Potentially Offensive Visual Content

[Lion.Kanzen]

If we really need to see nudity* and more blood, someone is bound to make an unofficial "Rated M" mod. I'm assuming the game itself is going to be released with a E Rating in mind.

*While I don't necessarily believe that nudity for historical accuracy's sake is particularly offensive, I can understand that some people may have some misgivings about nudity in general, and it seems more acceptable to censor nudity in this situation than to allow it in order to allow more people to enjoy the game.

Is not necessary the nudity, because is only a game with polygons is not GTA XD or The Sims. but with blood and gore some people can see may be the animations like Starcfraft/Warcfraft and AOE. a dead body even if is not rotten its gore. but is subjetive from each people. i was play AOE when I has 12 yo.

In Total War Rome 2 The units only fall and in AOEO the bodies has been converted in to a tombs.

[GunChleoc]

i have an idea, "Geolocalize" with the IP, with the IP you can know the position of a computer, with a geolocalize funcion we can avoid polemics as:

This would not work if somebody has moved countries or for multicultural countries.

[newcivs]

If we really need to see nudity* and more blood, someone is bound to make an unofficial "Rated M" mod. I'm assuming the game itself is going to be released with a E Rating in mind.

*While I don't necessarily believe that nudity for historical accuracy's sake is particularly offensive, I can understand that some people may have some misgivings about nudity in general, and it seems more acceptable to censor nudity in this situation than to allow it in order to allow more people to enjoy the game.

are you saying as "blood and gore" mod for Rome Total War??????

a fork that puts the "polemics" with the adjectives:

* nodity

* better blood?

better battles?

with the true polemics but with the arange "M"

[FeXoR]

newcivs: Maybe for you it's "better" (And I don't see any relation to "better" battles...) but as is nudity/gore and potentially offensive symbols "better" is subjective as well.

More objective would be "more efficient code", "higher frame-rate" etc. an those would even drop by some of the discussed features so for me (subjective) those are "worse".

Just keep in mind that most things discussed here are subjective and "is better" does make no sense in this case (but more like "I'd like more/less").

Edited December 5, 2013 by FeXoR

[WhiteTreePaladin]

I think the original argument for such content was greater historical accuracy, but there are a lot of other mature topics we aren't going to feature even though they may be accurate. I don't feel the game would suffer if these things were omitted. I still feel that sort of stuff is best handled by a mod pack.

[greycat]

These seem to be the acceptable reasons for using swastica in Germany.

"The swastikas on Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain temples are exempt, as religious symbols cannot be banned in Germany."

"except for scholarly reasons (and - in the case of the odalrune - as the insignia of the rank of sergeant major, Hauptfeldwebel, in the modern German Bundeswehr)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastica

German language wikipeda

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

wouldn't the non German swastica in the game be for scholarly reasons?

[SDM]

Non-German swastika's are exempt from being banned to begin with, so they can be used regardless of any ban. Although yes, I do believe that by attempting to be authentic and historically accurate, the non-German swastikas are also doubly exempt because of this as well.

[FeXoR]

I agree that it's very likely a court wouldn't judge Wildfiregames (or whoever gets charged) guilty.

However. It's still a valid reason to open a trial in the first place - and that's bad enough IMO.

So I'd be more cautious.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I agree that it's very likely a court wouldn't judge Wildfiregames (or whoever gets charged) guilty.

However. It's still a valid reason to open a trial in the first place - and that's bad enough IMO.

So I'd be more cautious.

you are German Fexor right, you know if it's possible get a copy in English about German legislation that mention about the swastika in media or virtual context. The user Zoot mentioning some laws but was in a locked discuss a year ago.

[thamlett]

Maybe we should just have a checkbox labeled "Potentially Offensive Visual Content" and explain in the tooltip. It could even be protected by a password for parents of <ahem!> minor players.

Edited December 6, 2013 by thamlett

[Josh]

My opinion on all this is that the inclusion of potentially offensive visual content has little or no advantage over the number of players we would lose/offend which makes it logical to simply keep it out of the game.

[hollth]

I agree with Josh. While I do somewhat doubt the extent to which they would be considered offensive (it is after all, historical depictions), it would seem sensible to me to err on the safe side and abandon any potentially offensive content in the interest of greater exposure.

[Mythos_Ruler]

My opinion on all this is that the inclusion of potentially offensive visual content has little or no advantage over the number of players we would lose/offend which makes it logical to simply keep it out of the game.

