|
Gamasutra’s Kris Graft has a concise
summary surrounding Infinity Ward’s “Fight Against Grenade Spam” fake PSA video.
The controversy surrounding the video is that the acronym
for the fake organization spells out, “F.A.G.S.” The word fag used against gays
is a hateful, offensive and disparaging word. Another word in the same
category, but usually accompanied with more extreme vitriol is the word nigger.
Robert Bowling said in a recent
interview,
“We are responsible for what we say and what we do, and we can be held
accountable for our successes and failures.”
They damn well ought to be held accountable. There has been
a lot of debate about whether that word is offensive or not and whether
Infinity Ward did anything wrong. Most of the people who don’t think the word
fag is offensive either lack experience or knowledge of how offensive and
dangerous the word is.
The word nigger comes with a history of violent oppression
and murder of African Americans in the US. The word fag also has a similar
history, remember Mathew
Sheppard? He was brutally
murdered for being gay. Anti-gay churches picketed Shepard's funeral as well as
the trial of his assailants, displaying signs with slogans such as "Matt
Shepard rots in Hell", "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" and "God
Hates Fags". Like the word nigger, fag also is closely associated with
violence and oppression towards a particular group of people, in this case,
gays.
There is absolutely no reason for Infinity Ward to be
condoning use of that word or making jokes out of it. It’s appalling. Their
Modern Warfare series is very popular online and during online matches a lot of
trash talking occurs. Some in good fun, some not so much. The word fag is often
used, hurled by one stranger to another. Infinity Ward knows their audience
very well, but that doesn’t make it OK for them to stoop down to their
audience’s level.
They ought to act as a role model. Players respect their
games and the work they do. It’s obvious to me that we, the gaming industry
have a serious problem on our hands. The problem of hate speech during online
multiplayer gaming is so pervasive that we have grown to accept it as people
being “asshats”. Shockingly, it seems Infinity Ward embraced it in their ad
because they think it’s funny.
In my opinion, we as an industry need to recognize hate
speech is a problem and make a concerted effort to eliminate it, the sooner the
better. I call on Infinity Ward, all major developers and publishers such as
Valve Software, EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Eidos, Bungie, Microsoft and others to
release a real PSA about combating online hate speech, respecting one another
and good sportsmanship. They could collaborate to release a PSA featuring
popular characters from their games or release them individually per game.
They
have the power and the responsibility that comes with it to educate their
audience that certain words hold more power than virtual guns. If we neglect to
act on this pervasive problem, we’re taking a big risk that nothing tragic will
happen in the future. We can’t wait for an incident like what happened to
Mathew Sheppard to inspire us to action. We need to start now and Infinity Ward
has an opportunity to lead the way.
Also posted on my personal blog, Reiding...
|
This just smacks of "our audience will think this is funny, so let's put it in!" I expect more care from market leading developers and publishers in their choices. If it was deliberate, and calculated, that makes it even worse, if you ask me.
I'm not trying to troll and I don't think there should be less violence in games or anything like that. I just wonder if the designers/marketers should be held to being politically correct given the content of the game. It just reminds me of the south park movie when kyle's mom says "violence in movies is okay as long as they don't say any naughty words"
Which, if I'm not mistaken, is largely the point of Reid's piece: create an actual useful PSA that works as a positively influence on that same demographic.
Can you make a credible case that Infinity Ward is condoning the act of actually going out and killing people in real life? I think it's a lot easier to argue that they're implicitly condoning actual use of particularly hurtful language with this "joke."
Knowing that the people who work on and sell this game are comfortable explicitly telling me that they know that it doesn't matter if I buy it or not is more insulting than the actual joke, I think. If they didn't mean to put that message across, they need to think more seriously about their marketing and the message it sends.
"They have the power and the responsibility that comes with it to educate their audience that certain words hold more power than virtual guns. If we neglect to act on this pervasive problem, we’re taking a big risk that nothing tragic will happen in the future. We can’t wait for an incident like what happened to Mathew Sheppard to inspire us to action. We need to start now and Infinity Ward has an opportunity to lead the way"
As for Matthew Sheppard he wasn't a victim of a hate crime, but crimes committed against millions of indiviuals everyday. Thats right, EVERY CRIME is a hate crime. In the end I can't understand this kind of collectivist/utopianist logic coming from you.
it's things like this that keep me playing single-player games.
