Swearing in games is a modern evil

No! Batman is not here to set a good example! Batman is a character used to tell a story, in whichever fashion the writer of said book/film/game chooses! YOU are here to set a good example to your children. Teachers are to set examples. Actual heroes like police officers, firemen, etc. are here to set good examples. Stop putting this on fictional characters and the people who write them! Batman is at the core a plot device for people to deliver a story. He happens to be a very well known one which is going to make for several interpretations as several people will have a chance to use him as their venue. THAT. IS. ALL.

[QUOTE="sorello"]

I do not believe those stats (23+ is the average age of a UK gamer, 37 in USA), are accurate. DO YOU? Do you really believe that in America there are just as many wrinkly-bottomed 57 year olds as there are 17 year olds playing games today??? If you do then you are more gullible then you profess not to be.

I pointed out one factor which may challenge those figures - that many kids are downloading or obtaining games illegally. Yes it is wrong, I'm not condoning that but it is a very common occurance. How many people at school, college or university actually buy games? Many, but how many more 'pirate' them getting a cracked version from a friend or contact – how many I ask of any reading this forum know someone or do this themselves?

How old are the people reading this forum? Any 57 year olds here?? I would say there are hardly any 57 year olds or older reading this forum, while I bet there are dozens of 17 and below and thousands reading all Gamespots forums.

1. Do you understand the difference between median and mean? The average (mean) gamer according to the study is 37 in the US. That in no way necesarially means that there are just as many gamers aged 57 as there are gamers aged 17. I don't know the exact demographics of their sample, but there are a number of ways to reach such an average. There could be a high percentage of gamers in the sample aged 40, or some other number. It really isn't that hard to beleive, when you look at ALL the videogames that are released and played every year, and not just the ones that are infamous for their immature online communities.

However, you latch on the arbitrary age of 57 and appear to be ignorant of the ways in which averages can be calculated.

So how did the American regulatory body come to the conclusion that the average age of gamers is 37? Their flawed research did not take into account that many parents buy the games for their offspring, they failed to allow for piracy which is more prevelant among younger people than older, and the people who bother to fill our surveys are usually older. Kids as they say have less patience, a generalisation I know but intrinsically true.

2. How do you know they didn't account for parents buying for children. The fact that the age of the average buyer is, in both the US and the UK, several years higher than the average player age suggest that they did. But you wouldn't know unless you had information we didn't. You also have no way of knowing how the study gathered it's sample, and if it even utilized surveys (which you erroneously categorize as something only for adults) or not. It's true that the study doesn't account for piracy, as far as we know. Yet you provide no evidence for your claim that most pirates are underage.Provide some legitimate data as evidence, and I might be more inclined to take you seriously.

All of which brings down the official estimate that gamers are 37 in USA, and 23 in the UK, which strengthens my view that the average age is teens-early 20s, certainly arguing my case from the UK.

Should the game producers be blamed if they allow adult matter be watched or heard by kids who are illegally playing their M rated games? Because their game has a mature rating does not excuse them of their responsibility. If you put up a porn site intended for adults and has a "Are you over 18?" and all one has to do is click "Yes" is that really enough of a safeguard from curious youngsters who have accidently stumbled upon your website? I'd say not. The game makers are deliberately targetting younger players but get around their legal responsibilities by this pathetic limp-wristed regulatory body who basically gives them a license to produce anything accessible by anyone so long as a little red box with the letter "M" is printed on it.

3. The "Letter M" prohibits minors from buying the game without an adult present. Unless the store clerk is lazy or just doesn't care (which gets them in trouble) they cannot allow a minor to purchase an M rated game. The Comparison to porn is completely faulty, because in that case all you have to do is click a button. Here you have to prove you age with some form of ID.

The producers do almost NOTHING to prevent games from getting into the hands of young players because if any of them did it would harm the sales of that company. Is anyone asked their age when they buy a game online? Are there any checks done to prove people are over 21 they may claim to be just to get full access to games downloaded on Steam, for example?

4. In order to buy a game online, you have to use a credit card or paypal. As I'm sure you are aware, minors cannot obtain their own credit or debit cards. And a paypal account must be loaded from another bank account, which again a minor cannot possess and independently operate, without parental action.

Swearing on the other hand is just as real as in real life. Actors are paid copius amounts of money (not only in case Mr.Pedant pontificates) just to swear in the computer games aimed at young people. It is real voices, not artificially synthesized speech programs which would make a massive difference. This to me is a modern evil that has become a new trend in games to their detriment. It has also started up in music again very recently and shows the media industry is trying to PROMOTE swearing at all levels and accessible to all.

These changes have happened around the same time, just over 2 years ago and I do not believe it is a coincidence that both industries music and gaming which was relatively free of profanity, both degenerated at similar times. Evidently you believe in coincidences, maybe you believe in the tooth fairy too?

5. I wasn't aware that swearing had ever left music or video games for that matter. Did you consume media in the 90s? If you had, this would be obvious. Again, here you are claiming that 2 years ago, swearing suddenly spiked video games and music. Provide evidence.

Brendissimo35

Kids can get their older friends to buy games for them. There are other ways around not having a credit card to purchase online.

Swearing has been quite rare in music until recently particularly prevelant in hip-hop a few years back, but now pop "musicians" are adding foul language into their tracks. Pink, a mediocre untalented so-called pop star did a rubbishy song with "F***" in the title, made to shock and provoke to revive her ailing career. Don't think it was ever played on BBC Radio here in England. Heavy Metal is much more satanic, with swear words and the lead singer putting on a gutteral voice to simulate being a demon.

