GTA 5 removed from Target Australia

[Sethala]

Not exactly world-shattering news, but recently Target Australia, as well as Kmart Australia (which I believe is owned by the same company that owns Target Australia), as well as a third company (whose name I can't recall at the moment) have decided to pull Grand Theft Auto 5 off of the store shelves.  The reason?  Primarily this petition.

Now first off, let me just say that I agree a retailer is free to pick whatever they want to sell and don't want to sell, that is their right.  However, just because they are legally and morally allowed to do something does not mean that doing so is a good idea.  It is their right to do it, but I do not believe they were right to do it.  I also assume that several people will bring up the term "censorship" here.  The right to free speech, at least in the US (although I assume Australia has a similar law) does only apply to government censorship.  However, that doesn't mean that other entities can't censor something; Target is very clearly trying to censor GTA 5 by removing it from their store.  With that out of the way...

I do have a lot of issues with the petition, because it frames GTA as a "violence against women simulator", when really, it's a violence against everyone simulator that happens to have both men and women.  Yes, I agree that female representation in the game is poor, that there should probably be less female strippers and perhaps a few male ones (of varying sexual orientation), and I do think the game should have a female protagonist.  However, it is a huge leap of logic to say that because you can kill a female sex worker in the game, it implies that the game is encouraging it.  Saying that it is violence against women is putting women on a pedestal to be protected, a far cry from equality.  It seems that it's being targeted because video games are still "new media" to some people, the same as how rock music, violent movies, and so on were common public scapegoats whenever someone wanted to blame the world's misery on something.  Now I do admit, I haven't played GTA 5 myself (I'm not much into open-world games, to be honest, and GTA's theme isn't one I care much about), but nothing I've seen suggests that there's any incentive to kill female characters.

It's also worth mentioning that in Australia, GTA's rating actually has legal punishments for selling it to minors, unlike stores in the US where it's often store policy to not sell to minors, but nothing punishable by law.  However, some of this may be Target's fault thanks to them publishing a flyer that placed the game in the same section as kid's toys.

One thing I do want to point out however.  Back when there was a big backlash against Anita Sarkeesian and a few other prominent feminists involving themselves with video games, one of the common arguments supporting them was something along the lines of "Don't worry boys, we don't want to take away your games, we just want to make sure girls can have fun with them too."  It's a sentiment that I fully agree with and support.  However, this ban makes it seem that yes, they really are out to take away games they don't approve of, and I really can't see how any good can come out of attempts to censor something.

I agree with an individual's right to vote with their wallet and refuse to buy something that they find offensive.  I also agree with an individual's right to attempt to inform others that something is bad and that they shouldn't buy it.  What I don't agree with is an individual, rather than telling people "you shouldn't buy this", is instead telling people "I'm going to make it impossible for you to buy this".

Earlier today, Totalbiscuit did a Content Patch talking about the issue in depth here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rze-TEJJpYs.  Another perspective about the issue talking about how adding a first-person mode to the game may change people's perspective beyond just the camera is here: http://www.gamespot.com/videos/the-point-gta-violence-a-matter-of-perspective/2300-6422613/

[Vorian]

I'm not really familiar with the series enough to comment much on the rest of this and don't plan to change that, but personally I've always found a close-camera third person view to be more immersive and a first person view restricted to the tiny box of the screen to be a constant reminder it's just a video game.

[Hemingway]

I won't go say too much about the decision to pull it from the shelves, or the petition, as TB makes a good job of that. It seems pretty obviously that it's based on a ( possibly willful ) misunderstanding of the game, obvious distortions of the truth ( "given options to kill women . . ." makes it sound like the game prompts you to make some sort of decision ).

What I'm curious about though is, does anyone know if there's any indication that other chains are or will be doing the same? Because Target and Kmart are well within their rights to make decisions that will hurt their profits and their reputation with people who buy games. Other retailers obviously benefit from it, as long as they're actually selling the games. Unless this somehow spreads and effectively sensors a game that, after all, was not refused classification in Australia, I'm not sure I see the big issue.

[consortium11]

What I'm curious about though is, does anyone know if there's any indication that other chains are or will be doing the same? Because Target and Kmart are well within their rights to make decisions that will hurt their profits and their reputation with people who buy games. Other retailers obviously benefit from it, as long as they're actually selling the games. Unless this somehow spreads and effectively sensors a game that, after all, was not refused classification in Australia, I'm not sure I see the big issue.

GTAV was also removed from sale at New Zealand's largest retailer.

I wasn't going to start a thread about this myself, largely because it seems almost inevitable that the discussion will come back on some level to Gamergate... and we already have a thread on that topic which was locked and then not reopened, seemingly meaning discussion is closed.

But here we go.

For many years Jack Thompson was the deserved target of ridicule by the gaming community for his attempts to link video games and violence and prevent violent video games from being sold to minors. Throughout his misguided crusade his targets were pretty much always the same; he's sue the developers, publishers and retailers of violent video games which were sold to under-18's who then went on to engage in violent acts, he'd campaign and petition states to bring in rules banning the sale of violent video games to minors and he'd write articles talking about how "dangerous" violent video games were and how there was a link between them and those who commit violence. For that he was scorned, ridiculed and made a laughing stock with the mainstream gaming press originally pointing out how ridiculous his ideas were... and eventually just dismissing him out of hand.

Here were are about a decade later and look what happened.

Jack Thompson's wish... that games like GTAV couldn't be sold to minors... is already the law in Australia. As an R18+ product it's a criminal offence for a store to sell the game to anyone under 18. If you read through Thompson's (many) lawsuits, articles, letters and petitions that's consistently the main thrust of his argument. But seemingly that isn't enough. It's not acceptable for the game to not just be sold to children... it can't be sold to anyone. The arguments used are virtually identical; Jack Thompson complained about violence in general, this petition, it's supporters and it's ideological stablemates complain about violence against women specifically. Jack Thompson complained about how games trained children to accept violence, this petition, it's supporters and it's ideological stablemates complain about how games train anyone to hate women. Hell, as limited as it was Thompson at least had some (generally bad) science to support his positions; this petition, it's supporters and it's ideological stablemates have even less.

As mentioned above a frequent retort by those who support Anita Sarkeesian and her frequently incorrect analysis is that they "don't want to take your games away" and that they're "not Jack Thompson" (an actual song by one of Sarkeesian's freinds and collaborators). And they're right that they're not Jack Thompson... Jack Thompson concentrated on preventing certain games being sold to children, this is about games not being sold at all. It's not surprising to me that the petition echoes the language and points that Sarkeesian makes in her videos nor that GTA V... the game Sarkeesian was first to mention when asked to discuss problematic games... is the target (no pun intended) of this.

But that's not an issue right? Just because someone uses the same arguments you do doesn't mean that you agree with them.

Well that position becomes a bit harder to hold to when Jonathan McIntosh... Sarkeesian's mentor, producer and writer... starts arguing in response to the ban that "to anyone outside of the gaming world GTA is seen for the repugnant misogynist garbage that it is" and generally supports the ban (not that we're seemingly allowed to call it a ban). This is a man who many of the most regarded journalists in video games are willing to appear in the videos for... can you imagine the editor of Kotaku appearing in support of Jack Thompson in a video?

(And let's remember, McIntosh is repeating Jack Thompson's arguments about violent video games causing violence)

Let's be clear; you cannot redefine censorship because one doesn't like the idea of being a censor. In response to this I've seen a multitude of people attempt to argue that it cannot possibly be censorship because it's not a government decision. But it doesn't matter if it's a government decision or not. As per wikipedia Censorship is (emphasis mine) "the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions." Until now there has never seemingly been a limitation on censorship that it only applied when the government or state did it. Deciding that speech (which a game is) is harmful or problamatic and thus refusing to sell it is by definition censorship. It doesn't matter if you don't want to think of yourself as a censor... you are.

Video games fought off Jack Thompson because they presented a united front and critically engaged with his positions, refuting them at every turn before eventually simply ridiculing them. Now we're in a position where at least some of the video game media are supporting those exact same positions.

And that's a pretty scary thought.

[Deamonbane]

Terrifying thought, actually.

[Beorning]

Okay, but... are we *sure* that video games don't cause violence?

Also, ask yourself: if you were a parent, would you be comfortable with your kid playing some of the violent games?

Personally, I've played Mortal Kombat in my youth... but now, I'm not sure if I'd want my children to play it (assuming I had children, that is).

[Deamonbane]

The Problem isn't children playing it... If I were a parent I wouldn't allow my tyke to play GTA V either... then again, I also wouldn't allow them to do a bunch of things that I do (drive a car, watch graphically violent movies, porn etc). Children are one thing, but not allowed ANYONE to play it for the same reason is just silly.

[ReijiTabibito]

Okay, but... are we *sure* that video games don't cause violence?

Are we sure that movies don't cause violence?  Or music (whether metal, rap, or pick your genre)?  Or professional sports?  Or...I could go on, but hopefully my point is made here.  If we ask the question 'are we sure that thing X doesn't cause violence,' then we must open the question further to 'are we sure that  anything doesn't cause violence?'  Singling out one of a number of cultural influences that may share a correlation to antisocial behavior (which violence technically is) isn't going to solve our problem with this.  It's a band-aid.  Doesn't help heal the wound, it just makes you feel better because you don't have to look at it.

Also, ask yourself: if you were a parent, would you be comfortable with your kid playing some of the violent games?

Depends on the context of the violence.  Violence for violence sake is not an acceptable thing.  Nor, in my opinion, would it be good to largely expose children to violence against human figures.  But not all violence is bad, especially when it's in the right context - I'm actually watching a Let's Play of the game Okami right now, and while there is violence, the context shows that you are fighting against evil for the good of everyone.  That's a worthy message - sometimes good people must take up arms and fight evil.