The contraversal words mentioned in this article have deep roots in American history that will not be erased over night. With time, and parental/families educating younger generations, these worlds will hopefully loose their sting/use. Even if that is accomplished new words will come about that offend people. Or better yet words will evolve to confuse different generations--you know like N$%@^r*.
*Censored cause I'm white.
No but he could probably make a convincing case for IW making a joke based upon the current cultural climate amongst their online players, which in turn, while the language is bad taste that is after all the point), is funny due to it being an accurate depiction of a vast number of the people who play their game (or undoubtedly anyone who's ventured online has come across such a player). The intent is quite obviously, not to support or condone such language, but to make a mocking nod to it's actual existence.
So to say such spurious things as (and allow me to paraphrase) "IW is implicitly supporting derogatory language targeted at homosexuals", is foolish and disregards the context in which the joke is given. For instance looking at the way it's phrased I question whether people (who actually play MW), are likely to go, "yeah that's a cool acronym I'm using it", and how many are likely to find it funny simply because it reflects the nature of online play and then dismiss it thereafter (my bet is one or two of the former, but mostly the latter).
Sure to claim that people online shouldn't use such language is a fine claim to make, but it's unlikely that we're all going to turn into some parody of high class society while sitting in our living rooms playing in a competitive environment. So while the nature of the slurs will eventually change, expecting them to go away is unreasonable (at best, naive at worst). As such jokes that target the simple fact that such a sub-culture exists should NOT be banned. If anything this is the social equivalent of burying ones head in the sand (after all, comedy(low and high brow) is one of the major ways social discussion comes about).
If your one of the people being offended by this you should ask yourself if you find the joke offensive, or merely the use of the language, if it's the latter, get off your high horse and continue to campaign against things where you stand to make an impact (after all win the overall fight and the language will go away quietly), and I'm seriously doubting that anyone is actually offended by the actual nature of the joke.
Team America, South Park, etc. You either find them funny or you don't, but to somehow imply that ribald or racist humor is ok there because "Parker & Stone know what they're doing and why." is a very dubious argument. Sure, they are ridiculing much of what they satirize, but the bottom line is they doing it for money.
I can't help but thinking of George Carlin's list of bad words skit. If he did that now using racial epithets instead of curse words, he'd be banned. Which is truly ironic.
Words are words. Changing them or bannng them, rather than focusing on the meaning and intent behind them, is foolish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuFSVpZJnAk
...I didn't see the acronym messaged AT ALL. Is that the complete video? If so, this is a (dare I say it) idiotic discussion. As an added bonus the festivities the game video clip leading into that PSA shows a) murdering someone in game with a head shot, repleat with Sam Peckinpah disco death and blood spray, AND, the players logo was a marijuana leaf. I guess they wanted to be sure to offend all possible groups. Sort of like South Park.
"The word fag also has a similar history, remember Mathew Sheppard? He was brutally murdered for being gay."
And, unfortunately, he would have been regardless of the words used to describe him. Ignorance, intolerance and stupidity don't go away if you remove the words that can be used to offend. He didn't die from hearing the word fag too much.
Hate is not bred by the words we speak, but vice-versa.
Personally, I'd prefer people be free to use all the words they want to use. Perhaps the reason why fag is such an innocuous word to so many is because it is so pervasive that it has essentially lost all meaning. Many people, myself included, don't seem to even associate homosexuality with the word fag.
You know why cracker and honky have no effect on white people? Because nobody is afraid to say them. White people don't get offended by them, therefore anyone can say them as much as they want, and so they have essentially lost all meaning. You basically never hear the words used today outside of the context of jokes.
Perhaps the stigma surrounding the word nigger would finally go away if more people said it more frequently in more situations. It would first be used purely for shock value, but eventually that shock value would wane, and it would lose all meaning. Eventually, racists would need to invent a different word, and it probably wouldn't be nearly as catchy, and we would all laugh and ridicule the racists for not having an adequate word with which to express their strange and outdated ideals.
Or perhaps society would crumble and our entire civilization would collapse into the oceans. Frankly, I'm willing to take that risk.
Really? So you don't think it should be illegal to threaten people? You don't think sexual harassment should be illegal? What about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? Are you against libel laws? The truth of the matter is that there are plenty of good, useful laws that limit free speech.
