Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

South Park Game Censored On Consoles Outside North America

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the some-people-just-hate-speech dept.

Censorship 221

RogueyWon writes "South Park has long been vocal in its opposition to media censorship from any source, launching scathing attacks on everything from 'think of the children' moral crusades to the censorship of religious imagery. In a curious twist, therefore, Ubisoft, the publisher of the upcoming video game South Park: The Stick of Truth, has decided to censor certain scenes from the game's Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 versions from release in Europe, Australia, the Middle East and Africa. American versions, as well as the European PC release, so far appear to have escaped the censor's pen."

cancel ×

221 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ITS LIKE RAAYEEAAN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335177)

ON YOUR WEDDING DYEAH

Re:ITS LIKE RAAYEEAAN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335353)

In other news, there is a South Park game.

Another song! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335625)

Yer lerp, yer lorp! yer berp, yer derp, you blerp, you blorp...AAAIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEE
 
Guess the name of that one!

Re:ITS LIKE RAAYEEAAN (2)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about 8 months ago | (#46336051)

Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] says that there are 6 of them.

Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (-1, Troll)

Traze (1167415) | about 8 months ago | (#46335181)

Anything to incite civil unrest against a group of people(no, the government doesn't count) and lies to discredit people.

Those should be disallowed.

Anything else should be free game.

I disagree (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335323)

Anything to incite civil unrest against a group of people(no, the government doesn't count) and lies to discredit people.

That pretty much means NO criticisms against religion - especially Islam.

The things that are done in this World in the name of [insert religion - including Buddhists ] is appalling. The religious fundamentalists, unwilling and unable to adjust to the modern World, are bullying everyone else with violence, lobbying and other political maneuvering and outright lies - like Creation Museums.

There's a point when you just have to stand up to the bully. Those people need to be told - shouted down - that they are backwards, full of shit, and if they are going to live among us, they need to STFU.

Or compromise like the Amish do in the US. I highly respect those folks. They stick to their values, they don't try to force them on others, and they found a way to live peacefully and well with the modern World.

Re: I disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335429)

Didn't the episode on Muhammed get censored? You can criticize any religion except Islam or Judaism.

Re: I disagree (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335611)

or scientology

Re: I disagree (4, Informative)

TheP4st (1164315) | about 8 months ago | (#46335859)

or scientology

Not true, South Park have poked fun at Scientology more than once. Example: http://www.southparkstudios.co... [southparkstudios.com]

Especially if you were a "volunteer" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335879)

otherwise known as staff [sodahead.com] working 100+ hour weeks for 30 cents an hour.

Re: I disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46336099)

Yeah, Comedy Central censored it over the objections of Matt and Trey. Though, in fairness, they sort of dared CC to censor it.

Re: I disagree (1)

Warbothong (905464) | about 8 months ago | (#46336517)

Didn't the episode on Muhammed get censored?

AFAIK there's been no specific episode 'about Muhammad', but he's appeared in a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

You can criticize any religion except Islam or Judaism.

Because South Park never pokes fun at Judaism....

Re: I disagree (0)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about 8 months ago | (#46336939)

I think you mean Islam and Scientology.

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (5, Funny)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46335387)

Those should be disallowed.

And also, Canada, whose citizens I irrationally blame for this entire mess! Especially you, Scott!!!

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (1)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 8 months ago | (#46335881)

I'm not your friend buddy!

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46336733)

I'm not your buddy, pal

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (2)

DrGamez (1134281) | about 8 months ago | (#46336529)

sounds like a real dick to me

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335435)

This just encourages groups to be easily upset, does it not? That makes writing "Mohammed" under a stick figure illegal. "Hate speech" is a slippery slope.

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 8 months ago | (#46335487)

Hate speech should be protected. Inciting a riot, ill give you that one.

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (2)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 8 months ago | (#46335529)

Given that the mere innocent mention of certain Prophets can incite a riot, I don't think even that is a good criterion.

    Doing otherwise gives the most irrational types a trump card on what constitutes free speech.