[consortium11]

Okay, but... are we *sure* that video games don't cause violence?

There's been a lot of research into this topic and almost none find any link between violent video games and violent actions in real life. We've had two high profile studies on the topic this year alone: first we could look at Violent video games and real world violence: Rhetoric versus data by the Villanova University and Rutgers University and published recently the Psychology of Popular Media Culture which concludes:

Annual trends in video game sales for the past 33 years were unrelated to violent crime both concurrently and up to four years later. Unexpectedly, monthly sales of video games were related to concurrent decreases in aggravated assaults and were unrelated to homicides. Searches for violent video game walkthroughs and guides were also related to decreases in aggravated assaults and homicides two months later. Finally, homicides tended to decrease in the months following the release of popular M-rated violent video games.

We also had a study by the University of Oxford and the University of Rochester about video games and aggressiveness. This one actually did conclude that there was a link between video games and aggressiveness but that it had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the game, violent or otherwise. Instead the rise in aggressiveness related to the controls of the game and how frustrating they were to learn and master. According to the study a incredibly violent game causes essentially no rise in aggressiveness as long as the control scheme works well; a "kid friendly" game with no objectionable content but poor controls does.

Also, ask yourself: if you were a parent, would you be comfortable with your kid playing some of the violent games?

Quite possibly not... but that would be my choice. As a parent I have near absolute autonomy from preventing my child from playing any games I don't want them to; they have no source of money outside of me as a parent and no-on will make an issue if I confiscate a game (or even a console). These days games have age ratings included within the game itself and you can easily set up systems to prevent profiles from playing games above a certain rating. It's never been easier for a parent to prevent a child from playing a game they don't want them too... but none of that is because shops are banning games.

This is especially true in Australia; it was already illegal for a child to buy GTA due to the R18+ rating so any children who did play the game most likely got it from their parents who had already decided it was fine for them to play it.

[Caehlim]

What I'm curious about though is, does anyone know if there's any indication that other chains are or will be doing the same?

It's possible that other supermarkets and similar will do the same. They have to be concerned about their profits dropping on all of their product lines.

However there is practically zero chance of this happening for actual game stores. A friend of mine who is a manager at an EBGames store has heard no indications that any of their stores or the upper management are even considering it.

Also, ask yourself: if you were a parent, would you be comfortable with your kid playing some of the violent games?

I don't plan on having children, but if I did I would allow them to play a game like Mortal Kombat as long as I had a chance to explain it to them and set it into context. I think that mystifying violence and making it seem exotic and forbidden is a good way of getting children obsessed with it. When it's restricted to adults only it seems like it's some sort of honour that adults receive, which will only lead them to want it for themselves.

[Sethala]

Admittedly I'm not sure how much this would do to stop the complaints about GTA, but I read a comment on Reddit saying that, in GTA IV, NPCs would actually react differently depending on who you attacked if you randomly went around hitting people.  If you hit a man, it was about a 50/50 chance whether he ran away or tried to fight back.  If you hit a woman, she would usually run away, sometimes try to fight back, and a decent amount of times, other nearby men would also turn and start attacking you.

I don't have any of the GTA games myself and I don't plan on getting them, but if anyone here has a copy, would you mind testing real quick to see if this is true, and if it happens in GTA V as well?

[Drake Valentine]

............

This is the most ridiculous thing I have read as of yet.

First off, the same concept could be said true about any free roam game that lets you do just about anything. Ahem. Elder Scrolls series. Fallout Series. Saints Row Series. True Crime/Sleeping Dogs. Far Cry. Assassin's Creed. Watch Dogs. So on and so forth. There is nothing in those games that makes you HAVE to kill innocent people, the choice itself is up to the player. The game vaguely promotes violence, seriously? You think that GTA is violent, maybe they should try playing that Postal Game which is banned in countries for a reason. There is another game(forgot its name) but PC exclusive that has far more graphic violence and story is centered around killing innocent civilians, but that game is under development and Unreal doesn't want them using their engine cause it is 'that bad..'

If they are worried about games promoting violence(which is optional) to women, then they might as well make a move to pull violent movies that center around women abuse off shelves as well everywhere.

Edit: Ah, Hatred is PC game I am thinking about. Go Google it if you haven't heard of it. It has some rather disturbing graphic violence and is centered on civilian mass murder. That is game I can understand being removed from shelves. GTA, not so much along with other free roam games that lets it be option for murder to civilians.

[consortium11]

First off, the same concept could be said true about any free roam game that lets you do just about anything. Ahem. Elder Scrolls series. Fallout Series. Saints Row Series. True Crime/Sleeping Dogs. Far Cry. Assassin's Creed. Watch Dogs. So on and so forth.

Interesting to note with both the Fallout (Bethesda version) and Elder Scrolls series the only non-killable class of characters (so those who are non-killable by default rather than for plot reasons) are children (and as anyone who's ever been through Little Lamplight can attest that's damn annoying...). In essence that's petitions like this and those who use similar arguments are pushing for... for women to be treated like children.

There is another game(forgot its name) but PC exclusive that has far more graphic violence and story is centered around killing innocent civilians, but that game is under development and Unreal doesn't want them using their engine cause it is 'that bad.

Hatred?

That was subject to its own petition; while the new version has softened the language considerably the original one essentially went "I know lots of developers and because I dislike this game if you don't apologize and cancel it I will conspire with the whole industry to blacklist both it and you".

Personally I've got next to no interest in ever playing Hatred but I'm pretty worried that we live in a time where it's no longer sufficient to just not buy a game you dislike (or even find offensive) but instead to try to prevent the game ever seeing the light of day.

If GTA had never moved to 3D and someone without the commercial clout and respectability that Rockstar now have wanted to make a 3D version would it be allowed in today's world? Or would it be subject to endless petitions, low review scores on the basis of its controversy ("a woman's the villain!", "you can slaughter women!", "it's a KKK simulator... a white main character can murder thousands of people of colour" etc etc) and basically run out of town? Worse, would people be doing it by regurgitating Jack Thompson's arguments with a few words changed?



On a side note it's not only through direct petitions that "violent" games are being attacked. A developer recently posted about how he and his team were refused normal product liability insurance for an upcoming game on account of the violence within it. Considering we're talking about a developer who's previous credits are pretty much all squad based shooters (lots of Tom Clancy games, one he kickstarted himself) we're unlikely to be talking about Postal reimagined; we're almost certainly going to be talking about a mild-to-generic level of FPS violence.

In the end he was able to get insurance from a different provider but it cost more; considering that even major studios frequently run fairly close to the breadline even a relatively minor increase in cost can kill off a studio (or at least a project)... and for indy developers who frequently work somewhat hand to mouth it's even worse.

[Formless]

GTA has always been a stigma to the gaming community. The concept of the game itself is rather immature. And the developers behind it are not trying to hide it. They did create the game knowing as ' Bully ' afterall.

And anyone outside the gaming community always find it easy to relate GTA to their lives and how it promotes violence since the setting in the game is the current modern world.

I always hoped that the gaming community would put an end to GTA , not some non-gaming group that only see the bad in a video game. And there in lays the problem. People who do not try to understand the medium are trying to change it. They might as well just ban any game that provide any sense of conflict , because they may promote some kind of ideology conflict that ends up as an inconvenience to their world.

[Sethala]

GTA has always been a stigma to the gaming community. The concept of the game itself is rather immature. And the developers behind it are not trying to hide it. They did create the game knowing as ' Bully ' afterall.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that most of the controversy around Bully was completely false hype because it was made by the same studio that does GTA, and there's not much controversial stuff actually in the game...

And anyone outside the gaming community always find it easy to relate GTA to their lives and how it promotes violence since the setting in the game is the current modern world.

I always hoped that the gaming community would put an end to GTA , not some non-gaming group that only see the bad in a video game. And there in lays the problem. People who do not try to understand the medium are trying to change it. They might as well just ban any game that provide any sense of conflict , because they may promote some kind of ideology conflict that ends up as an inconvenience to their world.

The problem with this sentiment is that, in order for you to say that we're better off if something violent doesn't exist, you have to prove that, somehow, the world is better if there's less violent media (or, conversely, the world is worse if there's more violent media).  So far, any study that's tried to find a link between "violent games" and real-world violence has been inconclusive at best, and there's a decent correlation that matches releases of violent games and decreases in violent incidents.  That doesn't imply that violent games cause less violence, but it is something that anyone trying to argue the opposite will have to find an answer for.

[Formless]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that most of the controversy around Bully was completely false hype because it was made by the same studio that does GTA, and there's not much controversial stuff actually in the game...

Nothing is wrong with the game ' Bully ' from a player's perspective. I mentioned it as an example of what Rockstar's mentality represents. The game is immature compared to other games of the same genre.

The problem with this sentiment is that, in order for you to say that we're better off if something violent doesn't exist, you have to prove that, somehow, the world is better if there's less violent media (or, conversely, the world is worse if there's more violent media).  So far, any study that's tried to find a link between "violent games" and real-world violence has been inconclusive at best, and there's a decent correlation that matches releases of violent games and decreases in violent incidents.  That doesn't imply that violent games cause less violence, but it is something that anyone trying to argue the opposite will have to find an answer for.

I guess my previous post wasn't clear so allow me to explain what I meant.

