I feel discussing this very topic to be pointless.

I disagree. Discussing ethics very much has a point, even if appears to progress nowhere. The exposure to others' ideas is good for us, first of all. Second of all, see my point on "reality checking" - putting forth our ideas of what is right and wrong allows others to test them for validity and soundness, and others to do the same of their own even if they present none of their own points. Maybe you find that discussing this topic serves you no purpose; fine, leave the thread to us who find it interesting if not meaningful to play with each others' ideas.

Maybe just maybe we could have had a rousing discussion about ethics in a civilized manner and come to some interesting conclusions about the subject, perhaps even changing each others perspective on the topic, but once a conversation devolves into the unbridled shitfest we all find ourselves standing in there is no hope.

I would not call this thread an "unbridled shitfest." I would call it a spirited discussion where it appears people are getting rather involved in the points presented. Frankly, I see that as a good thing, as a sign that the discussion has progressed far enough to challenge preconceptions and basic, ingrained philosophical axioms; a sign that we are actually discussing things and not dancing around each other doing our best not to step on each others' toes anymore. In short, a discussion that is going somewhere interesting.

I believe you're supposed to put yourself (like, your beliefs) in the games you make. (So, if you abhor serial killers, you don't make game having serial killers.)

The other thing you can is (when appropriate) give varying ethical choices in your games and/or eliminate unethical choices.

At the end of the day, does your game make the world a better place (even if it's just slightly) or not?

An interesting discussion.

Ideas :

Big Companies water down their big games. They think :

"Ethics? who's ethics? Wont it drive away income if we are too controversial, too polarizing. So lets stay away from such"

"Slaughtering faceless humanity-less minions with PC-OK'd identities - thats been allowed, so we can keep doing that to keep giving the monkeys their fix to keep their attention and pressing the buttons to think they are doing something great til their time is up (and keep buying)."

"Wrong ethics? Thats your opinion... What WE do everybody does it..."

---

In this age with all the tools with the potential to create a broader spectrum of CHOICE, is it just my perception that, if anything, its just fewer big game companies thinking as above? Monopolizing the allegedly new open media to bury the indie game makers. Some neat game comes out - if you never hear about it you never can play it. Shake the box game creation (and marketing ??) still isnt here and the big money is still needed for the 'big' production (and even they are losing their hours of play per title and fossilizing in their product)

Add herd mentality/peer pressure to play certain games (and be 'one with the herd'). Even the so called controversial games are still 'safe' 'reliable' pablum engineered for the herd.

I might say that educational simulations intended for learning are the better venue, but that too is subject to the 'big' factor deciding WHAT ethics (politics and non-choice or worse forced by public institutions) and are still subject to the production limitations. (what lesson you did in school did you ever want to repeat - very few...)

Do 'ethics' sell games? DO they DETRACT from selling games. Is there a point in doing the extra work leading to it 'paying off' (or getting enough people playing/exposed if monetary pay isnt the gamemakers motive?)

---

So future (?)

Better tools (despite big companies having large influence and maybe not wanting competition) that might make 'shake-the-box' games less costly/difficult for the quality needed to compete with sufficient whizzbangs/perceived-as-interesting content. We need Actual viable choice (and death of the monopolizing dinosaurs) to at least enable growth of availability of 'ethics' content.

---

My pet idea is enabling creativity amongst the players (in games - giving them (many) a part of the gamemaking) as a possible avenue as an alternative to the current game company's 'crack monkey' pattern, but the tools for that is even harder to achieve and further off. Ethics will still be upto people themselves to (decide and) create for, but at least opening a (viable) possibility for them is what I see as important.

Ultimately, I think Vidya is Art. And all art is subject to criticism, but never censorship. People should understand what they're getting into when they consume it.

Is it meant for adults? Alright, I can choose to consume it or not, since I'm an adult. Is it rated adult for sexual content? I won't consume it because I choose not to consume things with that sort of subject matter in it. If I want to take the game away because it offends me, I might be taking it away from somone else who would've enjoyed it. Do I agree with their decision to play the game? No, but that doesn't give me the right to take their choice away.