The point is this is a fairly recent development, in music and games, whether you want to argue about the date, you must concede that these two mediums have drastically changed in just over a few years and I'm thoroughly against this compromise of our moral standards.

As to the other points, I don't think anyone really believes that the average age of gamers in America is 37 and I have made many references to how they could have gotten it far off base. Who knows how they did their research but just because some company attempts to obtain an accurate survey doesn't mean it is gospel. It would mean for evey 17 year-old one must equally have a 57 year-old or 2 47 year-olds which is stretching the imagine to the limit.

I don't know if they consider an elder corporate executive playing Freecell on his laptop while waiting to do some business as a gamer, but whatever the findings are a joke, in my opinion.

No! Batman is not here to set a good example! Batman is a character used to tell a story, in whichever fashion the writer of said book/film/game chooses! YOU are here to set a good example to your children. Teachers are to set examples. Actual heroes like police officers, firemen, etc. are here to set good examples. Stop putting this on fictional characters and the people who write them! Batman is at the core a plot device for people to deliver a story. He happens to be a very well known one which is going to make for several interpretations as several people will have a chance to use him as their venue. THAT. IS. ALL.

CDuG

Batman is a superhero correct? The word is super, as in he has some super powers above the norm, and the important one, HERO, meaning he is somebody heroic, to be looked up to and held in high esteem. As such he should set a good example whether the character has any flaws or nuances on this, he doesn't have to be perfect, but I believe he should live up to the word hero.

[QUOTE="CDuG"]

No! Batman is not here to set a good example! Batman is a character used to tell a story, in whichever fashion the writer of said book/film/game chooses! YOU are here to set a good example to your children. Teachers are to set examples. Actual heroes like police officers, firemen, etc. are here to set good examples. Stop putting this on fictional characters and the people who write them! Batman is at the core a plot device for people to deliver a story. He happens to be a very well known one which is going to make for several interpretations as several people will have a chance to use him as their venue. THAT. IS. ALL.

sorello

Batman is a superhero correct? The word is super, as in he has some super powers above the norm, and the important one, HERO, meaning he is somebody heroic, to be looked up to and held in high esteem. As such he should set a good example whether the character has any flaws or nuances on this, he doesn't have to be perfect, but I believe he should live up to the word hero.

So saving people from being murdered or robbed is not good enough if he says a bad word? Do you think police officers never swear? Privately even? As readers of a Batman comic, are we not just peering into the (fictional) life of someone else? Would they be conscious that someone was always watching them, and be sure not use foul language in case the invisible person observing them is offended by certain words or phrases? Sounds an awful lot to me like you perceive yourself as God to Batman. Maybe you should ease up on Bruce. Stop judging him so much. He works hard fighting crime, living alone most of the time, blaming himself for the death of his parents, et al. Guy can't mutter a bad word without you throwing in the towel for the whole world. Batman cussed, that's it, we're all doomed.

You said at one point something about what Batman is supposed to be. Yet you neglected to respond to what someone else pointed out earlier. The original Batman comics had him literally disposing of criminals. With a gun. If you put on a mask and stole money from the bank a dude in a tight bat outfit would be waiting in the alley to put a bullet into you. For all intents and purposes, since that was the first version, that's what Batman was supposed to be. So the way you see him is technically incorrect. I know it's hard to hear what I'm trying to say on top of your very high horse, but seriously, this is absurd.

And the rap music argument? Public Enemy. Naughty By Nature. How far back would you like to go? Define 'recent'. Please. Your ability to make your 'points' extremely vague makes it increasingly more difficult to take you in the slightest bit seriously.

One more note, I like your definition of heavy metal as satanic and the examples you make. Is all your knowledge of music derived from 80's horror movie cliches or just the ones that briefly support the nonsense you type?

[QUOTE="Uncle_Tbag"]

[QUOTE="sorello"]To the self-professed cleric: Perhaps I should have used the word "one" when I typed - In the end it shows your (ones) ignorance lacking communication levels to better express yourself rather than just saying oh "F### it". - unquote. It certainly is easier to swear rather than use reason or making cognisant rational argument. But for one condemning my perceived insult (which it wasn't) you sure throw a bunch back! I did not know you cared so much about keeping this new medium of vulgar communication that you would not even contemplate the allowance of a profanity filter, such as in online games like World of Warcraft. Oh, did you forget that WoW has the BIGGEST volume of users than any other video game today? Maybe WoW is not realistic enough for you; you must have your swearing "fix". As for my view, which I've stated many times that is all it is, it is not greater than anyone else's, especially a Grand Poobah such as yourself. The fact I believe there is a deliberate reason why the game makers refuse to allow that which is included in World of Warcraft, a profanity filter or 'bleeper', shows to me ill intent or evil. Swearing as I said in my first preface is easy to copy and carry from games than mutilation or violent imagery. To copy the latter acts one who have to commit a major crime, a threshold most normal folk choose not to cross. But they can resort to using more foul language because of the casual influence of games, something I REPEAT was barely around a couple of years ago. Something that is easier to imitate is more of a threat particularly when a vast majority deems the source offensive. And as much as you like to pontificate, words do harm - that is one of the basic ways which we communicate: you even managed to be offended by my use of the word ignorance in a global term, and ignorance is not the same as stupidity. The youth has always rebelled in one form or another, but in the 60 and 70s they formed the Hippie movement and opposed the Vietnam War. Today that lot are referred to demeaningly as "Tree Huggers". And how do you know today's intolerance and bad behaviour is not partly or greatly to blame on excessive bad language? You claim they are merely reflective on society, yet similar views to mine were expressed by many black community leaders regarding the influence of 'gangsta rap' which people like you claimed was simply reflecting "the streets". You don't have to agree with my opinion, and I equally yours. The point is where were you about two years ago when there was hardly any swearing in video games? When did you first come to this view that swearing in games is 'cool' and those who don't like it must have no choice, no profanity filter but just suffer ignominious and unconditional acceptance?CarnageHeart

You're in a game-forum populated with kids who have yet to form any sense of the real impact of morality and the impact ofhow one comports themselves in society. Not that I really agree with you a whole lot, but you're getting way mistread here. But that's to be expect in a game forum, right?