As a player , I do not condemn violence in a game if its put in the correct context. Take the God of War series for example. It is full of violence , but it is all tied to the character , with his past and his mission. However , in GTA , while the game does have its story , the open world aspect is what draw most players to it. But without the story it provides , the violence allowed in the game serves no purpose. But that in no way is a problem to me as a player. I know its just a virtual world and I know better than to ' fall to the manipulative charm ' of video games. ( Sadly some people think we're easily brainwashed by video games. )

However , with the unrestricted use of violence in the game , and how it matches our current lives , the non-gaming community see it as an incentive for players to just replicate what they see in the game right down the street. Some think the idea that you can pick up a bat and start whacking someone on the street as bad influence. And when you think about it , why does the game allow that? Giving you the role of the criminal is all well and exciting , but offering all of this violence without a driving reason for it just makes it difficult to defend the game and the gaming community. That's why I consider it a stigma.

If you want to make a violent game , go nuts , just make it serve a purpose ... any purpose.

I mean look at Modern Warfare 2. It had a mission where you kill hundreds of innocent people in an airport. But the game didn't receive too much heat for long because it was just a mission tied to a story , and the developer gave players a choice to play it or skip it.

[Valthazar]

And when you think about it , why does the game allow that? Giving you the role of the criminal is all well and exciting , but offering all of this violence without a driving reason for it just makes it difficult to defend the game and the gaming community. That's why I consider it a stigma.
...
If you want to make a violent game , go nuts , just make it serve a purpose ... any purpose.

One can make the case that the expansion of possibilities (both desirable and undesirable) actually serve to reinforce positive behaviors.

For example, negative reinforcement is the idea that, "a response or behavior is strengthened by stopping, removing, or avoiding a negative outcome or aversive stimulus."  In other words, if a player is on a GTA mission (which is a purposeful in-game task), he/she learns to avoid detrimental tasks (such as hitting random pedestrians) if his/her aim is to succeed in the primary objective of the game.  From a negative reinforcement standpoint, players learn quickly that hitting random strangers attracts unwanted police attention, reduces their health, and provides little benefit, if any, to their in-game character's goals. 

From what I know, most of the 'violent missions' required for 100% game completion are framed within the context of the character's story.  Interestingly, several of the side missions (based on random events which are outside the game's primary storyline) actually feature benevolent acts such as rescuing a woman being robbed at the ATM, and rescuing a woman who is abducted. Ironically, if GTA did not permit players to engage in mindless violence outside of missions, one could actually make a stronger case for the game encouraging violence among children.  By permitting the potential for mindless violence, yet not rewarding players for it, Rockstar is actually contextualizing the violence as a means to an end, rather than an end unto itself.

In simple terms, experienced players learn that the $50-100 reward of randomly robbing a pedestrian does not justify the in-game consequences of needing to deal with a 2 or 3-star wanted level.

[ladia2287]

Just adding my 2 cents as an Aussie.

The concept of R-rated games being available in Australia is fairly new; up until a few years ago if it was considered that the next-most restricted rating (MA 15+, meaning that you had to prove you were over 15 to be allowed to buy it or play it in a public place), then it simply wasn't allowed to be sold here.

I don't know enough about GTA V to comment on whether it deserves it's R18+ rating, but I do know that putting it on shelves in a family department store was probably not a wise move on Target's part. The way the law is written, any game, film or other publication that has an R rating cannot be sold or made available to anyone under 18, under any circumstances. There are even restrictions on it being on display. I gather the concern was less about the game itself and more about whether they could reasonably be expected to enforce this rule, considering they are not exactly accustomed to having such restricted items on their shelves.

[Derwaysh]

The concept of R-rated games being available in Australia is fairly new; up until a few years ago if it was considered that the next-most restricted rating (MA 15+, meaning that you had to prove you were over 15 to be allowed to buy it or play it in a public place), then it simply wasn't allowed to be sold here.

I don't know enough about GTA V to comment on whether it deserves it's R18+ rating, but I do know that putting it on shelves in a family department store was probably not a wise move on Target's part. The way the law is written, any game, film or other publication that has an R rating cannot be sold or made available to anyone under 18, under any circumstances. There are even restrictions on it being on display. I gather the concern was less about the game itself and more about whether they could reasonably be expected to enforce this rule, considering they are not exactly accustomed to having such restricted items on their shelves.

That sheds so much light on the issue and explains it in more detail why exactly the game would be removed from the shelves.

Whilst not savory but the law really is the case in point here.

[Sethala]

That sheds so much light on the issue and explains it in more detail why exactly the game would be removed from the shelves.

Whilst not savory but the law really is the case in point here.

As far as I'm aware however, there are other R18 games in Australia that are stocked at Target and Kmart, but GTA was the only one pulled.  Further, there are other types of media with similar adults-only content (movies and books, for instance) that are also stocked at Target. 

If they decided to pull all R18 games from their shelves, I wouldn't have a problem with it, and I may even support Target's stance on being a family-friendly store if they also pulled similarly-rated movies, books, music, and so on.  The problem I have is that this is a response to a targeted attack on GTA specifically, because a certain group with very authoritative feminist leanings decided that they didn't like the game and wanted to get rid of it by making it impossible for consenting adults to purchase it.  (If you think I'm going overboard, the petition for Target to remove the game did state that they want this to "be an example for other stores to follow", so no, I don't think that it's a stretch to say that their goal is to kill the game completely.  I don't think it'll happen, not yet anyway, but I do think it's what they want.)

As an aside however, I don't live in Australia and don't know anyone there.  Would anyone living near a Target or Kmart there mind swinging by and seeing what other R18 rated games they carry?

[Hemingway]

I gather the concern was less about the game itself and more about whether they could reasonably be expected to enforce this rule, considering they are not exactly accustomed to having such restricted items on their shelves.

Given the content of the petition to have it removed, no, this is clearly not simply a case of a game being inappropriate for display. The petition made specific points about the alleged content of the game - many of which were misleading at best.

I'm puzzled now, though, about Australia's ratings system. I went to Target's website to see what games they're selling, and there are a lot of MA 15+ games, including such titles as Far Cry 4 and Advanced Warfare ( both rated 18+ here, for the record ). There are a few that say 18+, too. Watch Dogs is one of them. Now, I've played all these games and ... why on earth would Watch Dogs be rated higher than Far Cry? Watch Dogs is violent, but Far Cry is, too. And Far Cry has more than drug references. I suppose it's possible that content is cut from the Australian version of Far Cry, but this still makes very little sense.

[Sethala]

Given the content of the petition to have it removed, no, this is clearly not simply a case of a game being inappropriate for display. The petition made specific points about the alleged content of the game - many of which were misleading at best.

I'm puzzled now, though, about Australia's ratings system. I went to Target's website to see what games they're selling, and there are a lot of MA 15+ games, including such titles as Far Cry 4 and Advanced Warfare ( both rated 18+ here, for the record ). There are a few that say 18+, too. Watch Dogs is one of them. Now, I've played all these games and ... why on earth would Watch Dogs be rated higher than Far Cry? Watch Dogs is violent, but Far Cry is, too. And Far Cry has more than drug references. I suppose it's possible that content is cut from the Australian version of Far Cry, but this still makes very little sense.

They have only had the new rating for less than two years now, I think, I'm not surprised if the ratings board is still waffling over what makes a game 18+ instead of 15+.

Still doesn't mean Target is justified in becoming a moral guardian, especially if their information is the horribly misleading petition, however.

[ladia2287]

As far as I'm aware however, there are other R18 games in Australia that are stocked at Target and Kmart, but GTA was the only one pulled.  Further, there are other types of media with similar adults-only content (movies and books, for instance) that are also stocked at Target. 

If they decided to pull all R18 games from their shelves, I wouldn't have a problem with it, and I may even support Target's stance on being a family-friendly store if they also pulled similarly-rated movies, books, music, and so on.  The problem I have is that this is a response to a targeted attack on GTA specifically, because a certain group with very authoritative feminist leanings decided that they didn't like the game and wanted to get rid of it by making it impossible for consenting adults to purchase it.  (If you think I'm going overboard, the petition for Target to remove the game did state that they want this to "be an example for other stores to follow", so no, I don't think that it's a stretch to say that their goal is to kill the game completely.  I don't think it'll happen, not yet anyway, but I do think it's what they want.)

As an aside however, I don't live in Australia and don't know anyone there.  Would anyone living near a Target or Kmart there mind swinging by and seeing what other R18 rated games they carry?

I do live in Australia, and not a single Target I have ever visited has ever stocked ANYTHING with an R18+ rating except for The Godfather Part 1 (and even then they rarely have it in stock).

Furthermore the game is still in abundant supply in specialist game stores. Yeah, you have to show your ID in order to buy it. Most people who are into it aren't all that fussed. I gather the petition came about simply because Target staff weren't enforcing the rule and a couple of kids managed to buy it, and the hysterical parents brigade kicked up a stink because it was either that or learn to tell their children they couldn't have it. As to why the game has attracted such a rating, I haven't played it myself so I don't actually know. If there is any nudity or anything that could remotely be construed as pornographic though, that might be the explanation right there.

[Sethala]

I do live in Australia, and not a single Target I have ever visited has ever stocked ANYTHING with an R18+ rating except for The Godfather Part 1 (and even then they rarely have it in stock).

I just pulled up their official press release, and it did say that Target plans on selling other R-rated DVDs and games.  This is the first I've heard of them not stocking other R-rated things, to be honest.

Furthermore the game is still in abundant supply in specialist game stores. Yeah, you have to show your ID in order to buy it. Most people who are into it aren't all that fussed. I gather the petition came about simply because Target staff weren't enforcing the rule and a couple of kids managed to buy it, and the hysterical parents brigade kicked up a stink because it was either that or learn to tell their children they couldn't have it. As to why the game has attracted such a rating, I haven't played it myself so I don't actually know. If there is any nudity or anything that could remotely be construed as pornographic though, that might be the explanation right there.