      Brett

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335667)

In this context, I think inciting a riot does not refer to "say something that might cause some group to riot", it means saying "let's riot".

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#46335937)

FYI, the threatened riots(and death threats) with regard to South Park and said prophet were by a trolling organization dedicated to making American Muslims look bad. I don't doubt that there would have been some very angry people over it, but the cited reason Comedy Central actually pulled the segment was internet trolls. It's like if we took AC posters on slashdot seriously.

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46336109)

Given that the mere innocent mention of certain Prophets can incite a riot, I don't think even that is a good criterion.

Make it like a bazillion other more basic laws, and require actual intent to incite a riot. It won't be easy to prove some random asshole tried to rile people up enough to cause problems, but will be enough if you have someone standing there giving explicit instructions on what and where to loot, burn, etc.

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#46335613)

How do you incite a riot without physically assaulting someone?

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#46335705)

Inciting a riot, ill give you that one.

Wouldn't it be better to make rioting illegal, rather than speaking?

Contributory rioting (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46336267)

To make an analogy to a copyright doctrine established in Sony v. Universal and other cases, perhaps some kinds of speech should be considered "contributory rioting" if they're made with the intent of causing others to riot.

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (3, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 8 months ago | (#46336967)

Inciting a riot, ill give you that one.

Wouldn't it be better to make rioting illegal, rather than speaking?

Encouraging people to commit a crime is also, generally, a crime. Speaking with the intent to cause a riot? Criminal. Speech that happens incidentally to cause a riot? Not criminal.

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335729)

Hate speech should be protected. Inciting a riot, ill give you that one.

As I'm sure there are people here and elsewhere on the internet who share your idea of protected hate speech, please provide your full name, address and phone number.
As well as those of your immediate family, close friends and coworkers. Particularly those with small children and elderly parents or grandparents.

You fucking pusslicking asssniffer human filth Nazi pussy!
Whatsamatter you cunt? Too chicken to post your real info? You big baby! Still sucking on your mother's cunt at that age are you?
Come on! Whatya waiting for! You want crazy people to be free to send dead cats filled with human feces to your doorstep, don'tya?
Come on then! Those cats are not gonna stuff themselves with shit, you know!

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 8 months ago | (#46336977)

If people riot, then that is their own fault. How about some personal responsibility?

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (1)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#46335785)

No thanks. That just places political power in the hands of the first group willing to turn to violence or foment some sort of insurrection to get their way.

Your taking offense at something is entirely your problem. Not mine.

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (3, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 8 months ago | (#46335857)

Anything to incite civil unrest against a group of people(no, the government doesn't count) and lies to discredit people.

Those should be disallowed.

Anything else should be free game.

The problem with that standard is that it gives anyone who chooses to act "incited" the power to censor anyone else.

Re:Hate speech, and Libel/Slander (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 8 months ago | (#46336957)

Anything to incite civil unrest against a group of people

What people are offended by is their own problem, and no one else's. If they cause civil unrest, then it's completely their fault.

If you say that such speech should be disallowed, you must despise freedom.

The Discount Window (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335197)

The Discount Window is merely bankers' language for the loan
window. When banks run short of money, the Federal Reserve
stands ready as the "bankers' bank" to lend it. There are many rea-
sons for them to need loans. Since they hold "reserves" of only
about one or two per cent of their deposits in vault cash and eight or
nine per cent in securities, their operating margin is extremely thin.
It is common for them to experience temporary negative balances
caused by unusual customer demand for cash or unusually large
clusters of checks all clearing through other banks at the same time.
Sometimes they make bad loans and, when these former "assets"
are removed from their books, their "reserves" are also decreased
and may, in fact, become negative. Finally, there is the profit motive.
When banks borrow from the Federal Reserve at one interest rate
and lend it out at a higher rate, there is an obvious advantage. But
that is merely the beginning. When a bank borrows a dollar from the
Fed, it becomes a one-dollar reserve. Since the banks are required to
keep reserves of only about ten per cent, they actually can loan up to
nine dollars for each dollar borrowed.

