GTA: Vice City forced to censor their game

[Dis]

okay they weren't exactly forced, but it sounded more dramatic that way.

They were being slammed because of anti-haitian language in the game. They agreed to take it out.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/fun.gam....ap/index.html

[Skanky Burns]

A bit late, with the game having shipped many months ago.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dissident
okay they weren't exactly forced, but it sounded more dramatic that way.

that just the sort of exagerration that undercuts the "anti-censorship" forces.

Look, if Take Two has a first amendment right to make any game they want, then folks who dont like it have a first amendment right to protest.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A bit late, with the game having shipped many months ago.

Doesn't the X-Box version still have to ship?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Look, if Take Two has a first amendment right to make any game they want, then folks who dont like it have a first amendment right to protest.

It was developed in Scotland, actually. I don't think they care much for american bibles.

And since when did 'protesting' equal censorship?

[Rasputin]

yep ever since i been playing it i have had desire to kill all haitians ......

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


It was developed in Scotland, actually. I don't think they care much for american bibles.

And since when did 'protesting' equal censorship?

OK, magna Carta right, unwritten constitutional right, whatever.

And 1st amendment right to SELL it in the US.

When did protesting equal censorship - exactly my point - no censorship here.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rasputin
yep ever since i been playing it i have had desire to kill all haitians ......

maybe they could make a mod for you where it says to kill all aussies, instead.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

When did protesting equal censorship - exactly my point - no censorship here.

What do you call demanding the removal of certain things from the game?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


What do you call demanding the removal of certain things from the game?

if done by the government-, with the threat of sanctions - censorship

if done by private citizens - an exercise of their first amendment rights to protest.


If done by an elected official with no threat of sanctions - IE Mayor Bloomberg saying he doesnt like the game - a grey area about which disagreement is possible. (I am uncomfortable with elected officials going around getting too specific in their criticisms of cultural products, since it at least appears to erode the distinction i drew above - OTOH being elected doesnt mean losing the right to render opinions, and some use of the bully pulpit to set tone is worthwhile)

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


if done by the government - censorship

if done by private citizens - an exercise of their first amendment rights to protest.

Censorship is censorship. Doesn't matter if it's some suit in a government office or a lobby group.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


Censorship is censorship. Doesn't matter if it's some suit in a government office or a lobby group.

Yes it does matter - censorship is the USE OF FORCE to stop speech - whether its govt force or private force - IE if the protestors threw rocks into the windows of retailers selling the game that would be censorship. Were they - not that Ive heard.

Criticising a game is free expression - asking for it to be changed is free expression - you dont like that, then express yourself in the opposite direction.

Free expression IS NOT CENSORSHIP, its the opposite of censorship.

[Sarxis]

Its going to bite Take Two in the butt, because they've conceded to remove the offensive materials from future releases of the game, basically stating they were in the wrong in the first place.

But the protestors want more.

They should have stood their ground and said, "Hey, its just a game. Don't like it? Don't buy it!".

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Criticising a game is free expression - asking for it to be changed is free expression - you dont like that, then express yourself in the opposite direction.

Free expression IS NOT CENSORSHIP, its the opposite of censorship.

Yeah, just critising. They where asking them to remove content. That's censorship. Censorship has nothign to do with force - it's about denying certain content to be shown. You dont have to break skulls for it to be done, they could of gone about it very politely, but it's still censorship.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


Yeah, just critising. They where asking them to remove content. That's censorship. Censorship has nothign to do with force - it's about denying certain content to be shown. You censorship.

Its request - thats all. A request is speech, under the first amendment. Take two didnt have to remove anything if they didnt want to. Its not a question of politeness, its a question of voluntariness. If some other developer CHOOSES not to make a game like this is that censorship - no its choice - if Take two decides to change the game - thats their choice. If they choose to do so at the request of someone who has nothing to wield against them but speech, thats part of life in a FREE society.

"dont have to break skulls for it to be done, they could of gone about it very politely, but it's still ________"

fill in blank - its still genocide against Haitians for example = the whole argument that censoring this i wrong depends on the distinction between SAYING something and doing something. Its ok to criticize Haitians, or even say that they should die - thats protected speech until you actually throw a rock at them - ditto for critizing a game, or speech within a game.