Admittedly, this may be entirely Target's fault, as they did put the game in a flyer next to kids toys shortly before pulling it.  I don't see any comment on this in either the petition or the press release, however, so I'm not sure if that's actually relevant or not.

[ladia2287]

I just pulled up their official press release, and it did say that Target plans on selling other R-rated DVDs and games.  This is the first I've heard of them not stocking other R-rated things, to be honest.

Are you able to give me a link to this press release please?

It could well be their intention to sell other R18 items in the future. Like I said, I've never seen any R-rated items on their shelves to date. Personally, I don't see it working without making a few changes to their training and procedures first.

[Valthazar]

Pretty sure this is the press release Sethala is talking about.  It says how, "Mr. Cooper said Target would continue to sell other R-rated DVDs and games."

http://www.target.com.au/medias/marketing/corporate/PDF/media-release/GTA-Media-Release-v2.pdf

[Hemingway]

I gather the petition came about simply because Target staff weren't enforcing the rule and a couple of kids managed to buy it, and the hysterical parents brigade kicked up a stink because it was either that or learn to tell their children they couldn't have it. As to why the game has attracted such a rating, I haven't played it myself so I don't actually know. If there is any nudity or anything that could remotely be construed as pornographic though, that might be the explanation right there.

Have you seen the actual campaign that led to its removal? If not, I recommend you take a look. It has nothing to do with parents and children, and it makes no mention of failure to enforce rules.

[Kythia]

Out of curiousity - are there any themes/actions possible/depictions in a game that you (vous.  Everyone in this thread) flat out think shouldn't be sold?  Not age restricted or similar, just outright banned? Anything GTAV could have contained that would make this a reasonable step?

[Caehlim]

Out of curiousity - are there any themes/actions possible/depictions in a game that you (vous.  Everyone in this thread) flat out think shouldn't be sold?

Hmmm... honestly, no not really.

Certainly there are things that I personally wouldn't like and would be very uncomfortable with, but not that I think would justify restricting the freedom of consenting adults to use computerized algorithms to generate pixels on a screen which your imagination can turn into a narrative. That comes a little too close to 'thought police' for me to be comfortable with it.

Unless (as per current laws) it involves depictions of real people that are being shared without their permission (or if they are too young to give appropriate consenting permission) or literally incites to violence or defames real living persons or includes classified military secrets. In those cases, yes it should be banned, because it is then not something in the imagination but something capable of affecting the real world.

[Valthazar]

Out of curiousity - are there any themes/actions possible/depictions in a game that you (vous.  Everyone in this thread) flat out think shouldn't be sold?  Not age restricted or similar, just outright banned? Anything GTAV could have contained that would make this a reasonable step?

I don't think there was anything controversial in GTA V that consenting adults couldn't enjoy as a fictional video game.

The only real controversial mission was By the Book, where one of your characters (Trevor) tortures another character via waterboarding, beating him with a wrench, electrical shocks from a car battery, and extracting a tooth using pliers.  If his pain tolerance becomes too high, you (the player) need to administer an adrenaline shot to calm him down.  The goal of this mission is to physically torture him enough to get information out of him, but not torture him too much so as to cause his death.

GTA IV was a little less extreme in this regard.  The most controversial mission was I'll Take Her which involved viewing an ad for a car sale online by a woman, going to check out the car pretending to buy it, and then kidnapping the woman in the back trunk of the car.  When she starts getting rowdy in the car during the kidnapping, Niko gives her a swift hit to the head, knocking her unconscious.  Afterwards, you (the player) need to hold her hostage as ransom to rescue your friend in prison.

[Kythia]

Hmmm... honestly, no not really.

Certainly there are things that I personally wouldn't like and would be very uncomfortable with, but not that I think would justify restricting the freedom of consenting adults to use computerized algorithms to generate pixels on a screen which your imagination can turn into a narrative. That comes a little too close to 'thought police' for me to be comfortable with it.

Fair enough.  Follow on then, which I've only just thought of: If you owned a chain of shops, lets call them "Barget", would you refuse to sell the content you describe above - the stuff you would be "very uncomfortable with".  Despite not thinking it should be banned, you could still not want to be part of selling it.

[Caehlim]

Fair enough.  Follow on then, which I've only just thought of: If you owned a chain of shops, lets call them "Barget", would you refuse to sell the content you describe above - the stuff you would be "very uncomfortable with".  Despite not thinking it should be banned, you could still not want to be part of selling it.

That becomes a much more complicated question.

As a private individual, I absolutely have the right to keep out of such things.

However if I were a business owner, then I immediately have a higher level of civic responsibility (within my own personal code of ethics at least). The existence of my store, may make it impossible for another store within the same niche to open within the same area. Thereby meaning that my actions have a greater effect on society and thus deserve closer consideration going beyond my personal comfort.

I don't think I have a simple answer for this, but it would involve a lot of careful consideration for me from an ethical standpoint to make a decision like that.

[Kythia]

That's interesting, and not a thought I'd considered - that you could end up creating a de facto ban on the product.  Hmmmm.  Quite taken with that.

Could it not be argued that you have a similar role as a consumer though?  That if few enough people buy a product you're creating a de facto ban on it because stores will stop selling it?  Sure, your influence as a consumer is way less than as an owner, but the principle seems the same at first glance.

[Oniya]

That if few enough people buy a product you're creating a de facto ban on it because stores will stop selling it?  Sure, your influence as a consumer is way less than as an owner, but the principle seems the same at first glance.

This is, of course, the principle behind boycotts, as well as behind the supply and demand economy (no demand = no reason to supply).  However, it assumes that enough people are offended by the whatever to not buy it.  It's also the sort of thing that creates niche markets, which the Internet makes much easier to provide:  Can't find it locally?  Find it on a website!

[Kythia]

Niche markets require a certain type of product though.  A title like GTAV costs millions to develop, it can't be a niche market.  Either it sells widely or it doesn't exist as it can't recoup its costs. 

But yeah, I'm actually kinda getting at the flip side of boycotts.  Caehlim doesn't want to buy a product.  Neither do some other people.  None of them really make a fuss or organise anything, they just quietly carry on with their lives sans product.  The product is unpopular, so is no longer sold.  That means the people who did want to buy it can't (and also reduces the chances of similar products being developed).  If there is a civic duty to avoid creating a de facto ban as a business owner, does that trickle downwards to a consumer?  I'm still noodling through this myself but it seems like:

If it does, we should, morally, buy everything.
If it doesn't why not?  What is the difference between a private individual and a business owner that gives different moral standards to their actions?

The causation is more obvious for a business owner, sure, and they have a larger effect.  But "I only do a little bit of wrong, and you have to look hard to even see it" is shaky ground.  I dunno.  Intuitively I think there is a difference, but I'm struggling to see exactly what it is.

[Vorian]

To me the difference is, as a business owner, it's one person or a very small number of people making that decision for everyone. As a consumer - it's up to the people who are interested to fund the product, not the people who aren't.

[Oniya]

If the private individual doesn't buy something because it goes against their personal code, and there's otherwise a substantial demand for it, then the product gets stocked and sold, and continues to be made.
If the business owner doesn't stock something because it goes against their personal code, and there's otherwise a substantial demand for it, then the product doesn't get sold and (since it isn't profitable to make something that doesn't sell) doesn't continue to be made.

It's less of a trickle-down as a trickle-up.

[Kythia]

I dunno, neither of those really sit well with me.  Vorian's seems to be just a restatement of "The amount of harm I do is small, so we can ignore it", which would maybe work if responsibility can be so diffused as to disappear?  Hmmmm.

Oniya's relies on the "and there's otherwise as substantial demand for it" which is just another way of saying "I can do whatever I like so long as enough other people do the right thing" which is obviously problematic.

Or that's how I read them anyway.  If responsibility can't be diffused in to nothingness then I think I'm leaning towards thinking business owners shouldn't take consideration of a de facto ban - that is, there's no moral difference between a private individual's actions and those of a business.  Which, when I phrase it like that, seems correct.

Meh.  I've likely devoted far too much time to this and I think *looks around* I think this may be a colossal derailment? 

I have partner waiting on posts, I guess.  Maybe I should do that instead of this.

[Mathim]

Bottom line, they're going to be losing money because of their poorly thought-out scruples. If they want to fuck themselves, I say let 'em. They'll never learn better of course, even with a hard lesson like this, but they'll feel it was a moral victory. Think of it like the Writer's Guild of America strike thing.

I never had any adults put the stuff I played into context and I watched Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers, etc., and played every video game out there and I'm not the slightest bit inclined to go out and do violence, or even do activities that pose a significant risk (well, being a bicycle rider in general in my town is akin to masochism, but it's my only way of getting around) so I call bullshit on anyone who wants to blame a singular cause for anyone's violent behavior. And frankly, my parent was rarely around what with work and all, so I was basically raised by the idiot box and I'm no worse for the wear, apart from being obese (we're talking psychologically). If games were that bad, and were such an enormous part of my development, I should be a raving sociopath who would have committed a school shooting or something like that. There is no such thing as a boogeyman, or a magic bullet, and these batshit parent groups need to stop treating them like such. It doesn't work that way, and frankly I don't think the world's overwhelming tendency towards delusional fantasies and wishful thinking will help discourse on the subject get anywhere positive.