Let's take a look at the math. Assume the bank receives $1 mil-
lion from the Fed at a rate of 8%. The total annual cost, therefore, is
$80,000 (.08 X $1,000,000). The bank treats the loan as a cash deposit,
which means it becomes the basis for manufacturing an additional
$9 million to be lent to its customers. If we assume that it lends that
money at 11% interest, its gross return would be $990,000 (.11 X
$9,000,000). Subtract from this the bank's cost of $80,000 plus an
appropriate share of its overhead, and we have a net return of about
$900,000. In other words, the bank borrows a million and can almost
double it in one year. 1 That's leverage] But don't forget the source of
that leverage: the manufacture of another $9 million which is added
to the nation's money supply.

heh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335201)

Heh... You got in trouble! You got in trouble!

Well... (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about 8 months ago | (#46335219)

Violate local laws, get censored. Dont like the laws, move and/or get them changed.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335299)

So, reporting instances of conflict with the the law are not part of them process?

1. Don't like law

2. ????

3. Reform!!

Re:Well... (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about 8 months ago | (#46336955)

Here, let me make it clear to you:

1. Don't like law

2. move and/or get them changed.

3. Reform!!

Re:Well... (5, Interesting)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 8 months ago | (#46335375)

Censorship is typically used by the powerful to maintain their power. This is no different in a democracy -- the power hungry simply jump through an additional hoop of stirring up many people to join in the censorship. These people happily re-elect said censor.

If this does not highlight the difference between freedom and democracy for those of you who think mass approval is the necessary and sufficient, indeed only, justification for wielding power, I don't know what will.

Re:Well... (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46335423)

If the local laws told you to suck dick, would you drop to your knees?

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335931)

Why not?, sucking dick is not a bad thing at all. And compared to the US you would actually get the uncut version.

Re:Well... (3, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 8 months ago | (#46335741)

I'd suggest reading the summary and realizing that 1. The censor is Ubisoft and 2.Ubisoft is not a location or government. Although, if you weren't able to understand that from the short summary, I'm probably just talking to myself here.

Re:Well... (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46336307)

Dont like the laws, move

How? It's usually a crime to enter any country but the one in which you were born.

and/or get them changed

How would someone ineligible to run for office go about getting a law changed?

Why would you play that crap... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335229)

...when you could play Hello Kitty: Island Adventure instead?

Damnit Australia (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#46335235)

I dare say that it's a result of Ubisoft lazily deciding to produce and test only a single version for the quote-unquote international market, and having to meet the lowest-common-denominator levels of creative expression permitted in the Middle-Eastern and Australian regimes.

not their fault (2)

Fluffy the Destroyer (3459643) | about 8 months ago | (#46335325)

Ubisoft as nothing to do with this censorship btw. Ubisoft and other publishers do the games. It's the countries that makes the censorship so the main problem comes from those places...not the company. Look at Saint Row 4 problems in Australia. They dare censor and block the game but gave multiple different version of their blocking reasons...which changed from a day to day basis which made no sense. Censorship usually happens because of a lack of knowledge over computers, the game itself and the main reason of the censorship too oddly enough.

Re:not their fault (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 8 months ago | (#46336597)

Actually, if a publisher "removes" content from a game, that he himself is publishing, without any legal interferrence from a government or more precisely law or court, then it is not censorship, but his own decission, for whatever reasons.

Re:not their fault (1)

Stolovaya (1019922) | about 8 months ago | (#46336963)

You'll want to review the meaning of "censoring". Non-government entities can censor. No where in the definition does it state that it has to be a government that censors.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring?show=0&t=1393353280 [merriam-webster.com]

censor noun \sen(t)-sr\

: a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.

Re:Damnit Australia (0)

marsu_k (701360) | about 8 months ago | (#46335403)

I have to agree. I mean, seriously, abortion? Mostly a non-issue in Europe. Yes, there is Ireland and Spain, but even there one can't say the majority oppose abortion. As for the minority in those countries, fuck 'em (them being Catholic, chances are somebody already is).