Same goes for my own content I plan on creating. Do I plan on censoring myself for fear of offending people, or do I make the game the way I want it to be? Do I want things to be made the way they are because that's how they're thought up and how I like something, or do I shoehorn in diversity for the sake of representing someone/something?

I prefer to make a statement more than being Politically Correct, because ultimately I want to provoke thought, not pander to those who already think that way. Ethically, it might feel bad for the player, but it'll definitely give them something to chew on.

Is it alright if I take a crack at this?

I don't think the content of a game matters more than the real world effects it has on players. If we control the contents of what can and cannot go into games, then ultimately what happens is censorship and it becomes harder for developers to create the experiences they want to create, and by effect the messages they want to communicate if applicable. If anything, when it comes to ethics and game content, it falls upon the developers personal ideas of what is ethical and what isn't because content is more about expression. This is something that is subjective and will vary from person to person.

What's more important than that though is how the games affect players' themselves. Take the F2P and IAP template for a game's design. It is very easy to find stories of kids spending lots of their parents' money on some game they were playing. Did these apps have barriers to make it difficult to buy things? Or did the design allow for unrestricted access to these purchasable goods? Is purchasing as easy as pressing one button and being done? Isn't it an issue that developers should account for while designing their apps? I have no proof, but I'm pretty sure some apps did make it easy for themselves to make a good profit without considering huge consequences on the user side, which is very wrong and unethical.

Games that take advantage of players and rob them of time and money, that deprive them of real world relationships, that brainwashes them (the legendary Polybius), or causes unwanted/dangerous physical/mental harm or effects are games I would call unethical.

it becomes harder for developers to create the experiences they want to create, and by effect the messages they want to communicate if applicable

This might be only true to real indie developers not working for or with a publisher and who do not need the income. And sometimes it is really hard for me to see a message in unnecessary, explicit violence and sexualisation.

Did these apps have barriers to make it difficult to buy things? Or did the design allow for unrestricted access to these purchasable goods? Is purchasing as easy as pressing one button and being done? Isn't it an issue that developers should account for while designing their apps?

Is this the game developers responsibility though?

iOS devices have settings that can help to control this by disabling or restricting IAP. Google Play offers similar settings for Android devices. Whenever I make a purchase on Android I get an email within minutes (usually almost instantly) with a receipt and although it's been a long time since I've regularly used an iOS device I remember it being similar. I don't know if Windows phones have anything similar, but I would expect to see similar functionality. I would argue that parents should be policing their children's spending through the use of these settings and appropriate supervision, while designers should be providing the best possible experience for their players -- making purchases as simple as possible is part of a good experience. How long are these children being left with unsupervised access to a device that doesn't have restrictive settings applied in order to make this many purchases?

As an example, I have a two-year old daughter. She is not allowed to use my phone, but just in case she accidentally gets access I've set up Google Play to require authentication for every purchase -- this prompts for my password no matter how the app in question is designed. When I'm using my own phone to play a game I expect IAP to be as simple and straightforward as possible -- I don't want the app getting in my way with extra protections that are redundant anyway.

I think that this is just too easy. If a child want to play a game, especially if it is forbidden for him, then he will play it, and not even most good parents are IT experts, who are able to control what their children consume.

I'd like to know where the kids are getting fake ID to buy the physical copy of the game, or credit-cards to buy the digital PC copy.

n.b. I was talking specificly about my country where it is marked as an adults only product.

If you want to argue that we should censor all adult-targetted products because parents are unable to parent in this day and age, then go ahead....

+1... nothing gets my blood boiling more than very well written, incredigly deep and fun stories, be it movies, comics, games, books, being censored because of some political correctness / morality / religious zeal fundamentalists.

Is the sex and crime always needed? No, most of the time not. Sometimes it is, because the story is building on what ever edgy stuff is on show, and people wouldn't get the point else. Most of the times, the good old "implication" with not showing the actual act, but giving enough hints that any mature reader / viewer will understand what is going on would be more than enough.