I've been really into Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas lately and frankly, there's everything I've heard GTA offers, i.e. killing strippers/hookers, propositioning and using them, etc., but they at least have the decency to make it more equal opportunity, by allowing the player to choose a male or female character, and having both male and female characters in the sexual escort service trade. Also I don't know if GTA has any significant consequences for acting like a complete asshole or trying to maintain some semblance of humanity, but Fallout does have a 'Karma' system for rewarding good actions and punishing bad ones, and almost every action has long-term consequences. Frankly I'll take the game that offers the same violence with more intellectual gratification any day. And I don't discriminate; if someone's coming at me with a laser rifle, I blow their head off whether they're male or female.

[Vorian]

I dunno, neither of those really sit well with me.  Vorian's seems to be just a restatement of "The amount of harm I do is small, so we can ignore it", which would maybe work if responsibility can be so diffused as to disappear?  Hmmmm.

That ... isn't the case at all. My not paying for something I have no interest in does not harm anyone, forcing me to pay for things I have no interest in would harm me. If there is a market willing to pay, I am not stopping them from getting what they're interested in in any way. I have no impact on the distribution, I'm just not part of the demand.

A store - if we accept the premise that their choice not to carry something presents a significant barrier to accessibility - is cutting distribution in spite of demand. That is actually harming people, to an extent. It is the right of a store to do so, but it calls for a bit more thought than the personal likes and dislikes of the owner.

[Oniya]

I never had any adults put the stuff I played into context and I watched Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers, etc., and played every video game out there and I'm not the slightest bit inclined to go out and do violence, or even do activities that pose a significant risk (well, being a bicycle rider in general in my town is akin to masochism, but it's my only way of getting around) so I call bullshit on anyone who wants to blame a singular cause for anyone's violent behavior. And frankly, my parent was rarely around what with work and all, so I was basically raised by the idiot box and I'm no worse for the wear, apart from being obese (we're talking psychologically). If games were that bad, and were such an enormous part of my development, I should be a raving sociopath who would have committed a school shooting or something like that. There is no such thing as a boogeyman, or a magic bullet, and these batshit parent groups need to stop treating them like such. It doesn't work that way, and frankly I don't think the world's overwhelming tendency towards delusional fantasies and wishful thinking will help discourse on the subject get anywhere positive.

I knew I remembered reading something related to this, and it turns out that a recent study has shown more of a correlation between video game controls and aggressive behavior.  This isn't to say that it's a singular cause, but it means that something like Superman 64 or E.T. the Extra Terrestrial is more likely to cause an outburst than a bloody FPS with good controls.  (Side note - it's incredibly easy to find lists of the 'Top Ten Worst Videogame Controls', and impossible to find lists of the 'Top Ten Best Videogame Controls'.)

http://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/frustration-in-mastering-video-games-linked-to-aggression/

[Hemingway]

I don't actually have a problem with Target pulling a product from their shelves. I think it's cowardly to pull a certain product but keep others which are as 'bad' - and arguably worse. It's my opinion, though, and Target and other retailers are under no obligation to listen to it. Target are probably going to lose more money to people who now avoid the stores on general principle, than they'll gain by . . . well, however they stand to gain from this. If Target pulled other mature titles from their shelves, they could likely stop selling games all together: most top-selling games fall into that category ( at least per Australia's ratings system ).

It might be a problem if you live in an area where Target is the only store that carries games, but that's somewhat of a separate matter - and certainly not a matter of civil rights.

[Sethala]

Meh.  I've likely devoted far too much time to this and I think *looks around* I think this may be a colossal derailment? 

Still reading through the rest of the thread and thinking about what I want to say, but I wanted to pop in and say (as the TC) that no, this isn't derailment, this is the kind of discussion I was hoping for in the first place.

[Sethala]

Out of curiousity - are there any themes/actions possible/depictions in a game that you (vous.  Everyone in this thread) flat out think shouldn't be sold?  Not age restricted or similar, just outright banned? Anything GTAV could have contained that would make this a reasonable step?

There are many things that can turn me off of a game and make me decide not to buy it, but assuming the game itself is mechanically competent (doesn't constantly freeze or break, has few noticeable glitches, runs at a decent framerate, etc), I don't think there's any content that could make it unsellable to people.  As Caehlim mentioned, there's a few exceptions if it involves real people, of course.

My response to your follow-up would pretty much echo Caehlim's.

That's interesting, and not a thought I'd considered - that you could end up creating a de facto ban on the product.  Hmmmm.  Quite taken with that.

Could it not be argued that you have a similar role as a consumer though?  That if few enough people buy a product you're creating a de facto ban on it because stores will stop selling it?  Sure, your influence as a consumer is way less than as an owner, but the principle seems the same at first glance.

Honestly, the "de facto ban" is the main reason why I wanted to make this thread in the first place.  No, Target refusing to sell it doesn't make it a ban in all of Australia, but the initial petition to Target made it pretty clear that their goal was to get other stores to follow suit, which would end up in a ban of the game.

Regardless, the difference between a store not selling it and an individual not buying it is that, on an individual level, each person gets to make their own decision on whether to buy the game, and even if the game offends some people - heck, even if it offends a majority of people - it's possible to survive and exist because the section of people that aren't offended and decide to buy it are enough to sustain it.  When it happens on the store level however, now everyone, whether they want to buy the game or not, doesn't buy it, which takes away from the individual's ability to support something that not many people support.

Also, note that if this becomes widespread practice, it can lead to game developers self-censoring their games in order to meet some sort of "political correctness guideline", with the fear that if they go too far out of bounds, they don't sell the game, not because there's no interest in the game but because they don't have any one to sell their game through.  Anyone concerned with the possibility of games as art (or any medium as art, really) should be very aware that encouraging self-censorship is a sure way to kill off the artistic quality of games.  Art, after all, needs to have the option to be offensive and challenge our perceptions and thoughts.

Niche markets require a certain type of product though.  A title like GTAV costs millions to develop, it can't be a niche market.  Either it sells widely or it doesn't exist as it can't recoup its costs. 

But yeah, I'm actually kinda getting at the flip side of boycotts.  Caehlim doesn't want to buy a product.  Neither do some other people.  None of them really make a fuss or organise anything, they just quietly carry on with their lives sans product.  The product is unpopular, so is no longer sold.  That means the people who did want to buy it can't (and also reduces the chances of similar products being developed).  If there is a civic duty to avoid creating a de facto ban as a business owner, does that trickle downwards to a consumer?  I'm still noodling through this myself but it seems like:

If it does, we should, morally, buy everything.
If it doesn't why not?  What is the difference between a private individual and a business owner that gives different moral standards to their actions?

The causation is more obvious for a business owner, sure, and they have a larger effect.  But "I only do a little bit of wrong, and you have to look hard to even see it" is shaky ground.  I dunno.  Intuitively I think there is a difference, but I'm struggling to see exactly what it is.

Sadly, this is simply because no matter how artistic your work is, someone still needs to pay rent and buy food.  Some countries have created funds to give to movie makers so that they can make movies without worrying about making a movie with enough widespread appeal to be profitable, because they want to encourage the growth of their culture through art, and I could easily see a country deciding to do the same for video games at some point down the line (especially with how easy it's becoming to make a game on your own).

Regardless, the difference in the examples you're giving are still different, because a single person not wanting to buy a game does not prevent anyone else from buying it, while a store deciding not to sell a game does prevent everyone from buying it.

There might also be something to be said about the decision to pull the game due to the outcry of a vocal minority, while the silent majority are happy letting the game exist or buying it.

[Sethala]

Apologies for the triple post, but something that's somewhat relevant:

After allowing the game Hatred to be on their Greenlight system, Steam has decided to completely pull the game and decided to not sell it.

Now, for those who don't know what Steam is, imagine if every Target, Walmart, Kmart, Best Buy, and pretty much every other big-box retailer suddenly merged into one monolithic entity.  That's Steam's popularity in a nutshell.  They are, hands down, THE biggest PC game retailer.  They're influential enough that some people refuse to buy a game if it's not on Steam.  They're big enough that some other online game stores don't sell you a game, they sell you a voucher to buy the game through Steam.  Unlike with GTA being pulled from one store in one country, this is definitely going to have a rippling effect.

What's Hatred, then?  Basically, it's as if someone turned the mass-murder-simulator portion of GTA into a game on its own, where the objective is to just go out and kill as many innocent virtual people as possible before getting killed yourself.  The game came under a lot of fire just due to its subject matter, and some news sites fabricated a story about the creator of the game being a neo-Nazi (The creator himself denies it and calls the accusation ridiculous, and I have seen no reason to doubt that).

Once again, TotalBiscuit does a pretty fine job summarizing the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFb06S6F0gA

Edit: I just found out that Steam reinstated Hatred's Greenlight page earlier today, after community outcry.

[Caehlim]

What is the difference between a private individual and a business owner that gives different moral standards to their actions?

The same difference between a U.S. citizen and the President when we're talking about voting. Each citizen has a tiny bit of political power, which they choose to invest in a person that they think is worthwhile. So long as we keep doing this, the president is determined by the mandate of the entire society. However what if the existing president takes the power that's been entrusted to them and decides to send the military in to seize polling booths and rig the election? (We could make this a more subtle example and compare it to gerrymandering which would probably be a more accurate representation but this example is more dramatic and simple to understand).

This might seem a strange analogy, but in conscientious consumerism each person's dollars are their votes for what receives resources. If someone takes the votes that have already been given for them to exist (the money that the community has already spent at Barget on other products that has allowed it to spread far and wide) and then uses that to influence future spending on other products it removes the democratic nature of conscientious consumerism.

It's not that it's a little wrong for a consumer to determine what should be sold and this is magnified up to a business owner. Rather it's that it's right for a consumer to determine what should be sold, and the business owner could be taking this choice away from them that makes it wrong.

