I was having lunch with a friend at work today when she asked me what I thought of censorship in music. I looked at her quizically and said, "it's bad?" What she was getting at was my opinion on retailer's, or more specifically Wal-Mart's, ability to effectively censor the entertainment products they put on their shelves. I thought it was an interesting question, and since I'm most comfortable dealing with it in the context of video games, this is what I've come up with.
Even with the immergence of digital distribution, the bulk of games (and music and movies) are sold through traditional retailers, with the biggest chunk of that going to Wal-Mart. Because of that, publishers need their products in those stores or they simply won't sell. This allows retailers to exert pressure on publishers for price, print runs (the number of copies made), release dates, and even content, all to varying degrees. Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Gamestop, etc. all have policies of not putting Adults Only ("AO"), as rated by the ESRB, content in their stores. This effectively censors game content based on what they can put in and still not receive an AO rating, as was the case of Manhunt 2, which had content cut from the final version so that it would be rated Mature ("M") as opposed to its original rating of AO. This effect is multiplied by the fact that console manufacturers also do not allow AO content on their systems, but this is something they don't have to consider because even if they did, it wouldn't get into stores.
Boiled down: retailers won't carry certain content, which puts pressure on publishers. Publishers put pressure on developers to change content. Developers censor themselves and their artistic vision.
The question then is, is it ethical that retailers can and do exert this pressure. My answer is yes, it is. Every company's sole responsibility is to maximize their shareholders profits as best they can through legal means. With that being a retailers sole impetus, they have every right to not put content on their shelves if they reasonably believe it will not increase their profitability. However, regardless of whether this type of censorship is ethical or not, it is bad for creativity, which puts the onus on developers to push back on their publishers, for publishers to push back on retailers, and for consumers to show what they do want and find acceptable by voting with their dollar. Retailers won't change their mind on their own, they'll have to be pushed into it.
Posts
3 comments:
Ok, you say it's ethical, but bad for creativity. I just question your notion of "creativity." Something can be creative and still be supererogatorily violent, misogynist, profane, etc. This is, in most cases, the "artist's" own attempt to make more money, but at the expense of polluting people's minds. I guess I don't love the idea of the retailers dictating what's acceptable and not acceptable; I'd prefer that the artist do that in the first place. That's not going to happen though. So what it really comes down to is the individual has to make the choice.
I suppose that, on it's own, saying that this type of censorship hinders creativity is a throwaway statement. Admittedly, I didn't give it a lot of thought, so I'll try to figure out what I really mean here.
The three things I believe are most often censored in American society, in order, are 1) sexuality, 2) profanity, and 3) violence. Sexuality and violence are both inherent in human nature and history, and naturally become part of our artistic and creative outlets. I believe censorship of these aspects negatively affect creativity in games in these two ways: first, because sexuality and violence are inherently human, restricting their appearance in our arts restricts the messages, ideals, and experiences the medium is able to display. The second, which may affect games more at their current level of maturity, forces developers to allocate resources to internally censoring their projects, recreating assets in more "suitable" forms, contesting the censorship, or in the worst case removing entire segments that have already had the time and energy invested in them, all where these resources could be put to use in the creative process.
On the other hand, censorship can have a positive effect on creativity. Where a developer could, without being censored, rely on "shock value" or the like to push sales, they can be forced to put effort into finding unique and compelling new avenues for gameplay and storytelling. Of course, there are a handful of studios that are adept at this and choose to do it of their own accord, and very likely because it is their passion they will do it better than a studio that merely wants to avoid censorship.
Those are both sides as I see them, but I do believe that, overall, censorship in any form has a negative impact on creativity, so long as creativity isn't being confused with content that is there simply to push buttons.
Violence is inherent in human nature, eh? You lack evidence to back up this claim. Sounds like you're indirectly condoning it by saying, "that's just the way it is."
I think no one would argue that sexuality is inherently human; it's what perpetuates the human race. However, (pardon the prudefacery), but I think it's something that shouldn't be public. And a lot of people agree with me. Whether or not we're "right," we still shouldn't disrespected by the profusion of perversions in the world. I'm getting off topic.
People who want violence/sex/profanity can get it. But it's a different situation when people encounter it without trying. That's a situation where I don't mind censorship so much.
Post a Comment