Re:Damnit Australia (5, Funny)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46335463)

The Middle-Eastern version will just be a character sitting around in a empty room, sipping tea. And several imams will STILL condemn it as blasphemous.

Re:Damnit Australia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335731)

The Middle-Eastern version will just be a character sitting around in a empty room, sipping tea. And several imams will STILL condemn it as blasphemous.

Of course, the tea was that blasphemous Great Satan mockery of tea, not a proper Maghrebi mint tea! (other imams immediately challenge the superiority of Maghrebi mint tea, resulting in the least violent Middle-Eastern conflict in recorded history as every nation participates in a massive tea-judging)

Re:Damnit Australia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46336905)

resulting in the least violent Middle-Eastern conflict in recorded history as every nation participates in a massive tea-bagging

FTFY.

Re:Damnit Australia (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 8 months ago | (#46335739)

Tea is a symbol of the imperialist British empire.

Are you sure? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335283)

Are you sure that the US release wasn't also censored in some way?

Here's how it works: US companies submit their games to US ratings boards FIRST, then they remove shit the US censors don't like, and once the US censors approve it, they sent it to ratings boards in other countries, who sometimes remove OTHER stuff.

However, we, the consumers, never see the ORIGINAL version before the US censors make their cuts, because the game companies don't bother trying to put those things in non-US versions.

When the Australian classification board said no to a few things in Saints Row IV, a big fuss was made, but Volition have mentioned in the past that US ratings board said no to a few things, and there was no outcry.

From this, we learn: People are fine with censorship in the USA, but if it's allowed in the USA it should be allowed everywhere.

Re:Are you sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335495)

That's interesting do you have an article on what did they remove from the US version?
I'm very interested in seeing what they cut.

Re:Are you sure? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335535)

No, what we learn from this is that you are an idiot. Modifiying your own work to meet your business goals (get the rating you want) is not censorship, no matter how you try to spin it. Having to modify a work because some of the content is illegal is censorship.

I have no idea if they modified the other version because of laws (censorship) or because of business reasons (not censorship), but your 'lesson' is beyond idiotic.

Re:Are you sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335945)

Please go to school and learn some english. Or look up the word censorship in a dictionary.

Re:Are you sure? (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about 8 months ago | (#46336461)

But is modifying it because "it won't be carried on store shelves because it's rated X" a business reason or a censorship reason?

Businesses aren't the government and therefore what they do technically isn't censorship. But what else do you call refusing to sell a creative work based on the offensiveness of its content?

Re:Are you sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335847)

1. There is a difference between 'remove this content or you'll get an M/T/AO rating' and 'remove this content or we will outlaw your product.'
2. Not all cuts are equal. Bethesda got in trouble with the ESRB for omitting a graphically wounded hanging corpse when submitting Oblivion for review. Australia wanted zombified cops removed from L4D2. One is reasonable, one is ridiculous.

Console qualifications; crucifixes (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46336423)

here is a difference between 'remove this content or you'll get an M/T/AO rating' and 'remove this content or we will outlaw your product.'

If a product is not censored down to M or lower, then Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony Computer Entertainment will outlaw it. Console makers don't want AO games on their platforms, and national legislation implementing the WIPO Copyright Treaty outlaws going around the console game vetting process.

Bethesda got in trouble with the ESRB for omitting a graphically wounded hanging corpse when submitting Oblivion for review.

I'd bet a lot of films submitted to MPAA and video games submitted to ESRB fail to declare the same thing, especially given the habit of displaying an image of Jesus of Nazareth nailed to a cross among members of certain Christian denominations.

Re:Are you sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46336209)

There are no laws that currently ban video games for offensive material. The gaming industry censors itself though. BUT a game can get an ADULTS ONLY rating via the ESRB.

Re:Are you sure? (1)

Nam-Ereh-Won (2927897) | about 8 months ago | (#46336549)

It's possible they submitted something way over the top instead of what they really wanted to get the censors to object. Then, they submit the relatively tamer, original, version and get it approved. It's something South Park does all the time, so I wouldn't be surprised if anything cut from the American release was actually intended to be in it.