Its always a shame when someone is mistread on a gaming forum.

Its hilarious and horrifying that the TC believes gory dismemberment and death is wonderful stuff, but winces whenever he hears profanity.

Or when typos inspire retreads to comment.

I don't mind violence or language in games, but this extremely played-out drawing of correlaries between the two misses the point. It is natural for most people to recoil from violence, and therefore to be less influenced by it and act out what they see. Profanity hurts no one, is just low class in many cases, and it's much more easy to have your own lexicon "enriched" by what you hear.

its not the swearing that bothers me the most, its the clear sex scenes and nudity in now adays games that reallyI dislike

[QUOTE="sorello"]

[QUOTE="CDuG"]

No! Batman is not here to set a good example! Batman is a character used to tell a story, in whichever fashion the writer of said book/film/game chooses! YOU are here to set a good example to your children. Teachers are to set examples. Actual heroes like police officers, firemen, etc. are here to set good examples. Stop putting this on fictional characters and the people who write them! Batman is at the core a plot device for people to deliver a story. He happens to be a very well known one which is going to make for several interpretations as several people will have a chance to use him as their venue. THAT. IS. ALL.

CDuG

Batman is a superhero correct? The word is super, as in he has some super powers above the norm, and the important one, HERO, meaning he is somebody heroic, to be looked up to and held in high esteem. As such he should set a good example whether the character has any flaws or nuances on this, he doesn't have to be perfect, but I believe he should live up to the word hero.

So saving people from being murdered or robbed is not good enough if he says a bad word? Do you think police officers never swear? Privately even? As readers of a Batman comic, are we not just peering into the (fictional) life of someone else? Would they be conscious that someone was always watching them, and be sure not use foul language in case the invisible person observing them is offended by certain words or phrases? Sounds an awful lot to me like you perceive yourself as God to Batman. Maybe you should ease up on Bruce. Stop judging him so much. He works hard fighting crime, living alone most of the time, blaming himself for the death of his parents, et al. Guy can't mutter a bad word without you throwing in the towel for the whole world. Batman cussed, that's it, we're all doomed.

You said at one point something about what Batman is supposed to be. Yet you neglected to respond to what someone else pointed out earlier. The original Batman comics had him literally disposing of criminals. With a gun. If you put on a mask and stole money from the bank a dude in a tight bat outfit would be waiting in the alley to put a bullet into you. For all intents and purposes, since that was the first version, that's what Batman was supposed to be. So the way you see him is technically incorrect. I know it's hard to hear what I'm trying to say on top of your very high horse, but seriously, this is absurd.

And the rap music argument? Public Enemy. Naughty By Nature. How far back would you like to go? Define 'recent'. Please. Your ability to make your 'points' extremely vague makes it increasingly more difficult to take you in the slightest bit seriously.

One more note, I like your definition of heavy metal as satanic and the examples you make. Is all your knowledge of music derived from 80's horror movie cliches or just the ones that briefly support the nonsense you type?

Sounds more like you are on a high horse to me. All I said was they (the media of whatever format you choose) are slowing indoctrinating us with expletives, and the more these words are used the more it becomes acceptable.

Why should Batman start uttering words he never used before in all his comic-book life? Maybe he should grab his crotch at the same time and get a tattoo on his neck and a piercing in his nose while hes at it?!? Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I like my superheroes to be consistent, at least true to themselves and not become a "fashion follower" or a "trendy".

Unfortunately Batman is at the whim under control of whoever writes his scripts. Today you have people with different values than those of the past. You also have pressure from the corporate world wishing to maximize their sales. By making Batman more controversial they hope it will identify him with the growing urban culture, making Batman more 'cool' (than Superman for example). I'm against this metamorphosis based almost entirely on increasing sales to the detriment of a well-loved (admired) character one identified with before.

One could equally propose that Batman could snort cocaine, or watch pornographic movies on the side, in-between crime-fighting. You'd probably defend that because he used to shoot "bad guys" once upon a time, which by your reasoning is worse! You like to change Batman into something he never was, basically they can write ANYTHING and you'd go along with it.

I'm the guy defending Batman, you're the one who would be happy to turn him into some low-life, foul-mouthed, twisted junkie, just because the writers want to offend as many people as possible to make a fast buck!!

I'm the guy defending Batman, you're the one who would be happy to turn him into some low-life, foul-mouthed, twisted junkie, just because the writers want to offend as many people as possible to make a fast buck!!sorello

the swearing in games is hilarious

this thread is golden :lol:

Considering the majority of people here are solidly against what you're saying, I guess we're all on high horses and you're just a lonely martyr.

Don't make assumptions about what I like, or what I "want" Batman to be. I'm not stating that in any fashion. I'm telling you the reality of it. Under different writers and different mediums, he will be portrayed differently, as can and likely will any fictional character. There are "versions" of Batman I like and ones I don't. Do you know what I do with the ones I don't like? I don't read them. I don't run to the internet and expect every version to reform into the one I prefer or am used to.