Does that make the story showing sex and crime any worse? No, a good story is a good story, and depending on the reader / viewer, the way the sex and crime elements are portrayed (just ecplicitely shown (which is fine for me) against the author revelling in the act of explicitely showing it (with much too long scenes, to much blood, too much screaming and cursing and yadda yadda yadda... god I hate it when a story creator sinks that low!)), and the context of the whole thing (GTA is explicit sex and crime in a RL like setting -> not very appropriate in my eyes, especially as the whole thing does not REALLY have a story.... a WW2 Story on the other hand needs its violence elements to make much sense most of the time), a very violent or sex scene heavy story can be quite good... if you as a reader want to go through the edgy stuff layering to get to the stories core and read / watch / play it, that is your decision as a mature reader / viewer.

Freedom of speech and all of those things....

Now, with that said, that are things that society clearly cannot tolerate. Racism, sexism and all that. There needs to be a line when a story is no longer tolerable for mature readers, as it is transporting a message that cannot be tolerated by society. This, of course, is a very subjective topic. To me, lots of religious fundamentalist stuff is quite untolerable... for... "more religious people", that see everything through the lense of their "holy books" or whatever, it is tolerable as long as "god told them so". Some other stuff will on the other hand be quite offensive for them, while I don't see anything out of the ordinary in it.

To make things worse, even if it would be a non subjective topic, where does freedom of speech stop and racism/whatever start?

For example, 300 is an extreme edge case. It can be seen as a racist movie, and at least the way the movie is made makes it obvious that some of it was meant this way.

On the other hand, the spartan culture from the period WAS racist. Portraying them as a modern culture where everyone is treated equal would betray historical truth... and frankly, would make the movie quite cheesy...

Should they have gone easier on the "Persian=monster" thingy, or worshipping the spartan way of bringing up their children to be cold blooded killers? Of course they should have...

Would it be the same mindless, over the top movie / comic without this? Would people still watch the movie even though the story is rather "meh" apart from the quite interesting historical myth at its core? What if you also cut out all the sex and crime to make the movie even more political correct?

In the end, society needs to make sure a) the extreme cases that cannot be tolerated are taken care of, b) only mature audiences have access to stories created for mature readers / viewers, and c) censorship is not abused by anyone.

Censorship is never the answer alone... parental control and laws against the worst excesses can help, censoring everything that might be offensive to someone does not.

As the weapon lobby puts it.... guns don't kill people... people kill people. That doesn't mean everyone should be allowed to carry a gun in public. But maybe you better keep an eye on instable and dangerous people instead of just making sure they don't get guns...

In the end, people will kill people with newspapers, rocks, pencils if they have no guns available...

To come back to violent games and movies: it isn't the violent game that turns a teenager into a violent person. The violent game might be giving him the wrong ideas and certainly shouldn't be played by this teenager. But the teenager itself, even without the game, should be seeing a shrink, as something already must have gone very wrong with him before, if he cannot stomach these games without getting the wrong ideas.

On the behalf of GTA: This game I disliked from the very beginning. Not because it is a bad game, I haven't really played and GTA game for any length, so I cannot make a statement on that.

I dislike it because I do not see the games general attitude against violence, crime, sex/sexism as appropriate. I have no problem with similar settings in a movie, or in a more linear game, as the violence is still strongly linked to a set story. Thus the violence is part of that story.

In a GTA like sandbox game, most actions you do are no longer linked to a set story. You can longer hide behind the fact that the game forced you to do violent act X because the story wouldn't have advanced without it (which might be a weak excuse, still...) ... you are now driving into people for sheer fun or because the game is rewarding you with some kind of points or achievement that are really worthless. You are living out violent acts for sheer fun and without any meaning, irony or ethics behind it. That, to me, makes the game overstep the boundary and makes me not play it, ever.

