A new city-building game called Tropico 5, which was due to be released in Thailand has now been banned by the country's Ministry Of Culture, because it is felt that the game may "impinge upon national security. " [sourced from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/thai-government-bans-military-rule-computer-game-tropico-5]
The game allows players to take on a Presidential role on a fictional tropical island, player can colonise new lands, draft political rules for their new colony, and, if they so wish, they can also choose to declare military rule and create their own dictatorship.
It is not yet clear why the fifth installment of this franchise has been banned when previous games in the series such as Tropico 3 and 4 were considered appropriate for public viewing, However, there are rumours that the game may hit just a little too close to home for some people's liking.
Thailand's military has been ruling the country since General Prayuth Chan-ocha staged a millitary coup in May 2014 – the country's eighteenth coup in eighty years – effectively overthrowing the democratically-elected government and taking control of the country as head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).
According to New Era, Thailand's marketing manager, Nonglak Sahavattanapong, censors at the Ministry Of Culture banned sales of Tropico 5 as they believed it would"impinge upon Thailand's national security, and deeming it a public threat to peace and order...We've had licences to distribute Tropico 3 and 4 before, but in the fifth instalment, the storyline has developed further and there might be some part of it that's not appropriate in the current situation." [sourced from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/thai-government-bans-military-rule-computer-game-tropico-5]
The game was due to be released in May this year, but was subject to approval by authorities under the 2008 Films and Video Act, which requires that officials screen all games before they are distributed in the kingdom, where it was subsequently banned. The game's developers will not be appealing against the decision to ban the game.
Nintendo have today issued a further apology to ts fans following the mass outcry about the lack of same-sex couples in their upcoming life simulation game, Tomodachi Life, which is scheduled to be released in America and Europe on the 6th of June 2014.
Nintendo had previously defended its position about the lack of same-sex marriage within the game by claiming that the game was "Not a social commentary" on gay marriage. Today however, Nintendo sought to clarify their position via a message posted on the Nintendo website. The full message can be read below:
We are committed to fun and entertainment for everyone 2014-05-09
We apologize for disappointing many people by failing to include same-sex relationships in Tomodachi Life. Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game’s design, and such a significant development change can’t be accomplished with a post-ship patch. At Nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy. We are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone. We pledge that if we create a next installment in the Tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game-play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.
Tomodachi Life'sexclusion of same-sex couples (however unwitting that exclusion might be) has angered many fans and attracted the attention of Gay and Lesbian Rights groups such asGLAAD. A Spokesperson for GLAAD recently criticised Nintendo: "In purposefully limiting players' relationship options, Nintendo is not only sending a hurtful message to many of its fans and consumers by excluding them, but also setting itself way behind the times," [Sourced from: http://venturebeat.com/2014/05/08/glaad-to-nintendo-lack-of-gay-characters-in-new-life-sim-is-hurtful-and-behind-the-times/]
It is yet unclear whether the lack of same-sex relationships in Tomodachi Life will definitely have an adverse effect on sales when it is released in Europe next month, but it is a shame that Nintendo did not consider this issue before choosing to release the game to a Western audience. Let's all hope video games producers can learn a lesson from Nintendo's mistake and make games without such inequality in the future.
Nintendo of America has announced that its Tomodachi Life3DS game will NOT be altered to allow same-sex couples to fall in love or get married when the game is released in America and Europe in June. The announcement comes after it was revealed in a Kotaku article last month that the Japanese game had originally contained a 'glitch' that allowed same-sex couples to exist within the game. This was part of a software bug which, as well as allowing same-sex relationships, also allowed Tomodachi Mii characters to be assigned to various already-married Mii households within the game.
Nintendo quickly created a patch code to correct the glitch, which then made it impossible to assign new Mii characters to married households, and furthermore, made it impossible for same-sex characters fall in love, get married or have children. Same-sex couples were never part of the original game as gay marriage is still illegal in Japan.
As the Western release of the game is based on the original Japanese codes, players in America and Europe will also be denied the chance to create same-sex couples, which has angered Nintendo fans who argue that as the game is supposed to be a realistic representation of their own social group of friends and family, they should have the right to choose to have same-sex couples within the game.
Tye Marini,a gay 23-year old Nintendo fan from Arizona, had launched a campaign urging Nintendo to allow same-sex relationships. The Social Media "Miiquality" campaign had been fighting to get Nintendo to change their mind about the marriage equality in Tomodachi Life, as he argued that fans who chose to create same-sex couples within the game would never be able to experience much of the exclusive content that becomes unlocked after characters have fallen in love.