And at the end of the day, if swearing equals sales, it IS going to boost the likelihood of it being written in. Because if people don't buy it, it ceases to exist. Like it or not, it's consumerism. While the writers or artists may have a noble cause (whether you agree with it or not) the company needs to stay afloat and generate revenue. Comics have always changed with the times. Always. This is how they continue to be relevant. I'm sorry it offends you so.

I'm not asking you to like it. I'm not asking you to buy it. Not to support it. Just like I said with elemenents I don't like, I wouldn't do. But do what the rest of us do. Deal with it.

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]

(first, don't think I ignored the rest of your post, but this is the issue I've got between my teeth at the moment) I understand that completely, and I wholeheartedly agree with- and believe in it. But in order to raise a child nowadays you really need to become a recluse! Television broadcasts filth like the shows I mentioned above; network and cable television get more lax on nudity and profanity(not to mention adult themes in general) every year. Movie ratings have been slipping in severity as steadily over the last 2 decades as videogame ratings have. And don't get me started on the internet. At the very least it's an unpardonable timesink for kids and at worst it provides them access to the worst humanity has to offer.

Grammaton-Cleric

The rest of my post meanders anyway but I felt it prudent to respond because I have some very strong opinions on the state of our nation, freedom in a general sense , and the true corrosive factors in our society.

You certainly don't need to reply to any of that.

I also want to make it clear that nothing I wrote was aimed specifically at you but rather I was speaking in a broader sense. You seem like a very responsible parent and I can imagine how incredibly difficult it is these days to find a young child some wholesome entertainment while still shielding them from those elements you don't want them to be exposed to.

The thing is, you're not the problem. You take parenting seriously. You understand the duty to raise that child is yours, yet every day I hear the lamentations of people blaming film, music, comics and anything else in sight for the piss poor condition of their kids.

Granted these are the same types of parents who bring their 8 year old children into a movie theatre to see Final Destination 5. (True Story)

What annoys me to no end is that not only do we have parents who allow their young children to play games like Dead Space 2, we've got men like Sorello claiming the fault is with the developers because they didn't insert a profanity filter…into an M rated game.

What I don't understand is how can every producer of an adult themed game (apart from RPGs) have no profanity filter in any of their myriad of options?? You can change the screen size, the sound fx, music levels, and in some cases reduce the level of 'violence', but still not one profanity filter?!?

You have to recognise that not every game player is the same, and to not contemplate even catering for these differences shows to me a consensus to promote swearing among almost ALL of the major manufacturers. This deliberate intent was a fairly recent stance by said makers, despite your protestations to illustrate the odd (rare) game made before 1998 to show it did happen, which again you deliberately missed my point because you do not want to admit that this swearing fad is relatively a new phenomenom.

I find it uncanny that not one producer has ever elected to employ a profanity filter, so much so they are doing this purposely to degrade the youths moral standards, for what reason could be discussed in another forum. Meanwhile I certainly will be avoiding any material to pervade my memory banks as much as I possibly can.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]

(first, don't think I ignored the rest of your post, but this is the issue I've got between my teeth at the moment) I understand that completely, and I wholeheartedly agree with- and believe in it. But in order to raise a child nowadays you really need to become a recluse! Television broadcasts filth like the shows I mentioned above; network and cable television get more lax on nudity and profanity(not to mention adult themes in general) every year. Movie ratings have been slipping in severity as steadily over the last 2 decades as videogame ratings have. And don't get me started on the internet. At the very least it's an unpardonable timesink for kids and at worst it provides them access to the worst humanity has to offer.

sorello

The rest of my post meanders anyway but I felt it prudent to respond because I have some very strong opinions on the state of our nation, freedom in a general sense , and the true corrosive factors in our society.

You certainly don't need to reply to any of that.

I also want to make it clear that nothing I wrote was aimed specifically at you but rather I was speaking in a broader sense. You seem like a very responsible parent and I can imagine how incredibly difficult it is these days to find a young child some wholesome entertainment while still shielding them from those elements you don't want them to be exposed to.

The thing is, you're not the problem. You take parenting seriously. You understand the duty to raise that child is yours, yet every day I hear the lamentations of people blaming film, music, comics and anything else in sight for the piss poor condition of their kids.

Granted these are the same types of parents who bring their 8 year old children into a movie theatre to see Final Destination 5. (True Story)

What annoys me to no end is that not only do we have parents who allow their young children to play games like Dead Space 2, we've got men like Sorello claiming the fault is with the developers because they didn't insert a profanity filter…into an M rated game.

What I don't understand is how can every producer of an adult themed game (apart from RPGs) have no profanity filter in any of their myriad of options?? You can change the screen size, the sound fx, music levels, and in some cases reduce the level of 'violence', but still not one profanity filter?!?

You have to recognise that not every game player is the same, and to not contemplate even catering for these differences shows to me a consensus to promote swearing among almost ALL of the major manufacturers. This deliberate intent was a fairly recent stance by said makers, despite your protestations to illustrate the odd (rare) game made before 1998 to show it did happen, which again you deliberately missed my point because you do not want to admit that this swearing fad is relatively a new phenomenom.

I find it uncanny that not one producer has ever elected to employ a profanity filter, so much so they are doing this purposely to degrade the youths moral standards, for what reason could be discussed in another forum. Meanwhile I certainly will be avoiding any material to pervade my memory banks as much as I possibly can.

This is not a rhetorical question I'm asking to further my argument, I legitimately want to know. That's my disclaimer. And here I go...

Okay, I actually kind of see what you're saying with this. But I want to know, specifically, how would you have them do it? I only see two options and maybe there are more, but these are what I can figure.