Edit: Just as a note, I'm arguing from a capitalism viewpoint because that's the society we live in and the sort of situation where this sort of boycott/lobbying is played out. Personally, I don't actually share the opinion that we should be in a capitalist society, but if we are going to do it I at least think we should do it right.

Edit 2: Also, there is a noteworthy exception to the above. Regardless of whether they're profitable or not, responsible stores should always stock essential items in their field of purview (life-saving medicines for example should be available in a pharmacy). To continue the democracy analogy this is similar to the way that the constitution keeps certain vital things existing even when they're not immediately popular enough to receive votes.

[Kythia]

No, I think the analogy works well, Caehlim.  In a country of 100 registered voters, each of them contributes one per cent of the decision to who becomes president, but that doesn't mean the president gets the sum of that and hence has 100% decision over who becomes president. 

However, I'm not entirely certain that I agree with your outcomes.  In a democracy, each person has a 1% vote on whether flibbets should be banned or not (to take a non-existent situation where the morality isn't obvious).  They pass their share of that decision on to the radically anti-flibbet presidential candidate and so long as he ends up with 51% of the decision then flibbets will be banned.  Equally, each consumer has a whatever per cent influence on whether a particular game is banned.  They pass their share of that decision on to retailers by "voting with their wallets".  In certain cases that can give a store a 51% decision on whether a game should be banned.

We now know, to ground the analogy again, that Target is the type of chain that will ban things in response to petitions.  Consumers can use that information to determine the extent to which they want Target to be "in power".  Sure we didn't know that in advance of this happening, but there are many presidential decisions we don't know how they will turn out - or even that they will have to be made at all - prior to an election.  We take our best guess and accept that the system is to some extent retroactive.

EDIT:

In essence, I think your analogy doesn't entirely hold because some decisions are passed on.  Sure, "Who becomes President" isn't, but Obamacare was.  People had an x per cent stake in it, if enough of that stake is transferred them Bam! communist pinko socialists win and democracy falls. (as I understand it)

I think the transfer to Target is of the second type.  That people are in essence saying "I can't be bothered to deal with wholesellers.  You do that for me, decide which games to make easily available".  If enough people do that in an area then yes, a de facto ban could happen.  But people have voluntarily created that decision.  Perhaps through a tyranny of small decisions sure, but they've still done it.

[Sethala]

No, I think the analogy works well, Caehlim.  In a country of 100 registered voters, each of them contributes one per cent of the decision to who becomes president, but that doesn't mean the president gets the sum of that and hence has 100% decision over who becomes president. 

However, I'm not entirely certain that I agree with your outcomes.  In a democracy, each person has a 1% vote on whether flibbets should be banned or not (to take a non-existent situation where the morality isn't obvious).  They pass their share of that decision on to the radically anti-flibbet presidential candidate and so long as he ends up with 51% of the decision then flibbets will be banned.  Equally, each consumer has a whatever per cent influence on whether a particular game is banned.  They pass their share of that decision on to retailers by "voting with their wallets".  In certain cases that can give a store a 51% decision on whether a game should be banned.

Kythia, you may be confusing things a bit.  Let's say that, instead of Grand Theft Auto, the game being pulled is Blandworld.  Blandworld came out some time ago, and some people bought it, but most people ignored it because it's not a very good game.  Even though it featured several revolutionary new ideas, the game was mediocre at best and reviews were usually pretty bad.  After a while, no one bought it, so Target decided to quietly pull the game out of stores, selling off whatever copies it had to an outlet store chain.  This is a clear example of what happens when people "vote with their wallet"; no one wanted the game, no copies were sold, so the game was pulled.  GTA, however, is a massively large seller, so if the store were worried about profits on that game alone, there's no reason to take it away (as an aside, even though the game's been out for a year, it was only recently released on the next-gen systems last month, so it's still "new" in that sense).

[Kythia]

See my edit - sorry, realised late that I hadn't fully explained myself and I guess we crossed posts.

[Sethala]

Sorry, I didn't see your edit when I made my post.  However, I think you lost me somewhere in the analogy, and I'm not quite sure how this relates to the election idea.  I am assuming that GTA is selling roughly as well as other highly-rated video games in Target, and I haven't seen anything suggesting that GTA sales in Target before the ban were unusually low, so it's not like it's the result of consumer decisions to not buy the game that caused it to be pulled.

[Kythia]

Huh?  No, I don't think anyone's suggested that.  It's due to the petition isn't it?  That was the assumption I was working under.  I think you've lost me as well! 

Where do you see sales fitting in?  We're clearly talking at cross purposes. 

Going to mass then work now though, so I won't be around for ages.

[Sethala]

Yeah, I think we both lost each other somewhere.  I'll maybe sleep on it and see if I can figure out where I lost track of what you were saying.

[Caehlim]

However, I'm not entirely certain that I agree with your outcomes.

I do see your point, that one could argue that conscientious consumerism could be seen as a form of representative democracy, in which by choosing to shop at particular stores you're then entrusting them with making further decisions on your behalf.

I think that's certainly a valid and sensible stance to take. In which case the ethical responsibility of companies would be to have clear brand identities that show whatever moral compass their brand supports, so that people can make responsible shopping decisions much like a politician would declare a party affiliation and voters would feel betrayed if their elected official voted against their party values based on a personal decision. It would be hard to object to any company with a known and well-publicized stance on these issues refusing to stock games that clash with their public image.

[Sethala]

I do see your point, that one could argue that conscientious consumerism could be seen as a form of representative democracy, in which by choosing to shop at particular stores you're then entrusting them with making further decisions on your behalf.

I think that's certainly a valid and sensible stance to take. In which case the ethical responsibility of companies would be to have clear brand identities that show whatever moral compass their brand supports, so that people can make responsible shopping decisions much like a politician would declare a party affiliation and voters would feel betrayed if their elected official voted against their party values based on a personal decision. It would be hard to object to any company with a known and well-publicized stance on these issues refusing to stock games that clash with their public image.

Oh, I think I understand what Kythia was saying now.

I will say that some of this depends on what other games Target does stock, though.  But as a comparison, when Steam pulled Hatred, they still had Manhunt and Postal on their store, which are just as bad as Hatred, so their argument of "this goes against our moral stance" doesn't really fly.  I've heard that Target does stock other R18+ games, as well as books like Fifty Shades, so I think it's rather difficult to argue a "brand stance" that excludes GTA but includes those other items.  As I've mentioned before, if a store says it doesn't want to stock any R-rated games/movies because they're a family-friendly store, I agree completely.  It's when they decide they should become the moral guardians and decide which games are fit for playing that I have issues.

[ladia2287]

Have you seen the actual campaign that led to its removal? If not, I recommend you take a look. It has nothing to do with parents and children, and it makes no mention of failure to enforce rules.

I was stating my understanding of the topic and offering a possible explanation based on my own knowledge and experience and the testimony of people I have met, hence why I said "I gather" rather than "I know for a fact". I personally didn't even know about it until some time after. For that matter I didn't know it was available at Target to begin with until I saw a post on my Facebook feed about the ban.

For the record, "Hysterical parents brigade" is a kind of slang term for adults who, upon deciding they don't like a product/service/decision, decide to mount a reactionary and often childish campaign against it, usually with the aim or forcing the provider/seller to retract it. And by 'children', I meant people under 18, who by law are not supposed to be able to buy anything rated by the Australian Classifications Board (or whatever it is they call themselves) as R18+. That 'R' stands for Restricted, which means there are actually legal considerations that have to be made before it can be stocked.

To be honest, I really couldn't care less. A business has a right to decide what products it will and will not sell within the law, and it doesn't owe me any explanation as far as I'm concerned. If I want it badly enough I'll simply find a business who will sell it. If I don't think it's an appropriate product, I just won't buy it.

But there are a lot of people in this country who don't think like that. A fast food restaurant promotes a new burger, and instead of simply deciding they won't eat it because it's unhealthy, they campaign with gusto for the new burger to be stripped from the menu. They run relentless media campaigns, urging as many people as possible to boycott the entire business, rather than just decide not to buy the burger. It happens all the time, and frankly it looks exactly like this is what has happened with Target and GTAV, legal stuff aside.

That press release has me curious though. I don't ever remember seeing 'other' R-rated titles on their shelves (curiously, Fifty Shades is not rated at all although some argue that it should be).

[Sethala]

I was stating my understanding of the topic and offering a possible explanation based on my own knowledge and experience and the testimony of people I have met, hence why I said "I gather" rather than "I know for a fact". I personally didn't even know about it until some time after. For that matter I didn't know it was available at Target to begin with until I saw a post on my Facebook feed about the ban.

For the record, "Hysterical parents brigade" is a kind of slang term for adults who, upon deciding they don't like a product/service/decision, decide to mount a reactionary and often childish campaign against it, usually with the aim or forcing the provider/seller to retract it. And by 'children', I meant people under 18, who by law are not supposed to be able to buy anything rated by the Australian Classifications Board (or whatever it is they call themselves) as R18+. That 'R' stands for Restricted, which means there are actually legal considerations that have to be made before it can be stocked.

It might be worth noting that the petition doesn't talk about parents not wanting kids to buy the game, but rather it's adults not wanting other adults to buy the game.

To be honest, I really couldn't care less. A business has a right to decide what products it will and will not sell within the law, and it doesn't owe me any explanation as far as I'm concerned. If I want it badly enough I'll simply find a business who will sell it. If I don't think it's an appropriate product, I just won't buy it.

They have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean it's right for them to do it.  They have the legal capacity to pull the game, but just because it's legal for them to do it doesn't shield them from criticism about it.