Re:Are you sure? (4, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 8 months ago | (#46336631)

/sigh

Here's how it works: US companies

Like Ubisoft?

submit their games to US ratings boards

The ESRB is a private industry group, and participation is entirely voluntary.

then they remove shit the US censors don't like

The ESRB doesn't care one way or the other. The "American" publishers tend to seek to avoid an AO ("Adults Only") rating, for marketing reasons, and will try to bring things down to an M ("Mature") rating so that certain big-name retailers will consent to carry the game. But games that get an AO rating are certainly free to keep that rating and have been published in the past, and publishers are free to skip the rating process entirely (e.g. I've seen more than a few localized Japanese H-games that don't bother formalizing the AO rating they'd obviously get).

However, we, the consumers, never see the ORIGINAL version before the US censors make their cuts, because the game companies don't bother trying to put those things in non-US versions.

Publishers don't sell an "unrated" version of a particular game in North America (ESRB includes Canada) because they know that not enough customers will go out of their way to find retail channels that will carry AO/unrated games to make the the prospect financially viable. Conversely, publishers don't sell an "unrated" version of a particular game in Germany or Australia because it would be illegal.

Re:Are you sure? (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 8 months ago | (#46336687)

Conversely, publishers don't sell an "unrated" version of a particular game in Germany or Australia because it would be illegal.

Please don't make shit up.

Re:Are you sure? (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 8 months ago | (#46336975)

Such as...?

artistic expression and game sales. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335297)

Each censored scene is replaced by an image background and a description text selected by South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, Ubisoft said.

Apparently Trey and Matt are ok with releasing a censored version.

Re:artistic expression and game sales. (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46335507)

If they were really okay with it, they probably wouldn't have demanded to put in "an image background and a description text" to describe what was censored and where.

back that up a step (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 8 months ago | (#46335453)

Wait, wait, wait...
1. Be anti-censorship and control
2. Have Ubisoft make your game

I take it EA Games was busy that day? What the actual fuck were they thinking?

Re:back that up a step (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335677)

You know who wasn't busy? THQ, the original publisher of this game. Ubisoft then bought the rights after THQ went under.

Oh those crazy Germans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335483)

Because you know. Germans are so strict an all with their cannibalism and nutty sex clubs.

"That's a vague explanation, but it may have something to do with Ubisoft hoping to secure release in Germany, which employs stricter guidelines on video game content than other European countries."

Re:Oh those crazy Germans (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | about 8 months ago | (#46335753)

Everybody's blaming Germany, but the nature of the content that was actually cut might imply that the cause is elsewhere. Not that I want for a moment to excuse Germany's censorship policies, which are ludicrous.

But the cut content is basically - anal probe aside - mostly abortion related. The EU still contains some very, very Catholic countries. In Spain in particular, it's a real no-go topic. Also in the Republic of Ireland and Poland to some degree (though less so there than it would have been a couple of years ago). It's quite possible the EU version was censored due to fears about reaction in one or more of those countries.

Get over it already.. (1)

Gadget27 (1931378) | about 8 months ago | (#46335489)

Whats the point point in censoring something that clearly labelled as 18+?

Hopefully the South Park guys will replace those scenes with obvious 'censored' graphics and text that lampoon the government/entity that caused said scenes to be removed from the game. They are good for doing things like that.

Disappointed.. (1)

Negroponte J. Rabit (2820825) | about 8 months ago | (#46335523)

Considering South Park has been offending for decades, there's just 7 scenes in the game worth censoring? What about critter blood orgies, gay satan sex ir Martha Stewart? I had such high hopes.

Re:Disappointed.. (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46335727)

critter blood orgies

You know, those Woodland Critters are pure evil and all. But damn, they're SO CUTE!