Option A) A literal censoring of foul language. Whether it's those loud annoying beeps, or silence when the word in question would be spoken. The negatives I see to this would be like any censorship of its' kind, you still know what is being said and (in my case) am more annoyed that if they had simply not swore at all.

Option B) to have separate dialogue recorded and produced into the game, which let's be honest, is a lot of time and money, depending on the game of course. For a game with a lot of swears it seems like it would be a wasted exercise as they are catering to a mature market that isn't bothered by these things. For a game with one or two minor swears it bears a lot of work for something that would largely go unnoticed.

I'm curious as to your resolution or alternate route taken.

I do take issue with one thing you said, that being that it's a trend to make the whole industry this way. I disagree. There are many different types of games and many markets for each. I myself consider myself a broad player that will play any type of game if given the oppurtunity, but most games are geared to a market. Adult themed games with lots of swearing typically have lot of violence and mature situations and as such are aimed at an older crowd, and a specific one at that.

Racing games another path, platformers another, and so on and so on. While the availability of more mature games has increased I don't believe it is overtaking the industry. It's merely a realization that the market does exist. And frankly, it's not even a 'realization' anymiore. It's been fact now for a good 15 years.

One more thing, you mentioned going into game stores and looking at the crowd and basing your opinion of 'actual' player age on that. I've done this. Times I have been in a game store for hours, just browsing to kill time while my wife looks at shoes or something. More young people enter the store, sure. But most of them are just looking. The people that come to buy games are mostly older, late 20's and beyond. They walk in, grab the game they want, look at maybe a few more, make their purchase and leave. 5-6 minutes tops. It might look like kids and teenagers are the market. I find though, mostly they're just doing what teenagers do. Standing around and talking about how important their lives are. Not buying anything, because they don't have any money.

I'm off on a separate rant now, but I figure why not? I have been in a game store once and I saw a woman come in with her young son, maybe 11 years old. The woman took him to the counter to get him a copy of some version of Call of Duty. The person behind the counter did their job in warning her that it was not for sale to minors, flipped the game over to show her the M rating and even went on to explain why the game was rated that way and what the child would be exposed to. The woman seemed annoyed, nodded and said "yep okay" and paid for the game. I was upset by this, I will be honest. But I was upset at the poor excuse for a mother, not the game industry. The ESRB was developed to let parents and gamers of all age know what type of content the game contains and who it is suitable for. I believe there is room for all types of games as long as we know what we are getting into when playing them and especially what we are exposing OUR children to. But I do not believe the entire industry should be held accountable for the poor decision making process of SOME.

Considering the majority of people here are solidly against what you're saying, I guess we're all on high horses and you're just a lonely martyr.

Don't make assumptions about what I like, or what I "want" Batman to be. I'm not stating that in any fashion. I'm telling you the reality of it. Under different writers and different mediums, he will be portrayed differently, as can and likely will any fictional character. There are "versions" of Batman I like and ones I don't. Do you know what I do with the ones I don't like? I don't read them. I don't run to the internet and expect every version to reform into the one I prefer or am used to.

And at the end of the day, if swearing equals sales, it IS going to boost the likelihood of it being written in. Because if people don't buy it, it ceases to exist. Like it or not, it's consumerism. While the writers or artists may have a noble cause (whether you agree with it or not) the company needs to stay afloat and generate revenue. Comics have always changed with the times. Always. This is how they continue to be relevant. I'm sorry it offends you so.

I'm not asking you to like it. I'm not asking you to buy it. Not to support it. Just like I said with elemenents I don't like, I wouldn't do. But do what the rest of us do. Deal with it.

CDuG

I'm also replying to your subsequent quote but this one I felt needed reminding here.

We live in a capitalist world and rightly or wrongly many things will be market-driven. There is nothing bad in making money, God knows I'm trying but this is one of the points you mentioned which counter another person's argument on this thread.

Grammaton Cleric, replied often to this thread with well constructed and articulated counter-argument, as have you, but he claimed it was their "art", not as I put forward, commercially-orientated, and I contended deliberately morally corrupting. So I'm glad we both agree this has nothing to do with art, as if the producer/director of a shoot-em-up says, "My art will suffer if I don't have those swear words..." Somehow I don't think so.

Where I disagree with you on one point is the reason/s why they have introduced swearing into games, very recently in almost every 3D action game (apart from Fantasy mostly), where this was not the case in as much prevalencepre 2008. Yes, you can point to the odd, rare game many moons before that but they were few and far between. Now it is the NORM, for a modern action game to be littered with expletives.

I think partly its lazy writing. Far easier to create a violent atmospherewith swear words than write an intensively gripping script which builds the mood better. There are other reasons, such as believeing their game has more "street cred" because of the swearing and the game makers will go down market to sell games as you have pointed out.

I also really think that swearing does NOTHING to improve a game, and does NOT increase its sales. Sales are because of the quality of the 3D models, textures, animation, backgroundsand gameplay. I doubt if one game would be harmed in its execution of impending doom, dread or suggestion of extreme mayhem that is about to unfurl. As stated, there was none in Dead Space produced on XBox in 2008 and it was so epic it launched the sequel (the sequel was out Jan 2011 with intermittent swearing - made not one iota of difference to the horror, merely offended people like me).

They include swearing because it is a growing culture certainly in America and less so in England to "talk dirty". The variety of media creators are pushing this as a 'fashion statement' to the degredation of its captive audience. If they decided we've gone too far, they would change just like that! Games of this genre would still sell in massive and ever increasing volumes until any collapse of the world economy.