And yes, as in any sandbox game, nobody forces you to do all the pointless silly stuff people do in sandbox games. You can just play the story missions and stuff... but... why even pay for a sandbox game then?

But put into perspective, that is my very personal view on things. I am well aware that it is kinda hypocritical to condemn meaningless violence in sandbox games, while not having a problem with the same violence in other games, as long as it is part of a story that gives the violence a meaning and ethical framework.

In my opinion the main "problem" with games is that they let you "do" things that you can't do in real life. As opposite to books or movies where you can only imagine yourself doing it.
This link seems to be easily abused with assumption that if you want to do something in game you also want to do it in real life. (Well... following this logic I should already be a serial killer :)) However unfortunately the opposite link may be true and it only makes things worse.

People fight with stress in different ways - some run, some go to gym and some play games. I'm usually in the last group and while I don't like "mindless violence" in games there is no better cure for a bad day than battleground in World of Warcraft. What? Killing? Other players? Are you nuts?

Should WoW be banned as highly violent? That's not the point, right? Well - the point is many people enjoy things that are not possible or just harder or more time consuming outside of games (flying, leading empire, killing, farming plants...). Some games tend to attract a lot of those activities in well executed and marketed products that makes a lot of "fame" around them.

I think GTA is one of them - it is well executed game where you can do things impossible otherwise. Should it be forbidden for kids? Well - this question is already answered with PEGI rating and very easy to enforce. PC and consoles already have easy to setup parental control and it is responsibility of parents to censor games for THEIR kids. PEGI is not only a label on the box that can be ignored by kid shopping with his own money and seller that want a profit. It is built in information that will prevent the game from running on system restricted for younger audience.

But even GTA may actually teach kids something. Maybe if more of them would try to drink and drive in GTA, less will try to do it after "good party"?

To sum it up - games are already restricted by PEGI and ESRB with additional information like violence, sex, drugs or alcohol. And that should be enough. If politicians should decide what games people can play it just won't do, unless a bit of "fun" is expected... Like possible ban of Minecraft for violence (I still hope it's fake)
http://techraptor.net/content/minecraft-finds-trouble-in-turkey

To sum it up - games are already restricted by PEGI and ESRB with additional information like violence, sex, drugs or alcohol. And that should be enough. If politicians should decide what games people can play it just won't do, unless a bit of "fun" is expected... Like possible ban of Minecraft for violence (I still hope it's fake)
http://techraptor.net/content/minecraft-finds-trouble-in-turkey

W - T - F? Minecraft? Really? That is the biggest problem of the turkish ministers? Wow...

Thanks for bringing it up, might have missed a good laugh today....

Besides my general dislike of GTA, I generally agree on your other points. There are ratings for a reason. If these are not enforced, the lack of enforcement by the shop owners (be it brick and mortar or digital) AND the parents buying the games is the problem, not the game itself.

To be honest, I am pretty shocked how little parents really inform themselves about all the plastic and electronic crap they buy for their kids. If they watched a single gameplay vid before byuing the box, they could have prevented the kid playing an inappropriate game (that implies that the parent in question lacks the reading skills to read the rating printed on every box and on the online shop images).

But then people manage to stuff their pets into microwave ovens or do similar stupid things, so I guess that is to be expected.

About the sandbox thingie: yes, agree to that. I personally also vent steam sometimes in games, and I can see the attraction of sandbox games. So I understand why other people do what they do.

To me, personally, a sandbox game that not only lets you go on a storyless rampage but also reinforces that is a no-no. But this is a personal opinion, my personal "line in the sand" so to speak.

I think this is still far from what society as a whole should make a stand against. There are such games, but they are pretty obvious... see the whole fuss about Hatred. A game built by a group of racists (seems to be pretty much sure they are, at least multiple sources claimed as much) that is obviously trying to attract an audience with overstepping as many boundaries as possible and trying to get attention by provoking society, while transporting thinly veiled racist propaganda. This is something the turkish ministers (or politicians worldwide) should look into. Not minecraft.