Re:Disappointed.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46336377)

I'm going to agree with you on this one. How the hell did they only find objection to just 7 scenes in the entire game? Matt and Trey are slipping here.

what the *beep* (1)

mythix (2589549) | about 8 months ago | (#46335557)

Why would you sensor in the EU, we don't even *beep* on television, anything goes here! cmoooooon!

Re:what the *beep* (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46335745)

Probably due to libel and hate speech laws (and maybe Nazi stuff in Germany).

Re:what the *beep* (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 8 months ago | (#46335817)

The general rule is that EU censors couldn't care much about sex, but will grow very concerned about violent content. The US censors are the other way around - violence is rarely any type of problem, but even a hint of sex can invoke their ire.

The GTA Hot Coffee incident is a good example. Glorification of gang culture, player characters committing and rewarded for violent crime, gun fights, car theft, mowing down pedestrians for extra points and shooting police officers? That's all just harmless fantasy. But a mini-game that shows characters in sexual positions (Still clothed!), which can't even be accessed without hacking the game? That's instant grounds for an AO rating and for most retailers to refuse to carry the game.

Re:what the *beep* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46336371)

Yea, but look at GTA V. There are scenes depicting sex without clothes throughout the game. And they're clearly fucking. Times change.

Re:what the *beep* (4, Insightful)

RogueyWon (735973) | about 8 months ago | (#46335899)

Actually, we're generally much more prone to censorship here in Europe. Many of the countries in the EU have hang-ups on particular issues for historical reasons (eg. Germany on Nazi imagery and violence, France on the use of other languages). Many countries are also developing exciting new hang-ups and things they can censor, driven mainly by the three prongs of the Islamic far-right (pushing hard for new blasphemy laws), the authoritarian left (in thrall to both multiculturalism and radical feminism, both of which depend upon censorship) and an overbearing security culture (well... see pretty much 50% of slashdot's front page stories). And the general approach taken by the EU is to adopt the most draconian elements of each member nation's policies. If we get through the next German presidency of the EU without its ridiculous censorship standards being forced on the whole of Europe, we shall be extremely lucky.

Individuals and corporates in the US certainly practice self-censorship. But you are much more likely to encounter state-censorship in Europe - and it's getting more likely all the time.

But we're generally ok with swearing. So it's all absolutely fine.

Re:what the *beep* (3, Informative)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (895364) | about 8 months ago | (#46336629)

I think you're overestimating the influence of the islamic far right in Europe while underestimating the christian far right.

Re:what the *beep* (1, Insightful)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 8 months ago | (#46336723)

We have no censorship laws in Europe ... you are mixing something up :D

Yes, I know what you mean, and that is not censor ship.

Read this field letter a soldier might write home to his wive:

Dear Anabella,
I'm xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and so far all is fine. The food xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. But it is all good. My friend Sebastian xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
and his platoon in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Love you and will be home soon,
Angel

The above, that is censorship.

Or trying to publish a book in Soviet Russia or the eastern german republic, which you only could by giving it to a "Censor" who adviced you which parts to change or remove ... until your work is no longer recognizeable: that is censorship.

If we get through the next German presidency of the EU without its ridiculous censorship standards being forced on the whole of Europe, we shall be extremely lucky.
That is complete nonsense. No one is working on "new laws" and especially not on EU wide laws. Considering that most EU countries have much stricter laws regarding libel and difamation anyway your idea is just ridiculous.

Re:what the *beep* (1)

mcvos (645701) | about 8 months ago | (#46335951)

Usually it's the US version that gets censored. I guess it's a "nudity + drugs" versus "libel and hate speech" issue.

And if you believe that... (1)

Glires (200409) | about 8 months ago | (#46335651)

The last two weeks we've been too busy to play video games and, look at what we did. There's been drama, action, romance... I mean honestly you guys, do we need video games to play? Maybe we started to rely on Microsoft and Sony so much that we forgot that all we need to play are the simplest things. Like, like this. [grabs a stick from the ground] We could just play with this. Screw video games, dude! Who needs them?!