How could they implement a profanity filter. I would go for the 'blanking' option.

If you consider many NPCs are perfectly lip-synced with the swear words in that manikins script, yes it would detract from the visual aspect seeing some bad guy close up saying, "Why don't you get the [blank] outta here!!" But I and likewise minded people would prefer this than hear the utterance of the offending malediction. This could easily be done at apress of a button in the pre-game options. It wouldn't spoil anyones game as others can leave the swearing unchanged.

Ideadlly the scene should be shot twice, one with swearing one without, but that would cost a lot more making extra scenes. Another solution is, instead of a 'blank' a substitute word like "Frig" or "Freaking" could be used for the "F" word, "Crap" used for the "S" one, just have varying levels of the substitute word inserted. I think any reasoanble sound editor could implement those sounds correctly and it wouldn't take long.

As for the example of the mother buying an 11 year-old Call Of Duty. Yes she is a stupid parent and should be condemned considering the clerk went to the trouble of explaining this all to her. At the same time, these games are pushed at young people, whether older people buy more, and its obvious kids younger than the prescribed M rating are going to want to obtain. Most I'd say, 'pirate' the games; kids are real 'cheap-skates' using the vernacular expression, always looking to get things as cheap as possible - free is as cheap as it gets. I blame the industry for targetting young people with these games they are not supposed to play.

And if Call Of Duty was just a hard-hitting, action-packed, war simulation that kid, let down by a foolish parent, would not be morally harmed, in my opinion. Its that Call Of Duty andEVERY military game today is saturated with modern swear words the worst being the "MF" one. That 11 year-old could easily imitate those words, not become a machine-gun-toting commando, which is why I believe swearing in games is far worse.

The sales clerk should have also refused to sell the mother that game, but I can understand the pressure on him to allow it.

I'm going to copy and paste your post so as to reduce the amounts of "quotes" in this thread and I will try to reduce it only to the parts I'm responding to. If I miss anything, I just got off a 12 hour night shift and should probably be asleep...

I'm also replying to your subsequent quote but this one I felt needed reminding here.

We live in a capitalist world and rightly or wrongly many things will be market-driven. There is nothing bad in making money, God knows I'm trying but this is one of the points you mentioned which counter another person's argument on this thread.

Grammaton Cleric, replied often to this thread with well constructed and articulated counter-argument, as have you, but he claimed it was their "art", not as I put forward, commercially-orientated, and I contended deliberately morally corrupting. So I'm glad we both agree this has nothing to do with art, as if the producer/director of a shoot-em-up says, "My art will suffer if I don't have those swear words..." Somehow I don't think so.

I believe it lies somewhere in the middle. I think when someone is creating art, in this case we're assuming game dialogue, there is an amount of work that goes into it that is purely what the writer believes to make for a good story. If the story or character constitutes an expletive and it's not out of place, I don't see the issue. I don't believe in this case it would equal selling out or conforming. The way it's typically going to work, at least in my experience, is you see the rating of the game. You flip it over and see why it's rated so. If it's rated T in North America and on the back it says "Language" I'm not going to wonder what the word is, who said it, or how many times. It's not going to affect whether I buy the game or not. I don't think many people buy games based on that, as games are kind of expensive. There have been attempts at making games strictly for controversy. BMXXX was one of them. The game did horribly. People tend to see through that. If a game has excesses it still needs to stand on its' own merit as a good game or no one will play it. The "buzz" on things like this don't tend to come from that avenue anyways. They tend to come from the controversy, and in this case, at least so far as I can tell, that's coming from right here. Without this thread I would have no idea the game in question used a certain expletive in a certain way by a certain character. It never would have weighed on my decision to purchase or not purchase the game. It still doesn't, but for the market you speak of, the youth that WANT controversy, this has done more to bring it to their attention than anything else.

Where I disagree with you on one point is the reason/s why they have introduced swearing into games, very recently in almost every 3D action game (apart from Fantasy mostly), where this was not the case in as much prevalencepre 2008. Yes, you can point to the odd, rare game many moons before that but they were few and far between. Now it is the NORM, for a modern action game to be littered with expletives.

I haven't seen it be the norm, but I haven't played a huge amount of current gen games. I bounce all over the place and currently I'm doing a lot of retro gaming. I have however played GTA IV as it was one of the first games I got with my PS3. I expected swearing in it so I can't say anything in it stood out to me as vulgar or excessive. But the fact remains, if it weren't simply a fantastic game on its' own, I wouldn't play it. I don't play it because it has foul language and controversy. I play it because I had a great time and I loved the story.

I think partly its lazy writing. Far easier to create a violent atmospherewith swear words than write an intensively gripping script which builds the mood better. There are other reasons, such as believeing their game has more "street cred" because of the swearing and the game makers will go down market to sell games as you have pointed out.

I do agree on this to an extent. For some games I believe it is contextually valid, but I don't think a game has ever been lacking due to not swearing. I can't think of ever having played a game and said to myself after "it was okay but it would have been better with a few F-bombs" so I will give you that.

I also really think that swearing does NOTHING to improve a game, and does NOT increase its sales. Sales are because of the quality of the 3D models, textures, animation, backgroundsand gameplay. I doubt if one game would be harmed in its execution of impending doom, dread or suggestion of extreme mayhem that is about to unfurl. As stated, there was none in Dead Space produced on XBox in 2008 and it was so epic it launched the sequel (the sequel was out Jan 2011 with intermittent swearing - made not one iota of difference to the horror, merely offended people like me).