But there are a lot of people in this country who don't think like that. A fast food restaurant promotes a new burger, and instead of simply deciding they won't eat it because it's unhealthy, they campaign with gusto for the new burger to be stripped from the menu. They run relentless media campaigns, urging as many people as possible to boycott the entire business, rather than just decide not to buy the burger. It happens all the time, and frankly it looks exactly like this is what has happened with Target and GTAV, legal stuff aside.

It's really starting to seem that every argument nowadays is about how offensive something is, as if it's wrong for someone to make something that offends you, or that someone's clearly been internalizing abuse if they're not getting offended at the same thing that offends you.  Might make a decent discussion topic here someday, though I don't really have the words to get it started...

[Kythia]

Absolutely beautiful update

In response to Target pulling GTAV, a petition of 60,000 names is raised saying Target should stop selling the Bible (for the same reason - it promotes violence against women).

Target respond pointing out that they don't actually sell the Bible.

Nothing about that is unhilarious.

[ReijiTabibito]

Here's a better idea.  Tell Target to stop selling 50 Shades of Grey.

[consortium11]

Absolutely beautiful update

In response to Target pulling GTAV, a petition of 60,000 names is raised saying Target should stop selling the Bible (for the same reason - it promotes violence against women).

Target respond pointing out that they don't actually sell the Bible.

Nothing about that is unhilarious.

You'll never get a job in PR or outrage Kythia...

BREAKING NEWS: Target refuses to even stock the Bible!

[Lustful Bride]

You'll never get a job in PR or outrage Kythia...

BREAKING NEWS: Target refuses to even stock the Bible!

*wonders where it will all end* XD

[Kythia]

You'll never get a job in PR or outrage Kythia...

BREAKING NEWS: Target refuses to even stock the Bible!

Man, you're right. I am outraged by my lack of successful outrage.

[Tairis]

Outrate is what most modern media runs on anymore, which is why now we can't even get outraged when something truly deserves it. It's a shame really.

[Sethala]

So, I've had this topic on the back burner for a while, and there's been a few new developments that are along similar lines that I'd like to focus on.  Specifically, Hotline Miami was refused classification in Australia, and Hatred received an Adults Only rating in the US (one of the very few games to get such a rating purely for violence without having any sexual aspects).  For Hotline Miami, it's interesting because as far as I'm aware, it was refused classification because there's a scene that at first appears to be your character raping an NPC, but that's quickly followed by the camera zooming out to show that you're on the set of a porno, and everything is just an act, which raises the question of just what is acceptable and if the context that something is presented in matters.

I need to look into this and find out a bit more, which I'll probably do tomorrow and I'll make a more coherent post about it, but I wanted to toss the idea out there for anyone that might know more about this.

Also, for anyone that follows TotalBiscuit, earlier today on his podcast he got into a lengthy discussion about how we treat games as an art and how it seems we're still treating them as something "for kids", putting restrictions on them that don't exist for movies, TV shows, books, etc.  I was only half listening at the time and need to give it another go when I can pay my full attention to it.  There should be a recording of everything on Youtube on Thursday sometime, for anyone that might want to listen in, because from what I did listen to he made quite a few valid points.

[Caehlim]

Specifically, Hotline Miami was refused classification in Australia... For Hotline Miami, it's interesting because as far as I'm aware, it was refused classification because there's a scene that at first appears to be your character raping an NPC, but that's quickly followed by the camera zooming out to show that you're on the set of a porno, and everything is just an act, which raises the question of just what is acceptable and if the context that something is presented in matters.

This isn't entirely a video-game issue. In Australia I'm pretty sure even our pornography can't display NC content. (Not that this is an issue much with the internet, but pornography actually brought out on DVD/Video over here actually has some restrictions).

[consortium11]

This isn't entirely a video-game issue. In Australia I'm pretty sure even our pornography can't display NC content. (Not that this is an issue much with the internet, but pornography actually brought out on DVD/Video over here actually has some restrictions).

From what I understand your pornography restrictions are some of the worst in the world... BDSM in any form isn't allowed, neither is "rough play" or hair pulling, only one gentle spank at a time is acceptable, calling someone a "whore" or a "slut" is out of the question and any link, however tenuous, of sex with violence isn't allowed; there was one case where a film was refused classification because it involved two people looking for a friend who was kidnapped having sex, despite the fact that kidnapping was never shown or discussed during the sex scene.

On the internet point... and you'll most likely be in a better position to answer than me... haven't there been moves to put in place an internet filiter to block all RC (Refused Classification i.e. banned i.e. the things listed above) content?



Anyway, two points on the topic:

1) What we have yet again is people kink shaming and getting upset at consensual roleplay. To repeat the point again, there's no rape in that Hotline Miami 2 scene... it's entirely consensual. I've posted before about the variety of ways that BDSM and kinky play has been targeted across the world and this is largely another example of it... people thinking it's disgusting that two (in this case pixelated characters) people would engage in something that resembles NC sex entirely consensually. The furor is in a large part completely ridiculous... people are complaining about a rape scene when there's no rape at all. There's more than a hint of the Fox News "outrage" over the "graphic" sex scenes in Mass Effect about this.

2) Let's go the other way. Let's say the Hotline Miami 2 scene wasn't clearly and openly shown to be consensual and instead was an actual rape.

So what?

One can open up every other form of media... be it books, films, art, TV series, music etc etc... and see rape discussed, mentioned and described pretty much freely. A Song of Ice and Fire describes rapes (and worse) seemingly every other chapter, 50 Shades of Grey was almost entirely NC content, Sons of Anarchy featured a graphic rape scene and I've pretty much lost track of the number of films that have featured rape... all with relatively little controversy. Yes, a rape scene (understandably) makes people feel uncomfortable... but isn't art allowed to do that?

It's especially galling to see some of the people who are most outraged about the inclusion of a rape (not that there actually was one) in a video game being the same people who say that video games are art, that they don't need to be "fun" and that we need to lift the medium to a higher level. If video games aren't just about having fun and are instead a form of art then we have to accept that they can leave us feeling shocked, offended and uncomfortable (and not just because of buggy games and exploitative DLC practices). Irréversible features one of the most harrowing rape scenes I've ever seen as well as some shockingly realistic depictions of violence and I doubt anyone watched that because it was "fun"... yet it won awards and is generally seen as an excellent (although incredibly difficult to watch) film. Schindler's List is a dark, dark movie covering dark, dark themes which again I think anyone would struggle to consider "fun"... yet is widely (and rightfully in my view) regarded as a classic movie. Bookshelves are packed with Patricia Cornwell style gory thrillers which feature sickening murders... and they're absolutely fine.

Why are video games infantilized? 

[Caehlim]

From what I understand your pornography restrictions are some of the worst in the world... BDSM in any form isn't allowed, neither is "rough play" or hair pulling, only one gentle spank at a time is acceptable, calling someone a "whore" or a "slut" is out of the question and any link, however tenuous, of sex with violence isn't allowed; there was one case where a film was refused classification because it involved two people looking for a friend who was kidnapped having sex, despite the fact that kidnapping was never shown or discussed during the sex scene.

That all sounds about right. I don't know the exact specifics because the internet makes it all irrelevant but from what I've heard that's probably correct.

On the internet point... and you'll most likely be in a better position to answer than me... haven't there been moves to put in place an internet filiter to block all RC (Refused Classification i.e. banned i.e. the things listed above) content?

No. Our ISPs don't care, the people don't care, the police don't care and the government doesn't really care. Every so often the conservatives in government talk about it, except all the people who are behind any form of censorship don't actually understand the technology involved and it never goes anywhere. Same with piracy, no one actually cares about it but every so often they make a few noises to reassure movie companies and make sure we don't look like we're tolerating it.

The only thing that draws any actual attempt to suppress it is child pornography which is very heavily policed over here. The police run Operation Trinity to catch those involved but rather than it being filtered out and blocked it's tracked down and those involved arrested. The police involved in that operation know what they're doing with the technology and they get a lot of voluntary assistance from ISPs and the general public.

[Sethala]

From what I understand your pornography restrictions are some of the worst in the world... BDSM in any form isn't allowed, neither is "rough play" or hair pulling, only one gentle spank at a time is acceptable, calling someone a "whore" or a "slut" is out of the question and any link, however tenuous, of sex with violence isn't allowed; there was one case where a film was refused classification because it involved two people looking for a friend who was kidnapped having sex, despite the fact that kidnapping was never shown or discussed during the sex scene.

On the internet point... and you'll most likely be in a better position to answer than me... haven't there been moves to put in place an internet filiter to block all RC (Refused Classification i.e. banned i.e. the things listed above) content?

Ah, I didn't realize that.  Though on a happier note for Australians, the dev's response to an Australian fan asking if they had any way to release Hotline Miami 2 over there was simple "just pirate it".  If there's no methods in place to block internet usage, then that's at least one solution to the issue.

Though I will say, at least they're being consistent.  Stupid, yes, but they're not singling out video games over other media to be "worse".

Anyway, two points on the topic:

1) What we have yet again is people kink shaming and getting upset at consensual roleplay. To repeat the point again, there's no rape in that Hotline Miami 2 scene... it's entirely consensual. I've posted before about the variety of ways that BDSM and kinky play has been targeted across the world and this is largely another example of it... people thinking it's disgusting that two (in this case pixelated characters) people would engage in something that resembles NC sex entirely consensually. The furor is in a large part completely ridiculous... people are complaining about a rape scene when there's no rape at all. There's more than a hint of the Fox News "outrage" over the "graphic" sex scenes in Mass Effect about this.

2) Let's go the other way. Let's say the Hotline Miami 2 scene wasn't clearly and openly shown to be consensual and instead was an actual rape.

So what?