Blocked Due to Stupidity (0)

bchat (267083) | about 8 months ago | (#46335709)

Really I can't sit through even a few minutes of that stupidity. I don't understand the fascination with crap like this. Like so many other shows on TV, I block it using my cable parental controls. I can block by time, channel, and rating. But, I say I'm blocking it "By stupidity" because it makes me want to puke. I'm sure most of you will disagree with me, but I don't really care. You can keep watching crap if you want to and I'll stick to the National Geographic and the History Channel. It's a free country. (Yes I know those channels show some junk too, but its best there is to choose from.)

Re:Blocked Due to Stupidity (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 8 months ago | (#46335833)

"History Channel."

Maybe the aliens are behind the censorship.

Re:Blocked Due to Stupidity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46336229)

Greetings, Marklar, I am Marklar. I come in marklar.

Those Marklar want to marklar our marklar and that's not fair.

Re:Blocked Due to Stupidity (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46335895)

the History Channel

Look, I love shows about ancient aliens visiting the Vikings as much as the next guy. But I still have appreciation for some good satire too.

Re:Blocked Due to Stupidity (1)

bchat (267083) | about 8 months ago | (#46336113)

the History Channel

Look, I love shows about ancient aliens visiting the Vikings as much as the next guy. But I still have appreciation for some good satire too.

I understand. But, ask yourself if you're just accepting whatever they decide to put on TV or are you evaluating it against some intelligent criteria? Does good satire have to be as disgusting, revolting, insulting, disrespectful and ugly as they can get away with, or could it be done with a little more class? What do you think other countries think of us when we export the basest kind of entertainment?

Re:Blocked Due to Stupidity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46336097)

I'm sorry, but you say the history channel shows "some junk". This proves that you sir are in fact the idiot. The history channel shows mostly junk with "some good content". Lets see here, I can start off with ancient aliens, then lead in to "modern marvels: water", then lead into a sprint of pawn stars, with finishing off the evening with pickers. Yup, quality TV for intelligent people. Do they still have that restorations show and what was it, "kounts kars" or something like that on?

Re:Blocked Due to Stupidity (1)

bchat (267083) | about 8 months ago | (#46336425)

Yes I agree those shows on the History Channel are junk. But, they also have good content: Vikings, Hatfield & McCoys, Ancient Discoveries, etc. I don't think I called anyone an idiot. If you took offense, I apologize. I was complaining about the content.

Can't wait for the ubisoft episode (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335721)

Will ubisoft rape America the way Lucas raped Indiana Jones?

Here are the censored scenes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46335957)

A mini-game in which the doctor is performing an abortion on the player.
A mini-game in which the player is performing an abortion on the character Randy.
Five anal probing scenes involving someone actively being probed. The scenes play out as normal before and after the active probing sequences.

Looks like part of the game is spent playing a Sea Org member of Scientology.

Yuo 7ail it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46336023)

Jand the bootom of OpenBSD versus confirmed that *BSD NetBSD posts on IN TIME. FOR ALL to underscore to the crowd in

Region lock? (1)

lmfr (567586) | about 8 months ago | (#46336239)

Do region locks still apply?

How, in a legal way, am I supposed to acquire this art piece in the version the artists wanted me to appreciate?

Re:Region lock? (1)

Spad (470073) | about 8 months ago | (#46336469)

Get it on PC.

Think of the children... (1)

khr (708262) | about 8 months ago | (#46336479)

They censored a game because of content? Ug, "think of the children."

The children now deprived...

Carmagenddon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46336533)

If this is the case, will there be a legal addon to bring back the censored parts of the game?
i.e... Carmageddon had (in the german version off the top of my head) the peds changed to zombies, and there was an official patch to change them back to peds?

anyway... not like you can't accidentally download the US version.

Abortion reference a problem? (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 8 months ago | (#46336557)

Perhaps they should use more family friendly content, say from the Woodland Critter Christmas episode.

PluS 1, Troll) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46336719)

is The group that metadiscussions I thought it was my officers. Others Officers. Others 'doing some7hing' no matter how there are some
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?