Nintendo has responded to its angry fans by claiming that: "Nintendo never intended to make any form of social commentary with the launch of 'Tomodachi Life', the relationship options in the game represent a playful alternate world rather than a real-life simulation. We hope that all of our fans will see that 'Tomodachi Life' was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary." [sourced from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/07/nintendo-miiquality-campaign-gay-tomodachi-life]
Nevertheless, whether the game was intended to provide a social commentary or not, as a game which has marketed itself on allowing players to recreate Mii avatars of their own family and friends and have them interact together in a realistic way, it seems rather remiss of Nintendo not to allow western same-sex couples the chance to interact together in the game when they normally would fall in love and get married etc., in real life.
However, it can also be argued that other Life Simulation games have also suffered from these kinds of prejudices in the past, including the ever-popular The Sims franchise, who (although choosing to feature same-sex couples and marriage,) did not feature any physically-disabled Sims, which upset some players who argued that they could not create a realistic avatar of themselves within the game.
In this enlightened age when equal rights is considered to be a very important issue, it is disappointing to see Nintendo not taking the feelings and wishes of its fans into account. If we are going to have games which feature real-life simulations, then don't the producers owe it to the fans who play the games to make them as prejudice-free and true to real life as possible?
HAVE YOUR SAY...
Is it right for the needs and wishes of different social groups to be omitted from the video games which claim to represent real-life demographics? What are the difficulties in trying to change or modify games to feature various marginalised sections of the community? Should same-sex couples be given equal rights in Tomodachi Life?
If you have something to say about this issue and wish to share it with other readers, then why not leave Mini Gamers a comment and let us know? We love to hear from you.
It could be argued that videogames has long since ceased to be thought of as a 'teenage' pastime. With more and more games hitting the shelves every year, developers have begun to widen the net on their target audience.
Whilst some developers have chosen to target parents and very young gamers by producing many family-orientated titles that allow children and parents to play together, other developers have gone in the opposite direction all together, prefering to make 'Adults Only' or R18 games. This has also lead to greater classification restrictions on violent and otherwise explicit games.
Now Australia has finally joined the list of countries which allow an R18+ games classification. It has taken campaigners almost a decade to persuade the Australian Government that such a classification was needed in order to stop minors getting their hands on inappropriate gaming material. The new classification changes are expected to be enforced in early 2012.
On Friday 22nd July 2011, all Australian states ( with the exception of New South Wales) agreed that violent and sexually-explicit games would now be rebranded as R18+, which would then replace the previous rating MA15+, although it is uncertain what form this may take.
In a press release on Friday, the Australian Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O'Connor explained how the new classification would help to curtail the risk of inappropriate videogames falling into the hands of gamers who were too young to play them. He said:
"The introduction of an R18+ classification for computer games will provide better advice to parents and help prevent children and teenagers from accessing unsuitable material. Once introduced, the new classification will also afford adults the opportunity to view material designed for adults." [Sourced from: http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2011/07/22/3275523.htm]
Left 4 Dead: M15+ or R18+, that is the question...
However, it could be argued that the introduction of an R18+ classification is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the legally-enforced classification means that shops will be forbidden from selling games to a youngster who is below the legal age limit.
On the other hand, it also gives developers the right to produce highly violent and morally corrupt videogames on the understanding that they will only be played by adults, who are said to be mature enough to process fiction from reality.
Left 4 Dead is a good example. The game was originally considered too violent under Australian law and had to be toned down by the developers so that it could attain the highest classification possible at that time, which was MA15+(not to be played by anyone under 15). Under the new laws, the game would automatically be given an R18+ rating and be released to the public uncensored.
Characters from the later Left 4 Dead games all depicted with weapons
The question is, then: Do R18+ classifications really help to censor and control violent images which may be viewed by young children and impressionable teenagers, or do they in fact encourage the production of even more violent games, which can then still be accessed by youngsters if left around in the family home?
The sad truth is, there is probably no way of knowing for sure...
Surely videogames developers must have some obligation to ensure that in the production of extremely violent videogames, they do not interfere with the correct moral development of impressionable minds.
Moral development is concerned with the process by which young people and those of an impressionable nature internalise the rules and expectations of society. In other words, the moral compass by which they learn about right and wrong.
Thus, Adult Only videogames (should these be viewed by people who are deemed too young to fully-differentiate between violence in a videogame environment and violent acts commited in the real world), can disrupt the moral compass, and nurture an individual who sees these potential acts of violence and depravity, as the norm.
HAVE YOUR SAY...
What do you think about the Australian R18+ classification?
Do you think that games which deal with mature themes should be labelled as Adults-Only?
What effect might R18+ classification have on the future of videogames as a whole?
If you would like to share your thoughts on this issue, please leave a COMMENT in the Comments' Box below. Thank you.
This is the PEGI visual descriptor of a game which depicts violence
IMAGINE THE FOLLOWING SCENE:
You are wandering around your favourite video games store with some friends who happen to not be avid gamers and you spy a new sports game that you think will be good to try out. However, before you can even take the game from the shelf, your companions point out that the aforementioned game has a PEGI 3+ rating.
