German Interior Ministers Seek Ban On Violent Games 222
GamePolitics reports that "Germany's 16 Interior Ministers have banded together to ask the Bundestag (Germany's equivalent of Parliament) to ban the production and distribution of violent video games. Moreover, the ministers hope to see this accomplished before Germany's new elections take place on September 27th." Violent games became a national issue in Germany earlier this year after Far Cry 2 was scapegoated for a shooting. Germany-based game developer Crytek could be forced to move or outsource if the ban goes through. Spiegel Online has the original story (Google translation).
Crytek (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not ban TV? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not for the violent tv-shows, movies etc ...
No, I'm not going to go along those lines - that's just adding to the fire of "ban violent [something]", and we haven't seen any good studies showing a link between virtual and real violence.
However, we HAVE seen how effective TV, radio and movie theaters are in turning a population against others, raising support for horrible behaviour, war ... lots of other stuff.
It's actually documented in Germany's own history [wikipedia.org]. Yes, I almost Godwin'ed myself, but in this case it's quite relevant, even though it is slightly trollish.
Pointless legislation is pointless. (Score:5, Interesting)
Bizzaro-America (Score:5, Interesting)
It's interesting how much of a cultural inversion Germany is from the United States. Here in the U.S. we practically cherish violence in our culture, while the Germans seem opposed to most violence we'd often consider "tame" by our standards. Yet, it's exactly opposite when it comes to sexually "explicit" content. We fear it so much, we actually fight among ourselves over whether or not we can safely discuss sex with our children outside of telling them "don't do it." In the meanwhile, you could practically go up to any magazine rack in Germany and find magazines for children featuring pictures of topless women that would only pass as pornography here in the U.S.
An interesting case in how differently we view violence as acceptable would be some past games like "Carmageddon", a title that was loosely based on the 70's movie "Death Race 2000". In the U.S., you could kill regular people in the streets with your car in the game. In the U.K., this was switched to zombies with green "blood". In Germany, this was replaced with robots.
Re:What about a ban... (Score:2, Interesting)
The joke being that the more they restrict freedoms the more they become like they were before. I've read articles in the past of game developers being spit on in germany, Crytek has had it's offices raided in the past (with shotguns in peoples faces). How long will it be before they're being lead to the game developer death camps?
Re:Germany has a problem with democracy (Score:3, Interesting)
But who do the States protect us from?
The US isn't trying to protect Germany at all, it's trying to protect itself: its markets, its access to resources, and its citizens. Democracy in Europe is, and has ever been, only a means to that end.
Iraq is a prime example of the States invading a country just to get at its natural resources.
And if so, so what? Iraq was a corrupt, murderous, and genocidal dictatorship. What is wrong with attempting to democratize it and install a free market economy that is actually willing to trade with the US and Europe? Everybody wins that way. Hey, the US did the same thing in Germany and it worked out well for Germans, didn't it? The other victors would have been happy to dismantle Germany completely or treat it like the Soviets did with East Germany.
Besides, the US isn't just getting natural resources for itself, it's also getting them for Europe. What do you think European economy and politics would look like if the US didn't do these things? Europe can't even ensure a reliable flow of heating gas from Russia.
China? In fifteen years the Chinese will simply buy their way past anything the States do.
I don't want to live in a world dominated by China, Russia, and Islamic nations. I suspect neither do you. Maybe we can't do anything about it in the long term, but I'm glad at least someone is trying in the short term.
I do expect us to do warfare on them - economic warfare.
The US and European economies are too tightly linked; you'd just end up destroying both. That is why European and American politicians keep talking.
Right now the USA are an aging superpower on its way out, desperately trying to somehow keep themselves relevant
Europe could easily replace the US as the world's superpower: spend half your national budgets on the military instead of social programs and start acting like a superpower. Americans would be overjoyed: we didn't want to get into the superpower business, it was repeated European screw-ups that forced America's hand.
But what you do instead is lecture the US on what one should and shouldn't do, avoid any kind of responsibility yourself, all the while enjoying the economic and social benefits that you derive from US military power.
Personally, I think the US actually should get out of the superpower business; I think trying to protect Europe from itself is a lost cause and sooner or later we can't afford it anymore and have to stop anyway. But my fellow Americans aren't willing to pay the steep economic price for that. And make no mistake: the consequences for Europe would be disastrous.