How would you react if a comics-code was applied to games?

Below, is the Comics Code. It was once mandatory (I believe; if not mandatory, it was used for DC and Marvel for over 25 years).

What I'm about to post was once actually enforced with comics.

• Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals.
• If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.
• Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.
• Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates a desire for emulation.
• In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds.
• Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated.
• No comic magazine shall use the words "horror" or "terror" in its title.
• All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted.
• All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated. Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader.
• Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism are prohibited.
• Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.
• Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure.
• Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.
• Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.
• Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Rape scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable.
• Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.
• Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.
• Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.

^ Now imagine that twisted for Gaming. Let's pretend this is applied to video-games on the insistence of 'activists'/video games critics.

How would you personally react? Would you protest in the streets? Would you not care? Just curious.

This doesn't belong in this section. Probably the general games discussion.

Parts of it I don't like because it isn't realistic.

Parts I don't like because it stifles creativity.

I would rather let the consumer decide if they want to buy a certain product. Not some arbitrary rule set prohibiting what can and can't be done.

Probably laugh my ass off.

Moved to Games Discussion =)

@korvus: Thanks.

It would be a great way to limit creativity and actually make games uninteresting. It would just suck.

@mastermetal777: I'm aware it'd suck. My question is how would you as a Gamer react? Would Gamers protest in the street making a political statement? Or just leave it?

That would never happen today. It didn't happen a decade ago when politics were targeting games, and it sure as hell wouldn't happen now.

this sounds like it came out of the era of twin beds for married couples on TVs (50s, 60s)...when was it actually enforced?

I think people that are closer to a medium ascribe more importance to trending discussions (such as gamergate), while failing to realize they really are only a small part of that medium's market. As such, they fear sweeping changes that never materialize because the majority of paying customers just don't give a shit. You won't get a code like this until you have a governing body capable of enforcing it, and even if some such authority emerges, you'll just see break-off companies (sort of like Image comics) coming into existence and making money purely off of subverting that authority.

But let's say hypothetically it did happen...I think you would see an increased interest in gaming PCs and console-like PC offerings like the Steam machine and Project Catherine, because there would be an increased interest in modding for the purposes of subverting that code. I can't see any protests because gamers have never really moved politically as gamers. Mostly the pushback would come from the small gaming lobby. But like I said above, codes like this would be leaving too much money on the table, so I don't see it happening.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding that the comics code was entirely voluntary. Certain vendors might not carry titles that were not approved by the Comics Code Authority. And certain publishers might not release comics that don't meet Comic Code standards. But, to my knowledge, there was no "enforcement" in the sense that the government passed laws requiring comics to adhere to those guidelines. There are two parallels I can draw to modern gaming.

1) I didn't enter the comic book scene until the early 90's, so I can't speak for before that time. But by the time I started reading comics, there was a fairly decent amount of diversity. Marvel and DC were (mostly) code approved titles, but there were plenty of publishers releasing other titles that weren't Comics Code approved. The catch? You couldn't find them on supermarket or magazine racks, you had to either subscribe and get the comic shipped to you, or buy it from an actual comics store. My point being: even though the comics Code was still being used, comics book companies were holding THEMSELVES to that standard (and even DC had their separate Vertigo line, which wasn't code approved). Adhering to the comics code was "enforced" in the sense that comic book companies could choose to only release Code Approved comics, but no one was stopping them from NOT doing so. There was a market for comic books that had content that wouldn't meet comic Code standards, so a lot of companies just plain didn't get code approval. That's a lot like a developer just plain choosing to only release kid-friendly products. not a big deal. They can do what they want because there's nothing stopping other creators from doing differently.

2) Second parallel is with regards to ratings. As I understand it, the comic book industry took up the Comics Code largely because they were the big bogeyman of the day (similar to how movies or video games or music came under fire from the media at other times). So they decided to regulate themselves in order to take the heat off of them. This reminds me a lot of the ratings system with games, and how major retailers won't sell games that are either unrated or rated AO. And that CAN be the kiss of death. Because even if no one's forcing you to adhere to a ratings standard, you've got a big problem if you're making a multimillion dollar game and then major retailers refuse to sell it because of ratings issues. So in that sense, a kind of "comics code" is ALREADY kind of "enforced" with regards to games. The industry VOLUNTARILY adopted the ESRB system. They were getting flak from the media and public pressure, so they policed themselves so that no one else would police them. And sure...they don't HAVE to pay one single shit about the ESRB. The downside is that major retailers go by that voluntary standard. AO gets avoided just as much as NC-17 for movies. So even though you don't HAVE to abide by that system, you kind of do if your movie/game/whatever is expensive enough. That's actually sort of the situation that we're already in. That happened and IS in effect today.