I'm not really sure why that's relevant anyway, since no one is saying that what Infinity Ward has done should be *illegal*. No one. It's a total straw man argument. What people are saying, which I think is entirely fair, is that what Infinity Ward did was stupid and harmful, and that we expect better from them. I'm not really sure what's unreasonable about that or why it draws such hyperobole about "Free speech!!!" in return. That seems to be the blanket response to *any* criticism of oppression - shouting about free speech and political correctness instead of responding to what's *actually* being said.
Infinity Ward please grow up. Inspire rather than bow down to your fans, you have the minds of many, many young impressionable people at stake. In the face of ideology and hate terms and free speechishnesk I'm going to throw another phrase down 'Common Sense.' Here's to hoping it will catch on.
I've been around homosexuals my whole life. Rather it's family memebers, neighbors, or coworkers. I've heard the same level of vulgar language from gay people that is spoken by straight folk. This is especially true for the cruise line actors/dancers that are stationed in my apartment before going out to sea. Those young guys, and gals, rip each other apart. "Oh what fag drank the last of the wine." Is just one example of many.
My point being is this. Don't think that homosexuals are on some moral high ground, and never ever use vulgar language to describe their lifestyle.
I honestly wish people would take a more proactive approach to stopping this kind of thing. Companies could moderate online play (this would stop it much quicker, making a kid sit out while his friends are killing the crap out of each other) Make an equal violent/non-violent list of titles. put a "simulated violence do not attempt" warning on games, be as diligent at keeping mature subject matter out of the hands of kids as people are cigarettes and alcohol (i still get carded daily as no one wants to incur the massive fines)...sadly I think all proactive steps are costly to implement and in a time of profit losses and guaranteed sell sequel titles I just don't see it happening. If the PSA is the best option someone (albeit an agency who's a little more sensitive) should do it.
added: I just think the fact that we're talking about 12-15 year old kids playing a game intended for adults and simulating hostile conflict resolution is already morally wrong..so this is more or less just icing on the cake.
consider it getting emotional over the material...I'm going back to lurking.
I don't think that's what the OP was about.
Also, isn't context important? Last I heard people from the queer community weren't running around murdering each other for being in said community.
I agree with the industry stepping up and being more mature than it may actually be. As we create media that influences cultures, shouldn't we be working to make those cultures a better place for everyone to live in?
I'll put it at this, but limiting all forms of speech is the same thing like limiting all forms of freedom...that include the freedom of opinion, to congregrate, etc.
In the end people like you and mr. reid kimball personify excatly what a utopianist is...utopianist believe in order to build a just, fair and equal society certain behaviours needs to be curbed, limited or simply removed and to accomplish they they employ either state or private power/influcence.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about at all? What happened to Matthew Shepard is the definition of a hate crime; that little semantic nonsense you pulled was just absurd.
yeah, because EVERY CRIME is a hate crime, exactly like he said. Murder isn't "less bad" in any situation; a hate crime suggests that it is somehow worse when race/sexual orientation is involved. Just because something fits a definition does not mean the definition is not arbitrary or meaningless.
By singling out certain similar crimes based on motivation we are subverting that very goal. The laws apply the same whether you kill someone for being gay or because you just don't like his face.
Have you noticed how we have different "degrees" of murder? And even alternate names, like "manslaughter"? And how issues of intent, premeditation and negligence/recklessness are considered vitally relevant?
All anybody was saying is that the word "fag" isn't funny to a lot of people. I guess it's funny to a lot more people than it is NOT funny to, or that's what ATVI/IW are banking on. I think Reid thinks it would be nice if they could understand why it's not funny.
Beyond that, there's no reason there couldn't have been a funny, accurate, version of this commercial without that acronym. Or, for that matter, the word "pussies", but that's another argument, isn't it? Similar and just as tedious, I'm sure.
IW and Activision are industry-leading, both of them. I don't like the industry being lead that way. I feel perfectly justified in feeling that way, and have absolutely no trouble suggesting it ought not to be. If this industry's biggest achievement is catering to overly aggressive 12 year olds or those with that mentality, it's a boring industry.
I'm not in the least suggesting that speech should be regulated. I'm not even disingenuously implying that the word should never be used (i.e. de facto censorship.) I would just prefer people think about it first. I am hoping that people would know why we don't want to hear it, why we don't have much of a sense of humor about it, and certainly don't like the idea that IW/ATVI encourage it.
And, as I said before, if IW/ATVI did think about it first and then just went forward with using it, that's the most depressing fact (to me) of all.
