Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 07:25:
Are you suggesting we open the floodgates to any and all games where you play as a character engaged in the most heinous of crimes?

Let me ask you this--how do you feel about a game where you play a Nazi soldier who is personally responsible for carrying out the execution of hundreds of thousands of Jews within a German concentration camp? Your goal: kill as many Jews as possible before the Allies liberate the camp.

Or a game where you play as a self-righteous, post-9/11 hater of Muslims that is on a mission to plan and carry out the murder of dozens of innocent, law-abiding, mosque-attending American citizens in NYC?

Perhaps a game in which you move up through the ranks of the KKK, killing black Americans, with the ultimate goal of becoming Grand Dragon?

Or even a game that first simulates a chatroom where you coax a child into meeting you and then... well, I think you get the idea.

Could you possibly be insinuating that these types of games should be sold? That seemed to be what you had implied. I'm all for the right to freely express yourself, but there really needs to be a line and a democratic society has the responsibility of determining where that line is drawn.

I'm not condoning the Austrailian law. I think that, once a game is made, the cat is out of the bag. No law can exist that will prevent those with the will to acquire such a game from acquiring it. I do, however, believe that those who wish to create such games need to respect the values that represent society at large and use some discretion before deciding to develop them.

I have not played Hotline Miami. I am not making a comment based on an opinion of this particular game. I am only responding to your comment based on the allowance or diallowance of games that contain objectionable content.

Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:29:
I define it by societal standards. The values that democratic nations hold as a society.

Do I think Charlie Hebdo employees had it coming to them? No, of course not. They were fully in the right when they published illustrations since the the publications were not disallowed by the society in which they were published.