One can open up every other form of media... be it books, films, art, TV series, music etc etc... and see rape discussed, mentioned and described pretty much freely. A Song of Ice and Fire describes rapes (and worse) seemingly every other chapter, 50 Shades of Grey was almost entirely NC content, Sons of Anarchy featured a graphic rape scene and I've pretty much lost track of the number of films that have featured rape... all with relatively little controversy. Yes, a rape scene (understandably) makes people feel uncomfortable... but isn't art allowed to do that?

It's especially galling to see some of the people who are most outraged about the inclusion of a rape (not that there actually was one) in a video game being the same people who say that video games are art, that they don't need to be "fun" and that we need to lift the medium to a higher level. If video games aren't just about having fun and are instead a form of art then we have to accept that they can leave us feeling shocked, offended and uncomfortable (and not just because of buggy games and exploitative DLC practices). Irréversible features one of the most harrowing rape scenes I've ever seen as well as some shockingly realistic depictions of violence and I doubt anyone watched that because it was "fun"... yet it won awards and is generally seen as an excellent (although incredibly difficult to watch) film. Schindler's List is a dark, dark movie covering dark, dark themes which again I think anyone would struggle to consider "fun"... yet is widely (and rightfully in my view) regarded as a classic movie. Bookshelves are packed with Patricia Cornwell style gory thrillers which feature sickening murders... and they're absolutely fine.

Why are video games infantilized? 

That is pretty much exactly the point I was going to make, honestly, so thank you for spelling it out far better than I ever could have.  The only thing I'd add is that there's a few examples of female on male rape hinted at in games, but the only outcry I've ever heard was when it's a woman getting raped, which seems like a double standard.  Though admittedly, I don't recall playing any major games that have this, I'm going off of what I was told by others, so I don't know everything surrounding it.

Anyway, the podcast I was talking about starts the conversation at about here. (They start off talking about Hotline Miami 2 and go on from there.)

[consortium11]

The only thing I'd add is that there's a few examples of female on male rape hinted at in games, but the only outcry I've ever heard was when it's a woman getting raped, which seems like a double standard.  Though admittedly, I don't recall playing any major games that have this, I'm going off of what I was told by others, so I don't know everything surrounding it.

Not just "hinted at"; Farcry 3 had an out-and-out female on male rape scene and that caused at most a minor bit of news and certainly no protests or calls for it being banned.

[Sethala]

I didn't realize that, actually.  I think that paints a pretty big double standard where another game, Tomb Raider, only implied that one villain wanted to rape Lara when he attacked her, and there was a much larger backlash about the simple idea that rape was included.

I did a quick google search for articles about both the Far Cry and Tomb Raider rape scenes.  Both searches gave me a few hits, both gave me a few negative articles, but what was interesting was the reason.  Far Cry's rape was only controversial in the sense that people thought it was shoehorned in and poorly executed; they didn't have any objections to the game's story including rape, just that it wasn't effective at being the emotional punch that a rape scene should have been.  In contrast, for Tomb Raider, people were attacking the very idea that the game implied rape in the first place, saying that no matter what it shouldn't have been included.

I do think that games should treat rape "correctly" if they include it; it shouldn't be a decision made lightly.  However, games are still in their infancy, relatively speaking; they're a media that people are still trying to figure out how to use effectively, compared to books having several millennia and movies having nearly a century to evolve.  I don't think it's unreasonable for games to still need some growing room before they can be as effective as other media at being art.

[Drake Valentine]

Not just "hinted at"; Farcry 3 had an out-and-out female on male rape scene and that caused at most a minor bit of news and certainly no protests or calls for it being banned.

That's cause it is okay as long as it is 'reverse-rape.'  ::)

Speaking of rape, I'm surprise 'Last of Us' wasn't brought up since there is a scene involving perversions towards the girl, Ellie or whatever her name is when she was abducted in that snow area.

Edit: Also, maybe Target should remove Game of Thrones while they are at it, the books anyways as there are references to rape in them and violence towards women. Not sure in the tv series since I stopped watching that crap around second season. Also, Daenerys was 13 in the book.

Except most violence is optional in GTA 5 to women. I believe the only violent scene hinted to women(in game uncontrollable) was with the crazy dude staying at his friend's relatives; but even then, it didn't show anything other than him leaving house cover in blood.

[consortium11]

You thought GTAV was the limit?

Oh no...

Minecraft... yep, Minecraft... is currently under investigation in Turkey by the Family and Social Policies Ministry on the basis that it encourages violence, especially against women.

Clearly no-one wants to take video games away and this is nothing like the 90's and early 2000's...

[Lustful Bride]

You thought GTAV was the limit?

Oh no...

Minecraft... yep, Minecraft... is currently under investigation in Turkey by the Family and Social Policies Ministry on the basis that it encourages violence, especially against women.

Clearly no-one wants to take video games away and this is nothing like the 90's and early 2000's...

Oh god this actually makes my brain hurt.

You know itl be fascinating to see how things go when the cureent generation who grew up completely with Videogames is the one running things. I wonder if stuff like this will still happen or not.

[consortium11]

I'm alsojust going to leave this here as words can't really do it justice.

[Lustful Bride]

..........Ive never wanted to smoke Marijuana, its bad (M'kay children?) But sometimes...when I see shit like this, I want to smoke so much I don't even remember my own name just cause I think itd be better to just forget it all.  >:(

[Sethala]

I'm alsojust going to leave this here as words can't really do it justice.

That's... somewhat cringeworthy and banal, but aside from repeating something very misleading (as far as I know, police examined the threats to attack the school she was about to speak at and said the threats weren't credible and there was almost no risk, but Sarkeesian cancelled anyway), I don't see anything too wrong with it.  What am I missing?

[Valthazar]

I'm alsojust going to leave this here as words can't really do it justice.

"Engage students in the writing, revision and feedback process so that the letters are high quality and able to be published and sent to the video companies."

That line definitely surprised me, but lesson plans like this tend to be par for the course - with debatable facts often being used as assumptions.  For example, courses which teach "women earn 77 cents on the dollar" as fact, rather than a statement to be debated due to its controversial nature.

[consortium11]

Getting "school kids" (I use the inverted commas because its made clear the teacher can rewrite the letters) to do an advocacy campaign for you... and them having to do it as part of their class... doesn't strike other people as being pretty inherently wrong?

[Kythia]

Getting "school kids" (I use the inverted commas because its made clear the teacher can rewrite the letters) to do an advocacy campaign for you... and them having to do it as part of their class... doesn't strike other people as being pretty inherently wrong?

Inherently wrong or no, it's actually pretty common. Cafod do it quite a lot for example.

[Valthazar]

It's definitely wrong, but it's also the ADL behind that lesson plan - and they have a track record of doing this sort of thing.  Take for example this lesson plan on "Gender Segregation and Pay Inequity in the Workplace" :

Tell students that an organization called the National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE) created Equal Pay Day in 1996 to create awareness about the gap between men’s and women’s wages.  Share the following:

Equal Pay Day

Equal Pay Day is held each April to symbolize how far into the year a woman must work, on average, to earn as much as a man earned the previous year. To match men’s earnings for 2007, for example, women will have to work from January 2007 to April 2008—an extra four months.  The day is held on a Tuesday, which is the day on which women’s wages catch up to men's wages from the previous week.  In other words, while the average male works five days per week for twelve months, the average female has to work seven days per week for sixteen months to earn equal pay.

Suggest that students can organize an Equal Pay Day (in April or any time of the year) in their school or community and implement one or more of the ideas they generated in step #6 above.  Have students get back into small groups and ask each small group to identify one action that they want to take.

Or this high school lesson plan on immigration:

Have students collect newspaper and Internet articles that reflect current attitudes about immigrants and immigration reform. Discuss the articles in class and help students to identify changes they would like to see in this country regarding the treatment of immigrants. Work with students to identify strategies for achieving these changes (e.g., letter writing, participating in marches/protests, etc.) and help them to follow through on one or more of these change strategies.

Hopefully good teachers will have the common sense to not introduce biased materials like this into the classroom (regardless of their personal stance on the issues).

[Oniya]

You thought GTAV was the limit?

Oh no...

Minecraft... yep, Minecraft... is currently under investigation in Turkey by the Family and Social Policies Ministry on the basis that it encourages violence, especially against women.

Clearly no-one wants to take video games away and this is nothing like the 90's and early 2000's...

Y'know, other than player skins, the only character in Minecraft that is even nominally female is the Witch.  PvP is never required (neither is multi-player, for that matter).  The 'higher levels' in the standard game are the Nether (must acquire obsidian to access) and the End (must acquire Eyes of Ender to access).  You don't even need to encounter a Witch or another player to reach the 'end credits'.  So I don't know where they're getting the 'especially against women' angle.

[Kythia]

They're not. Per the article, it's an investigation in to whether it's there or not. Given what you've said, they'll find its not. Alarmist news article alarms people.

[Sethala]

Getting "school kids" (I use the inverted commas because its made clear the teacher can rewrite the letters) to do an advocacy campaign for you... and them having to do it as part of their class... doesn't strike other people as being pretty inherently wrong?

Ok, I had skimmed it before and missed that part.  I also noticed now that literally every source of outside information and "research" in the project comes from Sarkeesian.  That... is definitely scummy, considering how many legitimate complaints there can be about her work.  But yeah, if this turns into actual class material, I'm going to get very worried about what might happen to gaming.

[Oniya]

Sorry - the 'they' in my statement refers to whoever submitted the claim to the Ministry.  Obviously someone had to have come up with the theory that the game encouraged violence 'especially towards women'.

Violence against slimes, now - that's another thing entirely.  *goes back to her mob-grinder*