But similar degrees of murder should be treated the same regardless of the motive for the murder. 1st degree pre-meditated murder should be the treated the same by the law regardless of whether your motive is that you hate gays, or hate the boss that fired you.
That's why I specifically mentioned similar crimes. Similar in this case meaning the same degree of crime, even within the various degrees of causing death to another.
People like to complain about how it's not fair that some people get treated specially. I can understand this. However, the thinking behind it is not, as in this example, that gays should be treated specially. The idea is that gays are generally more likely to be victimized; the playing field was never level to begin with. If that's the premise, the idea then is that it's only fair to give a them a legal boost to try and make things more equal.
I can't really make my mind up about hate crimes legislation. I'm certainly not going to discuss it here. What I an make my mind up about from this discussion and my experience is that people certainly like to complain when things aren't fair, without taking a second to think about what it's like for your life to have a built-in element of unfairness 24/7.
Using the same situation that causes feelings of bitterness and marginalization in a minority group on the majority generates the same feelings, but on a much larger scale.
If we're for equality, let's be for ACTUAL equality.
And yes, I know we're getting a little off topic from the OP, sorry about that. If we want to agree to wait for another forum to have this debate we certainly can. I'm sure it will come up again. :-)
Anyway, that debate goes on ad nauseum. I'll stop hijacking the thread for a while. :)
Completely outside that discussion, it would be great to see all of the heavyweight studios come together for an internet PSA stating that derogatory terms in online games is not acceptable. This would present the game industry in a good light, and raise awareness of the issue.
first sorry for not going back to lurking,
"People like to say the phrase "political correctness" as though it's an argument ender."
That's not what I was trying to say at all. I was trying to posit that perhaps those involved with marketing a simulated military experience (especially in so public a way, while the content at the web site is age restricted) may not be all that sensitive to start with. And perhaps more needs to be changed than just stopping the hate speech. I realized I shouldn't have used the phrase politically correct, explained myself a bit more, and actually stated that I'm totally against slurs.
I think it's also important to consider what the word "fag" means to people these days. Words change meaning over time, in fact I can think of at least 5 different popular definitions of "fag" from various time periods and locations. Most American adults consider it a derogatory term toward homosexuals, but to many of today's youth, words like "fag" and "gay" don't have anything to do with sexuality. The vernacular has changed to a point where "gay" has become a synonym for something like "lame", and "fag" is a derogatory term for a person, independent of their sexual orientation. I'm 24 and I first heard the word "fag" from a group of friends in middle school, and from the context it was being used in, I assumed it meant "jerk", and only later found out that it had a much more hurtful meaning toward a specific group. Even if I didn't mean it in that way, it could be interpreted so. In light of that, I stopped using the word. I think a lot of kids today are in the same situation, especially with the word "nigger", which is so ubiquitous in online gaming vernacular that its appalling. I doubt half the people using these terms know what they really mean. Of course I'm sure plenty of them do, and are just hateful in spite of the fact.
What you say is true, a lot people don't know what they are saying online is offensive, but that doesn't make it OK. The ignorant cannot claim innocence. I hope those who are ignorant never casually use the word on the street towards a stranger, thinking it means jerk, only to get beaten up because it offended the right people at the wrong time.
Another thing, the game is rated M, for people aged 18+, yet we all know plenty of parents allow their children much younger than 18 to play the game. That's fine, but I doubt many parents know the kind of language being used. I just think Infinity Ward and the rest of the multiplayer development community ought to think real hard about their responsibility to call out abusive behavior by their customers. Parents (right or wrong, doesn't matter) expect that their child playing the game is not being exposed to objectionable material.
If a company that makes alcohol based cleaning products learns that kids in middle school LOVE sniffing it and getting high, it's not OK for them to say, "Hey, kids love sniffing our cleaning products, maybe we should make an ad that condones this behavior, they'll think we're cool!" Instead, they have a fucking responsibility to recognize the dangers their users are engaging in and to warn them of that.
Not much has changed much in the past 30 years it seems.
....or to add cyanide to the mix to help cleanse the gene pool of stupidity.
Sigh. Has anyone said "Hitler" yet?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/28/MNBN1ABKB8.DTL
"Did Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office use a coded veto message to send the f-bomb to Tom Ammiano, soon after the San Francisco assemblyman made news by telling the governor to "kiss my gay ass"?