I agree with Josh. While I do somewhat doubt the extent to which they would be considered offensive (it is after all, historical depictions), it would seem sensible to me to err on the safe side and abandon any potentially offensive content in the interest of greater exposure.

Should we poll all of our potential players to see which content offends them? What is the threshold of offended players are you prepared to accept? How much should we compromise our vision in order to not offend anybody? Lastly, how are we to know the ratio of offended to not offended players for any given piece of content?

[Mythos_Ruler]

I agree that it's very likely a court wouldn't judge Wildfiregames (or whoever gets charged) guilty.

However. It's still a valid reason to open a trial in the first place - and that's bad enough IMO.

So I'd be more cautious.

Who exactly would "open" such a trial? German gov't prosecutors? Would they want to waste finite resources on a frivolous case that is likely to be thrown out?

[LordGood]

This thread was nice and dead

I thought we had decided to give the women scant clothing and that the Indian swastikas were okay.

I feel like there hasn't been any issues since Magadha when they were introduced, so this is not a problem, nor does it need to be addressed imho

[Josh]

This thread was nice and dead

I thought we had decided to give the women scant clothing and that the Indian swastikas were okay.

I feel like there hasn't been any issues since Magadha when they were introduced, so this is not a problem, nor does it need to be addressed imho

Fine enough point, it might just be best to decide on case-by-case basis.

[WhiteTreePaladin]

This thread was nice and dead

I thought we had decided to give the women scant clothing and that the Indian swastikas were okay.

I feel like there hasn't been any issues since Magadha when they were introduced, so this is not a problem, nor does it need to be addressed imho

Yeah, I felt the same.

[Mythos_Ruler]

This thread was nice and dead

I thought we had decided to give the women scant clothing and that the Indian swastikas were okay.

I feel like there hasn't been any issues since Magadha when they were introduced, so this is not a problem, nor does it need to be addressed imho

Quoted for truth. The frustration evident in my post came from this very same understanding that this was a settled issue.

[FeXoR]

Lion.Kanzen: Sorry, I didn't see your request.

A link to the official law in question (German): http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__86.html

There is no official translation (or I couldn't find it). This law does not say anything about the swastika but refers to it as a "symbol of a party or organization declare unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court" (translated by me as literally as I could). This includes the NSDAP and this includes the swastika as one of their symbols. Nothing is mentioned about how close it has to be to the "original" symbol to a crime to "make it publicly available in a database" (close translation of the part related to our issue).

Though (as said before) it's quite unlikely that a German court would declare wildfire games (or whoever charged) guilty it's already a crime to show (host a picture of "make it publicly available in a database") the swastika (a "symbol of a party or organization declare unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court").

(Don't hit me. I didn't write the law)

(Don't try to interpret it, it will stay a chargeable crime)

(For me this issue is settled: I just don't care enough)

Edited December 13, 2013 by FeXoR

[GunChleoc]

If we make the arms facing counterclockwise and add little dots and not rotate it 45°, nobody should have a case.

Compare the first two pictures here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

With this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_symbolism#Nazi_flag

[greycat]

If we make the arms facing counterclockwise and add little dots and not rotate it 45°, nobody should have a case.

Compare the first two pictures here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

With this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_symbolism#Nazi_flag

Yes. I don't think there should be a problem if we use it in the correct cultural context. If Wikipedia is correct about it being OK to use it for "scholarly reasons", I see no problem.

: of, characteristic of, or suitable to learned persons

[greycat]

Also...The only time I have heard of it being a problem in Germany was with WWII games, because it is directly depicting the Nazi party.

[Rodmar]

Actually, the next article complements the first one: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__86a.html

If a choice is being directed by lobbies rather than by legal threats (the court being able to "adapt" the law to the context), then you could have a look at other lobbies such as the Hindus (a campaign to make Europeans understand that they can reject in block their symbolism).

[GunChleoc]

I'm no lawyer, but from what I can discern from the laws posted is that as long as the symbol can't be confused with the illegal symbol, it is not a problem.

[thamlett]

If we make the arms facing counterclockwise and add little dots and not rotate it 45°, nobody should have a case.

I totally agree.

According to Wikipedia, the Swastika is still used as a Hindu symbol.

It has also been used in other civilizations throughout history, including Iran, and in the Native American cultures as a symbol meaning "peace, life, and good luck."