18 years old, mature people. Reasons for censoring can be:

- shown extreme brutality.

- killing humanoids (especially humans) the only possible way given.

- getting points for kills.

- shown sexuality.

This is just a few points why games get censored here. And DayZ is not extremly brutal, you don't have to kill others to survive, you don't get points for killing (only the murder counter goes up) and there is no sexuality shown in DayZ.

I don't see the point why DayZ should be censored. And I am familiar with censored games... :)

[El Barto 227 25]

Unless you live in like Germany or Aussie.. the rating's boards over there are batshit retarded. Doesn't stop people from

i live in australia, the rating system is fine. but games don't have an R18, which seems stupid. but it's being introduced next year, i think

come to think of it, no R18 for games might be good... (jk)

[3rdparty 229]

I live in germany. And here games get censored, even the ones for 18 years old, mature people. Reasons for censoring can be:

- shown extreme brutality.

- killing humanoids (especially humans) the only possible way given.

- getting points for kills.

- shown sexuality.

This is just a few points why games get censored here. And DayZ is not extremly brutal, you don't have to kill others to survive, you don't get points for killing (only the murder counter goes up) and there is no sexuality shown in DayZ.

I don't see the point why DayZ should be censored. And I am familiar with censored games... :)

Because this thread is not about censoring it in its current state, its about introducing the sandbox human behaviors that would probably lead it to conflicting with censorship

[3rdparty 229]

i live in australia, the rating system is fine. but games don't have an R18, which seems stupid. but it's being introduced next year, i think

come to think of it, no R18 for games might be good... (jk)

:) tbh i dont believe in state wide censorship anywayz, Parents for be deciding for the kids, and peeps should be deciding for themselves. Sure some breif review is good, but strict (this is good for such n such an age) age limiting censorship is fecking backwards, and doesnt speak to human behavior and maturity at all.

[subvision 14]

Because this thread is not about censoring it in its current state, its about introducing the sandbox human behaviors that would probably lead it to conflicting with censorship

OK. As i have pointed out before, killing people is not a necessary feature for players. You can play the game without killing a survivor and still have fun.

I don't see why the game should be censored. Killing is not needed to have rewards in the game. That makes the difference to Call of Duty, for example.

Edited July 28, 2012 by subvision

[hoik 415]

What I ask to you, the reader, how far can emotional connection with your in game character be made, if a world which is essentially simulating apocalyptic biological genocide, does not contain the brutality and injustice you would of expect of it.

The emotional connect is limited by our expectations of this as a GAME, rather than a sort of reality - there will need to be a fundemental shift in our thinking as much as there will need to be a shift in gameplay/mechanics or cencership (IMO). Of course our thinking can be shifted by clever game mechanics - but this will take time.

It will take time because we (gamers) have been, for as long as I can remember, dictated to by games - this trend is getting stronger (in the mainstream) along with every cooky-cutter AAA title designed to be so easy/inoffesive/f'ing dumb so not to isolate anyone who might've bought into their million dollar advertisement campaign/ movie tie-ins - so as long as there is this push for simplification, there will not be the emotional building blocks with which games can be given more depth. I think DayZ is a start, a cornerstone of you will, on which subsequent experiences and expectations of how a game can engage emotionally (and here is the kicker) without being directed to a scripted outcome/emotion.

So what I think im getting at is that connecting emotionally involves alot more than cencorship (IMO). There have been a couple of 'borderline/taboo' suggestions that I think would add alot to the game - that is 'canablism' and 'reproduction'. I think the idea of reproduction makes alot of players uncomfortable (even though it is THE reason for survival IMO), so having children in the game has absolutly no chance of getting past censors (as things stand ATM).

If you are interested in 'family' groups forming around children - to effect a very solid game mechanic - please see my third sig-link,

Edited July 28, 2012 by Hoik

[subvision 14]

Well, we here in germany also don't like seeing children get killed in games. That would be a major point for censoring.

I am not sure about cannibalism. World of warcraft is getting played here, and the undead can feast from the dead and it has not been censored.

Killing children = no go.

Cannibalism = maybe possible.

[3rdparty 229]

Thats what i love about DayZ is that it is going against the stream, its such a harsh industry that i wouldnt blame the devs if they didnt want to introduce the ability to conduct in more brutal, or in fact loving scenarios XD But tbh, i think this game has got so much momentum behind it, and such a potentially innovative out look, that by the time its fully fledged, stand alone and on the market, Rocket will probably be given the kind of reigns Matt Stone and Trey Parker were after South Park weathered the storm.