Schwarzenegger's people say no. But the X-rated evidence is hard to miss in a message that Schwarzenegger sent to explain why he was vetoing an Ammiano bill dealing with financing for the Port of San Francisco.
A straight reading of the guv's letter laments "the fact that major issues are overlooked while many unnecessary bills come to me for consideration," and concludes, "I believe it is unnecessary to sign this measure at this time."
But a vertical read of the far-left-hand letters in each of the missive's eight lines offers a more blunt explanation: "I f- you."
Better yet it's usage is appropriate to the nature of the joke, this
"But the intent of Infinity Ward's fake PSA ad was to call those who throw random grenades fags. It doesn't get any clearer"
Is classical misrepresentation of intent. Their intent is NOT to call those who throw random grenades fags, but to create a humorous representation of their own subculture by referencing two well known facts within the culture, people online like to call each other fags, and people tend to throw grenades randomly when spawning and this pisses some people off.
So ultimately is the joke in bad taste, probably, is it immature, not really (the joke could in fact be quite nuanced, are they calling people who hate on grenade spammers or the grenade spammers themselves fags?), and is it offensive, well, just as much as an advert that uses a white guy/girl instead of a black one (as in, this isn't offensive at all, but someone will actively choose to be offended simply because they can misrepresent the situation in a way that favors their own socially charged argument)
dum dum dum..we're siding with the hermaphrodite supremisists.
The internet is awesome some days... there's so much cognitive dissonance in this thread that you could almost bottle and sell it.
--
"But the intent of Infinity Ward's fake PSA ad was to call those who throw random grenades fags. It doesn't get any clearer."
Actually the usage in context would imply that the people doing the "fighting against grenade spam" are the F.A.G.S., not the grenade spammers that the ad were against. This lends some small amount of credence to the claim that it was unintentional. (If they're still claiming that I'm unaware.)
The PSA *came from* the very culture you're trying to change. How is that culture going to make PSAs condemning itself? And if it did, would it do any good? Seriously, look how quickly the community turned on their beloved IW because of one feature that's been dropped. Do you think that the gamer community loves the developer community enough to think twice about the culture they live in?
No. If you think the development community has any significant influence on gamers you may not be reading enough customer reviews of your own work.
But two things I'd like to point out:
- Note the ease with which a person attempting to decry 'hate speech' whips out the N-bomb. Why is it that people who are supposedly so against causing offense seem to have the itchiest fingers for this word?
- Matthew Sheppard's murder, while equally tragic as any other murder, was not a 'hate crime'. He was murdered for drug money. This was established many years ago. The only reason people continue to repeat the lie that it was a 'hate crime' is because the argument for 'hate crime' laws, along with the argument against 'hate speech', is so incredibly weak and contrary to the basic notions of liberty and effective law enforcement that the person arguing for them needs an emotional crutch on which to lean. The fact that this article makes the same point as the previous one but doubles-down on the emotionalism and offensive analogies only strengthens that assertion.
It was a joke, and a harmless one. And the commercial was already pulled.
From what have gotten out of all this is that it isn't about sparing some peoples' feelings, but a company taking responsibility in its actions; specifically choosing a term that does have deeply negative connotations and is a term used to create hate on a specific group of people.
Would this be less acceptable if some otehr company were to do this sort of add in the same vein? IW target audience is irrelevant. It's still an organization composed of professionals and frankly should be raising standards and not setting the industry back (by lowering themselves to the level of people that find such hateful words funny). And in all honestly, there MANY gamers (sadly) that tuse that word with only the most contempt.
Would it be okay to make light of the holocaust, just because it happened so long ago? "But it's just a joke and people shouldn't take it personal; all in good fun."
We are not juveniles, most of us are grown people, with professional careers. This sort of thing is not acceptable and should not be acceptable and I would MUCH rather see a company try and condone more mature attitude from its audience. There isn't really an excuse for otherwise.
Well, 'okay' is an open point. It would certainly be within their rights to free speech, although I imagine the backlash would be huge.
But I fail to see even the basic grounds for an analogy there, other than the tiresome impact of Godwin's Law. Do you really think a joke about someone's sexual orientation is 'just like Hitler'? How about short jokes? Fat jokes? Perhaps we have become so accustomed to the idiotic idea that nobody should ever be offended that people are simply overreacting?
