User:Quizzical/Offensive

Much has been said about whether various computer games are offensive, ranging from "we can't expose kids to this" to "stop being so hypersensitive". This is hardly unique to computer games, either, as the same arguments have run about the same course on television, movies, and music since decades before Pong was unleashed on the world.

But what people can't agree upon is what exactly makes a game offensive. Some may make it a point of pride that they're not offended by this or that, but most people would be offended by something. Imagine a game that encourages players to selectively murder a class of people with which you identify or at least sympathize. How about a game that encourages players to torture your own friends and family? Few people wouldn't be offended by that.

So the question is not whether it is possible for a game to be offensive, but what makes it so. The most common reasons for games to be rated as unsuitable for children are sex and violence, but the ESRB has a number of other content descriptors to warn people of various things that may be offensive.

But this is really too simplistic. The ESRB has a checklist of items that they want to see if a game contains, and they'll rate the game based on which of those items are present. Sometimes this can give absurd results. Some of the Europa Universalis games got flagged as having alcohol references because one of the trade goods in the game is wine. If they changed the label on the good from wine to grapes, it would no longer have an alcohol reference. They wouldn't even have to change any pictures.

Another trade good in the game is slaves. Surely few people would find the "production" and sale of slaves less offensive than that of wine. Slavery isn't one of the items that the ESRB looks for, so this didn't merit a content descriptor. Apparently people need to be warned that they might see a picture of something that could just as well be called grape juice as wine, but not that the game vaguely involves the slave trade for reasons of historical accuracy, and an empire can bring in tax revenue by colonizing or conquering slave-producing areas.

But the question of what a game depicts is the wrong question entirely. As Buckley used to say, suppose that one man pushes an old lady out of the way of an oncoming bus. Meanwhile, another man pushes an old lady into the path of an oncoming bus. Is this really a story about two morally equivalent jerks you like to push old ladies around?

It is not what a game depicts that makes it offensive. This is clearest with the example of violence. Suppose that a deranged murderer takes a gun to a crowded public place and starts shooting people at random. One of the bystanders happens to be armed himself, and shoots and kills the murderer to stop him. Are the two people morally equivalent? Is not the latter person a hero?

The difference is the context. What makes a game offensive is not what it depicts, but what it advocates. A game that encourages the player to go around killing innocent people at random is not morally equivalent to one that encourages the player to selectively use violence to stop criminals and save the innocent. One encourages murder, while the other encourages heroism.

It is quite possible to depict something without advocating it. Did the roadrunner cartoons advocate people buying zany contraptions from Acme to try to kill roadrunners? Did Star Trek advocate using engaging warp drive whenever you want to travel long distances?

Perhaps mere depictions of content can justify giving a game some sort of parental warning. Five year olds don't need to know about rape or murder. Even so, what a game merely depicts should not be the difference between a game being rated T for Teen and M for Mature, without considering how it depicts things and what it implicitly advocates.

Guild Wars, for example, is really about using the tools you have available to try to stop someone who is trying to conquer and/or destroy the world. It doesn't encourage wanton violence, and indeed, doesn't even allow you to attack innocent people.

One could object that this only moves the question of what is offensive from one of what is offensive to depict to what is offensive to advocate. But even that is progress, as it is really a question of what is morally wrong to do. People have far more experience with that, going back thousands of years, and far more situations have come up than the relative handful of movies and games can consider. Of course, questions of morality are stills question that people will sharply disagree on. You didn't really expect me to be able to solve that in a single article, did you?