[hoik 415]

Well, we here in germany also don't like seeing children get killed in games. That would be a major point for censoring.

I am not sure about cannibalism. World of warcraft is getting played here, and the undead can feast from the dead and it has not been censored.

Killing children = no go.

Cannibalism = maybe possible.

I don't think anyone (...well there are always execeptions) would like to see children being killed - but I think thats the point. In order to get emotional feed back from the players (both love and loathing) there has to be choice and concequences. Also I think that alot of cencorship, even self cencorship, is too often taken out of context.

EG:

A: A game whos premise is to launch babies like clay pigeons for LoL's is obviously abusive and sick.

B: A game (like DayZ) where children would play a key role in a game by controling core mechanics that determine the survival of humanity (eg. servers) is in no way offensive - and without the possibilty of their deaths there is no tension/dread that we may fail, through our selfish impulses, to act in such a way as not to destroy ourselves. (EDIT: also see the last sig-link for this exact mechanic)

Of course the flip side is you would NEED players with no scruples in killing a effigy of a child to make the game fun, as twisted as that sounds.

I guess what Im saying is that the majority of us are mature enough to deal with issues like this -

Edited July 28, 2012 by Hoik

[3rdparty 229]

I don't think anyone (...well there are always execeptions) would like to see children being killed - but I think thats the point. In order to get emotional feed back from the players (both love and loathing) there has to be choice and concequences. Also I think that alot of cencorship, even self cencorship, is too often taken out of context.

EG:

A: A game whos premise is to launch babies like clay pigeons for LoL's is obviously abusive and sick.

B: A game (like DayZ) where children would play a key role in a game by controling core mechanics that determine the survival of humanity (eg. servers) is in no way offensive - and without the possibilty of their deaths there is no tension/dread that we may fail, through our selfish impulses, to act in such a way as not to destroy ourselves.

Of course the flip side is you would NEED players with no scruples in killing a effigy of a child to make the game fun, as twisted as that sounds.

I guess what Im saying is that the majority of us are mature enough to deal with issues like this -

exactly, as well it has the potential to unlock the kind of ethical and morale questions you would ask in survival situation, if your in a group thats engaging in horrible acts do you join in? stop them? passively watch on whilst you become detached from them?

Potentially adds very interesting group dynamics

Edited July 28, 2012 by 3rdParty

[subvision 14]

I guess what Im saying is that the majority of us are mature enough to deal with issues like this -

Sorry, but I have my doubts in humanity.

[3rdparty 229]

Sorry, but I have my doubts in humanity.

well ye shouldnt because violence is an overhyped issue in media

[hoik 415]

OK. As i have pointed out before, killing people is not a necessary feature for players. You can play the game without killing a survivor and still have fun.

But you can't deny, all the tention/fear or uncertanty you are getting from the game is not coming from the environment - its coming from unscrupeles mo-fos who do not give two shits about you, your friends or you values - as much as they may be loathed they are also essential to make dayZ authentic - maybe the issue is with people doing 'questionable' things without being told thier being bad...

[hoik 415]

Sorry, but I have my doubts in humanity.

What I meant was we are mature enough to deal with horrible things occuring around AND by us as part of a game - as long as it is in the right context.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Hoik

[Claytonaj 12]

tbh i dont believe in state wide censorship anywayz, Parents for be deciding for the kids, and peeps should be deciding for themselves. Sure some breif review is good, but strict (this is good for such n such an age) age limiting censorship is fecking backwards, and doesnt speak to human behavior and maturity at all.

Underlying what you've said is the presumption that children should be shielded by someone from somethings. Whether or not we agree on specifics is a moot point. It seems like, in your view, parents always know what's best for their children, and what they shouldn't be exposed to (i.e. parents should be the someone and decide on the somethings). I have to tell you that's not my experience. Parents are just people, and people can be very short sighted, lazy and ignorant.