The word F.A.G.S. appearing as an acronym is in no way tantamount to mocking the brutal slaughter of millions of people. It is not the same as yelling a racial slur in someone's face. It is not a hate crime. It's not even hate speech. It was obviously done in jest, not in 'hate'. Sure, it's something that some people find offensive. That's the cost of living in a free society. They heard it, got offended, complained, and got the ad pulled. That should be the end of the story, rather than turning it into some opportunistic object lesson.
"I would MUCH rather see a company try and condone more mature attitude from its audience."
Are you serious? These are VIDEO GAMES. The predominant age group playing video games are the 18-29 market, a.k.a. the 'Halo crowd'. Why should we be held to a higher standard of conduct than 'Family Guy'? We're not working on Masterpiece Theater. If you're looking for pinky-out proper conduct and comedies of manners, you're in the wrong field of work.
It's like that woman suing NBC because, while working on Friends, she heard - gasp - sex jokes!
Nailed it!
We all regularly defend games that have horrible violence with a hand-wave. The Grand Theft Auto series is particularly disgusting but noooo, you can't say anything bad about that.
In fact, as Parsons noted:
"Matthew Sheppard's murder, while equally tragic as any other murder, was not a 'hate crime'. He was murdered for drug money"
But if you referred to the same case - as a drug crime - as evidence that we shouldn't glorify it in games like GTA, than you've just pissed on the sacred cow of Gamerdom.
Everyone needs to get their priorities straight - no pun intended. If an acronym pun is so dangerous, we really ought to take another look at game's complete trivialization of death.
"The word F.A.G.S. appearing as an acronym is in no way tantamount to mocking the brutal slaughter of millions of people."
You know what does mock the brutal slaughter of people?
Most video games!
P.S. I'm not against violent video games. Just inconsistent people.
It isn't about IW using the word in game like violence, so much as they are advocating the use of the word in real life. This is not about what is in game, but what the company is advocating outside of the game. Would you be comfortable if people just started saying nigger or fag wherever they felt like? To put it differently, if it's okay to use these terms non chlantly in game, why isn't the same true for public activities, such as shopping at the mall or hanging out in the park?
@Jeffrey
Since you want to hide behind Godwin's law I guess I will use the nigger analogy. Substitute the holocaust with nigger. Regardles of the Halo crowd ("well they do it already" is not an excuse), it does not make it okay for an entity of professionals to irresponsibily.
I have seen that failed argument that "if we use it enough it will lose meaning", while along the way trampling over the people who actually face serious hate with that word being used as verbal ammo. This isn't about hurting someone's feelings or making fun of people. You keep ignoring the actual history behind the word's usage. No one is trying to stop you from using someone's words in game.
I think "freedom of speech" argument spawns mostly out of ignorance as you do not realize the connotatinos in such a word, which is part of the problem with a company condoning its use. Your only angle so far as been "freedom of speech" but no one is arguing that. It's about accountability. I can shout nigger all I want to in any public place but that serves nobody for obiouvs reasons, much like condoing the use of fag.
Ignorance is NOT an excuse, nor is being a part of the "Halo crowd". People like those that came up with the add need to learn about accountability and respect.
On a personal note, I fall in that age range you mentioned and I would rather not be associated with the type to actually use words like that (or any type of verbal hate in game). I cannpt say the same for many people I play with because hearing an adult spew out words such as fag are even less common than those that throw out the word nigger (which is still very uncommon).
To bring this topic back on track: Is it really okay for a company to condone the use of a word (just for marketing's sake no less) that the public as a whole does not find acceptable? Is there not some sort of responsibility nor accountability?
So if, instead of an acronym pun, it was a game about shooting homosexuals, that would be better?
What many companies do outside of the game - in real life - is sell death porn because there's money in it. You can't separate the game's content from the studio's actions; building the game & what's in it is the primary thing they DO.
Does the fact that its only "in game" actually matter, or is this just making up an artificial wall so you can have it both ways?
"Is it really okay for a company to condone the use of a word ... that the public as a whole does not find acceptable?"
How come we've managed to forget so quickly all the outrage at Mortal Kombat's violence? Ditto for Doom.
Games aggressively antagonized "the public as a whole", pushing the violence boundary further and further until nobody cared about violence in the youth market.
Its not a big deal _now_, because games "used it enough" and it "lost meaning".
Its still a no-no to show a lady topless, but you can saw her in half.
Is that right? You tell me.