The good thing: the internet. Granted, NC-17 movies and AO games are still kind of a rarity, but they're getting more opportunities for exposure due to the internet's ability to bypass major retailers. If you're making a big budget movie or game, then you're still sort of financially required to play by the rules. But smaller films/games with less of an initial investmewnt? They don't have to make as much money to turn a profit, which makes it potentially viable to say 'screw the man." That's an advantage we have today that wasn't in effect back when comics were being neutered by the comics code. If there was internet back then, that whole "you have to adhere to the comics code" thing would have been a freaking joke. The difference between movies/games and comic books is that comic books usually cost a LOT less money to make. Even with a strangle-hold on distribution, that lower investment made it more feasible for comic book companies to lower their costs and then say "**** the comics code, we do what we want." And that's ALSO happening today. Albeit, to a slightly lesser extent. Simply because making a comic book usually costs less than making a movie or a game or a TV show. But my point is, we've ALREADY sort of been living in an effective 'comics code scenario" with regards to movies, television shows, and video games. And things are still mostly okay. Could be better, but MOSTLY okay.

@MrGeezer: The CCA was "voluntary" but was essentially mandatory because no newsstand would carry a comic without it. This was a huge issue throughout the 60s (the so-called "silver age"). What began to erode the CCA was the establishment of self-standing comic book shops in the 70s and the retreat from newsstands, and the rise of independent comics in the 80s and early 90s, leading to the trend of super-dark and gritty comics that lasted throughout the 90s (the "dark age"). It's funny, because gaming went through a similar arc, albeit for different reasons. From an unrestrained "golden age," to Nintendo's strict censorship of the post-crash 80s to mid 90s, to the mopey and extremely "edgy" teen to mature stuff of the mid-90s to oughts as Nintendo lost all its influence, to the content-diverse industry we have today.

And this is why I don't expect much of anything to happen in terms of censoring game content, at least on the mid-to-large end. Ever since Leland Yee's attempt to censor games was struck down and Jack Thompson disbarred, the discussion of censorship has largely died down. Even if it were to flare up again, that's a huge precedent to fight against. Meanwhile, we have a situation where mid-to-large developers are A) building their own online presence, and B) the main source of traditional gaming media's content, absent the growth of actual personalities at these sites. The gaming media can sneer at its audience, but they know where their bread is buttered, and calling for a censorship regime in unison will almost certainly result in loss of access. Most anti-GG sites wouldn't last in the market without mid-to-major publisher access.

That leads to the second issue; publishers, especially mid-to-large tier, largely don't care. They're good at giving lip service to the SJWs, but when the highest-selling games out there include Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto on a regular basis, guess what's going to be made. Remember, the CCA was established to placate the government because the comics industry was small at the time and more easily bullied. Gaming is a multi-billion dollar business, AND the threat of government intrusion is largely null by the Brown v. EMA decision, at least for the next couple decades. They'll clap in public and roll their eyes in private as Anita and Brianna play the victim card over and over, while making the types of content that will sell to their consumers. SJWs can't interfere with the free market, no matter how much they'd like to.

Lastly, the moral panic over video games seems to be largely over. You'll get the occasional moral crusader, but nothing like we saw after the release of Mortal Kombat. Even now, outside of one congresswoman in Brianna Wu's state of Massachusetts, there doesn't seem to be a lot of government traction to go after a bunch of "stupid trolls." With the middle east on fire, immigrants rushing the border en masse and Russia trying to swallow Ukraine, there's bigger things on their plate. And honestly, even the two sides have really stopped talking about the issues that founded them and have devolved into calling each-other names. Honestly, I've really only been following it the last few weeks to know who to boycott for being anti-gamer. It's hard to get any signal anymore, as the two sides have been reduced to bickering over Twitter, and more than a few sites, like have either been created in the wake of GamerGate or have reformed their ethics policies to the point where it's slowly getting easy both for gamers to ignore corrupted media, and for indies to just way "look, we're going to make the content we want to make, not what the far-left demands of us." As more alternative voices pop up, including of course YouTube and Twitch/Hitbox streamers, the problems we're seeing now will slowly start to sort themselves out.