Your friends are horrified: "A 3+ game?!At your age?"
You are then forced to try and save face by purchasing the latest 16+ title - full of violence and bad language instead, when all you wanted was to have a good football game etc. This has happened to me on two separate occasions now, and both times I just crumbled with embarrassment.
Most actual gamers will recognise that the PEGI rating of 3+ does not refer to age or ability of the intended player, but to the game's Individual Content Rating, which shows that a very young child (from the age of 3+) could quite happily view this game without seeing something that they shouldn't.
However, PEGI (Pan European Game Information) who are the main censorship board for videogames in the UK, are the first to admit that this rating does not take into account the actual ability of a child to play the game, so most 3+ games are well beyond the intellectual ability of a normal toddler.
The lowest age rating in the PEGI system (3+) includes games like Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11, whose complex game controls and visual style is meant for older gamers, gameshow tie-ins like the ever-popular Deal Or No Deal, or a quiz game tie-in such as Countdown, which, as any viewer of the afternoon quiz could tell you, contains conundrums that are hard enough to stump the average thirty year-old, let alone a very young child!
You might say that this is pedantic of me, and argue that gamers shouldn't care what other (non-gaming) people think about their particular tastes, but the fact is that the PEGI rating is often confusing to parents and guardians when trying to choose games for young gamers. I have heard several people talk about games in the following way:
"It says 12+ on the box, but he's very intelligent for his age, so I think he'll find it easy to play the game..."
The trouble is that, (especially in the UK) we are used to seeing age ranges on particular toys. These ratings usually tell us what age group the product is intended for and thus, we know better than to buy a toy aimed at 'ages 4 and over' for an eight year-old and vice versa, but this knowledge does not work in quite the same way when applied to video games.
PEGI rates video games in the following way:
This icon means that a game is suitable for everyone, (regardless of age or ability,) and contains very mild unrealistic cartoon violence, no horror, no bad language.
This icon means that a game is suitable for viewing by slightly older children and it is usually applied to games that contain mild, (but realistic), cartoon violence or mild horror and scary scenes, which may cause upset to younger children.
This icon denotes games which are not suitable for children younger than twelve years old to view. Games with this age rating may contain some mild action violence, sexually crude humour and themes of gambling. Games which contain theme songs that are mildly suggestive will automatically be given this rating.
Games with this rating can contain strong, explicit action violence, and often deal with story themes which include implicit drug-use, racial or sexual discrimination, criminal behaviour and sex. They should not be viewed by anyone who is younger than sixteen.
Games with this icon are seen as only suitable for adults (those aged 18 or over). Although games aimed at this age group are rare in the UK, graphic violence, strong sexual content, explicit references to gambling or drugs, criminal behaviour and vulgar language (spoken and used in song lyrics) are permitted in games with this rating.
The PEGI system of videogame classification also provides several Content Descriptors intended to give details about what type of themes a particular game might have (such as the 'violence' descriptor at the top of this post). These are useful as they instantly give a visual representation of why the game has been given the age rating that it has.
Nevertheless, only the age rating appears on the front of the box, so the descriptor is unlikely to be seen until later and this may explain why some people still assume that the age rating refers to the age of the intended player and not to the game's overall content.
PEGI INFORMATION VIDEO
The ERSB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) who are responsible for rating games in America and other countries outside the UK, has its own set of age ratings and content descriptors for video games. Their ratings range from Efor EVERYONE to AO for ADULTS ONLY. The ERSB rating system is very clear to understand and means that there are likely to be less misunderstandings about who the games are actually intended for. There has been some debate over the past few years about whether the UK could benefit from a new ratings system - a combination of ERSB age ratings with PEGI content descriptors, but as yet, no new rating system has been proposed. Further details about the ERSB rating system can be found here.
Of course, there needs to be some measure of which games are suitable for which age groups, but is an age rating alone really enough information to decide whether a game is suitable for the intended gamer?
It has to be said that both the PEGI and ERSB rating systems are dependent on the watchfulness of shop keepers or guardians alike, whose decision to allow the purchase of a 12+ or 16+ game for a child who is underage - simply because they think that the age range refers to the ability of the player - could end up having a detrimental effect on young gamers who are then exposed to violent and suggestive themes.
Here at Mini Gamers we know that gaming can be a very enjoyable pastime, but we all have a duty remember that some games are not suitable for a younger audience.
HAVE YOUR SAY...
What do you think of the PEGI age rating system? Have you ever been put off of buying a game with a 3+ rating? Is ERSB an effective way to show which games are not suitable for younger gamers? Are videogame ratings easy to understand? Whose responsibility should it be to censor certain videogames?
Here at Mini Gamers, we are interested in hearing your views. Please feel free to leave a comment in the comments box by clicking the 'comments' link at the bottom of the post and share your thoughts on this issue with others.