I'm glad we entrust various bodies to make these evaluations on our behalf (e.g. the BBFC), and make recommendations as to who these media might be deemed suitable for. These are respected public intellectuals whose guidelines are based on regular and comprehensive public consultation, independent of government, so they do attempt to adequately reflect the norms and values of the people in their jurisdiction. It's a one-size-fits-all approach, a blunt instrument, and it doesn't account for the specific context in which something is being experienced, but there is always the opportunity to ignore what the censors have recommended if you so wish. The choice remains unaltered. You can let your child play CoD if you want, if you feel comfortable that it's not unduly desensitising them to violence, reinforcing unhealthy fantasies, or skewing their moral judgement. (There are a lot of people to whom these 'ifs' don't even occur.)

In my view, it's far better to have a censor's informed recommendation and ignore it, than not have it at all. People will decide for themselves either way. :)

Edited July 28, 2012 by Claytonaj

[3rdparty 229]

Underlying what you've said is the presumption that children should be shielded by someone from somethings. Whether or not we agree on specifics is a moot point. It seems like, in your view, parents always know what's best for their children, and what they shouldn't be exposed to (i.e. parents should be the someone and decide on the somethings). I have to tell you that's not my experience. Parents are just people, and people can be very short sighted, lazy and ignorant.

I'm glad we entrust various bodies to make these evaluations on our behalf (e.g. the BBFC), and make recommendations as to who these media might be deemed suitable for. These are respected public intellectuals whose guidelines are based on regular and comprehensive public consultation, independent of government, so they do attempt to adequately reflect the norms and values of the people in their jurisdiction. It's a one-size-fits-all approach, a blunt instrument, and it doesn't account for the specific context in which something is being experienced, but there is always the opportunity to ignore what the censors have recommended if you so wish. The choice remains unaltered. You can let your child play CoD if you want, if you feel comfortable that it's not unduly desensitising them to violence, reinforcing unhealthy fantasies, or skewing their moral judgement. (There are a lot of people to whom these 'ifs' don't even occur.)

In my view, it's far better to have a censor's informed recommendation and ignore it, than not have it at all. People will decide for themselves either way. :)

Of course children should be shielded from some things, but only things that are lacking of an explanation or description by an adult, and it is very hard to determine levels of maturity, the best people who can do this, are responsible parents, who know their children. Of course there are irresponsible parents, but in terms of what and what not they omit i think is a bit of a mute point. People make mistakes, and children to develop and come to terms with much worser things than a bad film. As long as their not buggering their children in the basement i think they can feel pretty secure in easing their child through any horrible film they saw

And on clasification regulation im afraid i strongly disagree, heres a documentary on american censorship http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/ that is a very good watch. But seeing as you raise BBFC, i would like you to tell me who these professionals are? And how were they picked to pick the standards of acceptable viewing, because generally if you apply that same regulatory authority to other areas of society, its usually conducted democratically and transparently.

Certification is essentially bullshit, its not legislated, its just a delusional mix of industry paranoia and public passiveness in the wake of monstrous over stimulation which allows certificate boards to carry on having such a debilitating grip on media expressions.

Like i said i dont mind some basic overview process letting people have bit of knowledge of whats install. But so far unregulated regulatory bodies can make or break peoples life work, because they cringed whilst watching playing it.

EDIT or at least its supposed to be XD

Edited July 28, 2012 by 3rdParty

[Claytonaj 12]

It's not a great surprise that the film industry has more influence over things in the US than in the UK. The BBFC is a not for profit organisation. It is transparent in its guidelines and gives full disclosure of the justifications for its decisions. It is accountable, and responds to enquiries and appeals; its decisions can be superseded by local (elected) authorities if enough people dispute them. I can quote from their FAQs as to who these people are:

"The current examining team includes educationalists, academics, lawyers, a video games designer, journalists, published authors, an actor, a cinema manager, a diplomat and several people who have worked in film and television. Like most BBFC employees, they have a strong knowledge of contemporary and historical film and a passion for the film, DVD and games industries."

Their published guidelines are central to all their classifications, and as I mentioned they undertake comprehensive public consultations to ensure that their guidelines continue to represent the views of people in their jurisdiction. The individual examiners are chosen to assess a film on the basis of an extensive subject/genre/language knowledge, so they can put that film into an historical context, but their classification is ultimately derived from that published code and set of guidelines -- so they aren't susceptible to a knee-jerk reaction to public hysteria. Lastly I'd say that the BBFC is a respected organisation among film critics (Mark Kermode often sings their praises when I listen to him); whether this sways anything, it's worth saying. I trust the BBFC to make sound judgement, and their recommendations are not denying anyone the right to choose what they watch or do.