They include swearing because it is a growing culture certainly in America and less so in England to "talk dirty". The variety of media creators are pushing this as a 'fashion statement' to the degredation of its captive audience. If they decided we've gone too far, they would change just like that! Games of this genre would still sell in massive and ever increasing volumes until any collapse of the world economy.

I don't agree here, the 'culture' hasn't changed. There's no more swearing in music, movies or everyday life than there was ten to fifteen years ago. And there are British words that are considered swears that aren't here. Again, it's context. If you called someone a slag or a wanker here, most people wouldn't understand nor get very offended. You could probably load a video game full of British profanities and still only get a T rating here. I have seen many British movies and television shows and not only are those words used excessively but so are the ones you consider 'American'.

How could they implement a profanity filter. I would go for the 'blanking' option.

If you consider many NPCs are perfectly lip-synced with the swear words in that manikins script, yes it would detract from the visual aspect seeing some bad guy close up saying, "Why don't you get the [blank] outta here!!" But I and likewise minded people would prefer this than hear the utterance of the offending malediction. This could easily be done at apress of a button in the pre-game options. It wouldn't spoil anyones game as others can leave the swearing unchanged.

Ideadlly the scene should be shot twice, one with swearing one without, but that would cost a lot more making extra scenes. Another solution is, instead of a 'blank' a substitute word like "Frig" or "Freaking" could be used for the "F" word, "Crap" used for the "S" one, just have varying levels of the substitute word inserted. I think any reasoanble sound editor could implement those sounds correctly and it wouldn't take long.

I think the blanking option could work as long as it was an OPTION. If it was forced into the game it would hurt sales and not because people aren't getting the swear, but nobody likes the sound of audio cutting out. It pulls you away from whatever it is you're doing. I don't think the shooting of separate scenes or dialogue should or would ever be implemented. If this happened I guarantee you it would be used an excuse to at least temporarily jack prices up. I would prefer no swearing to a substitute word as I find them to be insulting. If I know what they are implying and I can't picture a single person in the real word saying it that way I feel like my intelligence is being patronized. Just say the word or don't.

As for the example of the mother buying an 11 year-old Call Of Duty. Yes she is a stupid parent and should be condemned considering the clerk went to the trouble of explaining this all to her. At the same time, these games are pushed at young people, whether older people buy more, and its obvious kids younger than the prescribed M rating are going to want to obtain. Most I'd say, 'pirate' the games; kids are real 'cheap-skates' using the vernacular expression, always looking to get things as cheap as possible - free is as cheap as it gets. I blame the industry for targetting young people with these games they are not supposed to play.

And if Call Of Duty was just a hard-hitting, action-packed, war simulation that kid, let down by a foolish parent, would not be morally harmed, in my opinion. Its that Call Of Duty andEVERY military game today is saturated with modern swear words the worst being the "MF" one. That 11 year-old could easily imitate those words, not become a machine-gun-toting commando, which is why I believe swearing in games is far worse.

The sales clerk should have also refused to sell the mother that game, but I can understand the pressure on him to allow it.

The sales clerk can't deny her purchase on the assumption that it's for her child and not her, even if it glaringly obvious. I think the clerk went above her duty by pointing out from personal experience what the mature content in the game was. Beyond that, there was nothing more she could but sell her the game or quit her job. I don't think kids should play games like that, I agree to that, I just don't believe we adults should be denied them because of the few bad parents out there.

Ok, so lets see what we've established over the course of this thread...

1. Swearing has been in MOST games since time immemorial and far longer than anyone else seems to think. It is certainly NOT a fairly recent trend which occured over the past 2 or 3 years.

2. Swearing in games is less harmful to a kid than seeing an explosion, some shooting or copius amounts of ooze dripping from a creature. Its only words and words never harmed anyone, right?! If they duplicated a swear word, so what, but what if they obtained an M16 semi-automatic and went on a school rampage??

3. Music has had swearing in it since time immemorial, indeed The Beatles, Ray Charles and Elvis swore like "troopers" in many of their songs, its just that people don't remember it.

4. It is ok if a superhero swears especially Batman. Who cares if he lets off the odd expletive, the man has tons of anguish with his changing persona and tight underwear and has enough problems fighting criminals every day, so GET OFF HIS BACK!!

5. If an under-age kid obtains a game aimed at young people then its the parents fault not the company that is making a fortune by this type of marketing. Indeed, the game producers should be commended for ensuring the little red box with the letter 'M' on it, is on all of their games, thus absolving them of any legal or moral responsibility - well done sirs/madams/ms'.

6. The game makers cannot put in a profanity filter because; its too expensive to have an actor use substitute words of varying emphasis and utilise the sound directors precious time to edit those words in, or even allow a 'blank' over offending words because this would compromise the game producers "art". They having lovingly added all these different swear words because they care so much about their game and have no interest in making any money from it, so long as their art is not appeased with such a filter.

7. If you disagree with any of the above then you can just "F*** OFF"!

;)

8. No one cares.GodModeEnabled

7. If you disagree with any of the above then you can just....sorello

That wasn't at all neccessary, you just the whatever little creditibilty there was in your arguments.

"Swearing is the language of the uneducated". I like this quote and find it overall fitting.

French is the language of the French, but you find everyone speaking a few words of it from time to time... and not metaphorically.

Note: I think some people in this thread could benefit by watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EZVEqFFpNI .

French is the language of the French, but you find everyone speaking a few words of it from time to time... and not metaphorically.

Note: I think some people in this thread could benefit by watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EZVEqFFpNI .

Angry_Beaver

[QUOTE="Angry_Beaver"]

French is the language of the French, but you find everyone speaking a few words of it from time to time... and not metaphorically.