[lord of the mark]

I take it youre unhappy that Take two did this, since it means you wont have the game to buy as you did before - very well, go complain to Take two. Demand they go back. Hell, im unhappy about lots of things game developers do and dont do. I can complain - and do. But ultimately the fact that game developers dont produce what i would like is their choice, not censorship.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Its request - thats all. A request is speech, under the first amendment. Take two didnt have to remove anything if they didnt want to. Its not a question of politeness, its a question of voluntariness. If some other developer CHOOSES not to make a game like this is that censorship - no its choice - if Take two decides to change the game - thats their choice. If they choose to do so at the request of someone who has nothing to wield against them but speech, thats part of life in a FREE society.

First of all, enough with the first amendment nonsense. I don't care much for bible thumpers.

But you're right, Take Two is as guilty of censorship as the lobby groups who prodded them to do it.

"dont have to break skulls for it to be done, they could of gone about it very politely, but it's still ________"

fill in blank - its still genocide against Haitians for example = the whole argument that censoring this i wrong depends on the distinction between SAYING something and doing something. Its ok to criticize Haitians, or even say that they should die - thats protected speech until you actually throw a rock at them - ditto for critizing a game, or speech within a game.

What, exactly, are you trying to say? The genocide comparison is strange enough. But are you implying it's not censorship untill bricks are being thrown?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I take it youre unhappy that Take two did this, since it means you wont have the game to buy as you did before

No, I'm unhappy becaus I don't like censorship. A change like this will have 0 impact on gameplay, and I couldn't care less about it's effect on the game, really.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld



First of all, enough with the first amendment nonsense. I don't care much for bible thumpers.

But you're right, Take Two is as guilty of censorship as the lobby groups who prodded them to do it.



What, exactly, are you trying to say? The genocide comparison is strange enough. But are you implying it's not censorship untill bricks are being thrown?

its not censorship until theres a threat of force, or of government sanction backed up by force.

If the govt says change this or we'll arrest you thats censorship. If they say change this or we'll fine you - since the fine is backed up by force - thats censorship. If a private citizen says change this or i'll toss a brick through your window - thats censorship.

If a private citizen says - change this or it will make me mad - thats not censorship. If he says change this or I'll picket in front of youre office thats NOT censorship. If he says change this or i'll never buy your products ever again thats not censorship.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld



First of all, enough with the first amendment nonsense. I don't care much for bible thumpers.

But you're right, Take Two is as guilty of censorship as the lobby groups who prodded them to do it.

Firaxis doesnt release FPS. Is Firaxis engaging in censorship? Maybe its cause they think it wont sell, or Sid doesnt think it would be fun to design. Maybe its cause he dont believe in them. If the latter, youre being denied a potentially "great" game cause of someones moral beliefs - is that censorship - if not, why is Take Two making the choice to change something censorship?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


its not censorship until theres a threat of force, or of government sanction backed up by force.

If the govt says change this or we'll arrest you thats censorship. If they say change this or we'll fine you - since the fine is backed up by force - thats censorship. If a private citizen says change this or i'll toss a brick through your window - thats censorship.

If a private citizen says - change this or it will make me mad - thats not censorship. If he says change this or I'll picket in front of youre office thats NOT censorship. If he says change this or i'll never buy your products ever again thats not censorship.

That's bull ****.


Wait - ****, ****, ****. What's happening?

Is someone threatening to beat Markos with a club, or is this not really censorship?

Firaxis doesnt release FPS. Is Firaxis engaging in censorship? Maybe its cause they think it wont sell, or Sid doesnt think it would be fun to design. Maybe its cause he dont believe in them. If the latter, youre being denied a potentially "great" game cause of someones moral beliefs - is that censorship - if not, why is Take Two making the choice to change something censorship?

I'm sorry, but that's a **** anology. ****, ****, ****. Dumb.

We're talking about a lobby group pressuring a media producer into removing certain lines from their scripts (which, I might add, have already been recorded) because they don't like what it's saying. Not some game designers waffling over what they wants to do.

And seriously, not making FPS games due to moral beliefs?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld



That's bull ****.


Wait - ****, ****, ****. What's happening?

Is someone threatening to beat Markos with a club, or is this not really censorship?

No ones censoring Markos, correct.

Arguably Markos is censoring posters here, since we have NO choice but to follow suit - but then Markos has the right to censor us, cause 'poly is private property.

Tell me, did the protestors run some software that prevented anyone from seeing what Take two had written - no, they simply asked. (a hacker on the other hand who prevents you from seeing a website WOULD be engaging in censorship)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld

We're talking about a lobby group pressuring a media producer into removing certain lines from their scripts (which, I might add, have already been recorded) because they don't like what it's saying. Not some game designers waffling over what they wants to do.