Note: I think some people in this thread could benefit by watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EZVEqFFpNI .

TransFishers

Ok, so lets see what we've established over the course of this thread...

1. Swearing has been in MOST games since time immemorial and far longer than anyone else seems to think. It is certainly NOT a fairly recent trend which occured over the past 2 or 3 years.

2. Swearing in games is less harmful to a kid than seeing an explosion, some shooting or copius amounts of ooze dripping from a creature. Its only words and words never harmed anyone, right?! If they duplicated a swear word, so what, but what if they obtained an M16 semi-automatic and went on a school rampage??

3. Music has had swearing in it since time immemorial, indeed The Beatles, Ray Charles and Elvis swore like "troopers" in many of their songs, its just that people don't remember it.

4. It is ok if a superhero swears especially Batman. Who cares if he lets off the odd expletive, the man has tons of anguish with his changing persona and tight underwear and has enough problems fighting criminals every day, so GET OFF HIS BACK!!

5. If an under-age kid obtains a game aimed at young people then its the parents fault not the company that is making a fortune by this type of marketing. Indeed, the game producers should be commended for ensuring the little red box with the letter 'M' on it, is on all of their games, thus absolving them of any legal or moral responsibility - well done sirs/madams/ms'.

6. The game makers cannot put in a profanity filter because; its too expensive to have an actor use substitute words of varying emphasis and utilise the sound directors precious time to edit those words in, or even allow a 'blank' over offending words because this would compromise the game producers "art". They having lovingly added all these different swear words because they care so much about their game and have no interest in making any money from it, so long as their art is not appeased with such a filter.

7. If you disagree with any of the above then you can just "F*** OFF"!

;)

sorello

1. Swearing has been present in games for many years. The original 2D GTA had copious amounts of profanity. Your claim to the contrary has been (continuously) proven false.

2. Neither profanity nor violent imagery has ever been proven to damage the psychological makeup of a child. Debating what is more damaging (violence versus profanity) is the equivalent of discussing which Nerf ball is more harmful to a human being.

3. There has been profanity in music going as far back as the 80's and 90's. That is a fact that can be easily demonstrated.

4. Looking through this thread I wasn't aware that anyone was advocating for a profanity-laden version of Batman. What some people (myself included) have asserted is that there is nothing wrong with profanity in comics that are intended for mature readers. If you have a problem with that you should write an angry letter to Time Magazine for calling Watchmen one of the best 100 books ever written. You will also need to smite writers such as Allen Moore, Frank Miller, and Garth Ennis for daring to expand beyond the puerile constrictions of the medium.

5. The rating system, used in conjunction with retailers who refuse to sell such games to minors, is more than adequate "protection." Of course this particular point only matters if we all agree that M rated games are actually damaging to children. However, since this theory is not universally accepted nor has it been proven in any manner then further discussion of this point becomes unnecessary. When you can show me proof that M rated games are actually harmful to children then we can revisit the debate.

6. What you personally consider art is incidental. When a creative person makes something, they exercise the right to deliver that product unfettered to preserve their vision. That you scoff at this notion does nothing to negate the poignancy of this widely-held creative philosophy.

7. You've had a number of intelligent individuals debate with you openly and without any type of malicious behavior so this last point is moot.

Having read the full breadth of your pseudo-ideological ramblings I'd say the prudish, puritanical label you've tried to shrug off fits you pretty well. To be honest you sound so much like Jack Thompson it's almost uncanny. Granted, you're free to emulate or share the philosophies of such a man but personally, he's not the kind of human being I'd care to have my opinions associated with.

I would like to make one final statement: people like you are the true threat to freedom. You believe – fallaciously – that your morality is a literal truth and therefore must be foisted onto the rest of society and you would gladly censor (if not outright destroy) anything that offends your narrow parameters of decency. It is people like you that have historically banned books like Tom Sawyer and The Catcher in the Rye for being profane and potentially damaging to youth; the ceaseless propagation of a straw man argument refuted by the fact that the profane has not only existed in art for hundreds of years but has actually been a catalyst for freedom of expression.

just stop arguing. the guy was right, here in America our priorities for what's inappropriate are all skewed. many parents would rather their children see someone get their intestines ripped out and fed to the them than see a nipple.

nismo8000

Sexuality is relateable to everybody. It is seen as an acceptable part of living in society and one could say it's encouraged and respected as an indication of a healthy lifestyle. Sex is a reality is everyone's lives, and that reality brings risks. On the other hand, I'd say the majority of people will not witness violence, especially to the ridiculous degrees portrayed in different forms of media, for most of their lives if at all. It's an abstract concept, something far removed from their own experience they read about in the papers happening to "other people", hence it's immediately less threatening.

What would be more of an issue to a parent: having their teenage child go out into the world where sex is a very real possibility (along with pregnancy, STDs, and all that come with it), or them going out and being gunned down in a GTA style rampage or having their guys torn out which happens....how often? Of course that parent is going to want to attempt to try to shelter their kid from what they see as being the most likely to happen. As backwards as it appears, when thought about I think it makes perfect sense. You prioritize the realities, and when you get down to it sex is more of one than violence for most.

Simply put, people see sex as more of a threat because it happens to (hopefully) everybody at one point or another. That it carries risks and is seen as acceptable behavior makes it even more frightening. That's my theory, anyway. I know it seems stupid and I agree with you, it's absurd a naked body is seen as far more taboo than a 100 round clip to the face, but I think I can understand why we're (the U.S.) are so uptight about it.

There is literally nothing I could say that that would be better than Grammaton Cleric's post.