Im confused. Before I thought you said it was Take Two that was engaging in censorship, NOT the protestors. Now you say its the protestors. Which is it?


If Take Two - its their right to change their own product, whether cause they want to win brownie points with Haitians, or cause they just feel like it.

If its protestors, how so, cause they did nothing but speak. You say pressure - how did they "pressure" take two - by speaking out? then Take two is guilty of "pressure" for advertising their game, which pressures people into buying it - what, you say, I dont have to buy just cause they tell me to? well, Take two didnt have to change the game just cause somebody told them too.

Please explain what "pressure" was applied.

[General Ludd]

Im confused. Before I thought you said it was Take Two that was engaging in censorship, NOT the protestors. Now you say its the protestors. Which is it?

I said both of them are.


The lobby groups for pressuring them - and I'm not going to play semantics games, pressuring can mean whatever the hell you want it to - and Take Two for giving in.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld

The lobby groups for pressuring them - and I'm not going to play semantics games, pressuring can mean whatever the hell you want it to - and Take Two for giving in.

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

Perhaps because some of us wouldnt really care that you dislike it. But if its CENSORSHIP, thats bad. I mean every right thinking person is against censorship, right? Yes, they are, BECAUSE censorship means certain real specific things, and those things are bad.

Youre the one playing a semantic game, and a dishonest one at that. You havent presented any argument why what the protestors did or what take two did was actually a bad thing - all you could do was call it a name - "censorship" then when you were challenged on the meaning of censorship, you claimed you didnt want to play semantic games.


Look - censorship is BAD - cause it concentrates power in the hands of the STATE, who tend to abuse it and who can use censorship to foreclose all debate in a society. Pressure by private citizens on OTHER private citizens to make different cultural products is simply part of civil society - yes it means some things wont get published - but so do lots of things, from the profit motive to the evolution of retail channels to the whims or writers and game developers. I see no reason why the pressure of a group of protestors is less worthy as an influence on what gets written or developed as the whim of some designer.


These things balance out - if a group applies pressure to restrict something a creator thinks of as having real value, they will tend to resist, and the protests will typically gain more attention to the product - thing "last temptation of Christ". If a creator gives in as easily as Take Two its almost certainly because they thought that what was challenged was of no real value to begin with. I think thats the case in this instance. Take two made something trashy, someone called them on it, and they decided they didnt want have their name on something obviously trashy, esp as changing it would effect sales anyway. Case closed, all there is to it, no need to invoke high principle. This was a business decision on their part, no more censorship then their decision to include or not include something in a game.

[Asmodean]

It's got nothing to do with censorship. Take2 chose this course of action themselves.

It still sucks, though. Anybody who has played GTA: Vice City will tell you that Haitians need to be killed, so the game has to be right.

Asmodean

[Imran Siddiqui]

Osweld, once again (), you are wrong. This isn't censorship. It is a bunch of people who are protesting a game and the game company decided to change their content because of it. That isn't censorship, but a part of free speech rights to persuade people to not do certain things.

It'd be like saying if the NAACP protested a magazine to remove a racist article, and the magazine did so, then the NAACP engaged in censorship!

[lord of the mark]

BTW, here are the four games take twon has listed on their website.

"Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne

Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne is a violent, film-noir love story for mature audiences. Dark, tragic and intense, the in-depth story is a thrill-ride of shocking twists and revelations.

Manhunt

America is full of run down, broken rust-belt towns where nobody cares and anything goes. In Carcer City, nothing matters anymore and all that's left are cheap thrills. The ultimate rush is the power to grant life and take it away, for sport. This time James Earl Cash, you are the sport. They gave you your life back. Now, they are going to hunt you down.

"Mafia

Mafia - out now on PC and coming soon to the PlayStation®2 and Xbox® - brings the 1930's underworld to life. Take on the role of hit man, enforcer, getaway driver and more in your struggle for respect, money and power. Put on your suit, strap yourself into your Cadillac and enjoy the ride.

"Midnight Club 2

Rockstar once again sets a new benchmark in the racing genre. In Midnight Club 2 you are an elite, illegal street racer, more dangerous and skilled than ever racing throughout the cities of Paris, Los Angeles, and Tokyo."


This is one trashy company.

And spare me the stories about how youve been playing Quake since you were 3 and you turned out OK.
I dont care. Its still trash, and you cant take away my right to say so (well Ming, et al can, at least here, but I dont think they will)

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

[Jaguar]

I am soo glad that Vice City is now entirely free of offensive content.