Wow Marc, great read. I had wondered why I couldn't find any Kenny G songs as played in LBP to watch on YouTube. Those jerks probably yanked them down too quickly. I need my Forever In Love fix!

Seriously though, did Sony use the word "exploit?" I mean come on, that's like when Garth found Benjamin's planner and read about his plans to "purchase feeble cable access show and exploit them." Come on Sony, I know there's money to be made but seriously. I like your point Marc about waiting until the artist complains before taking down levels. I guess they could argue that a SMB level on LBP is a conflict of Sony's interests, but to flat out take user generated content and attempt to get money off it seems abhorrently wrong to me.

Marc, great piece and in many ways I agree with you. I do want to take the counterpoint in one area though:

"How many giant penis monsters were made in Spore, for example? Obviously, that kind of stuff should get yanked. If there's anything inappropriate found in user content, pull it. Better yet, rely on other users to report such content, similar to the method used by Youtube. I'm not saying that users should have carte blanche to do whatever they like."

Quite frankly, in LBP, I would rather play a well made Penisaurus Dix level than a crappy SMB knockoff #38. The problem is not the "content" of the user created content, it's that the console makers don't have a suitable filtering and tagging system to help people avoid content they don't like.

It would be hard for me to imagine an LBP level, Spore creature or GH song more insulting, degrading, hurtful, warping or damaging to children than some of the conversations that happen in games over headsets. I'm not condoning some peoples actions on services like Live, but I don't think we should be holding user created content to an ungodly level higher than that of gamers' voice services.

I just find it patently absurd that we accept this notion that virtually any type of violence is fine while even humorous depictions of humans' naughty parts are bad.

Once you have accepted that a line should exist, it is all negotiation. I doubt that you will find that the line ever rests where you think it should.

In a game like LBP, your comparison of naughty parts vs. violence doesn't apply, because there is no violence depicted (that I know of). The ESRB ratings system is the current status quo from which developers/publishers decide what content is "appropriate" or not.

I think we can all agree that both violence AND naughty parts would be inappropriate in a title like LittleBigPlanet...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm willing to bet you're not a parent yet, are you? When you see how nudity/violence/profanity affects children in your home, you're more apt to take a stand where you feel is necessary. What you come to realize is that acts of violence via video games and movies are DEPICTIONS, whereas nudity and profanity are generally the real deal.

Marc: great article, sir!

agentgray says...
Let say Billy makes an LBP level where Sonic is raping Sackboy over and over?

I can see where SEGA would be concerned.

I think this is a great article, but%u2014and I've said this before%u2014I don't want to see homage stuff or even copied stuff.

Be original.

I love this! Absolutely agree. But I would also like to state that the publisher/developer needs to talk with the users who are labeled as offenders of the Terms of Service.

Because even when Bungie blocked users from using user-generated content, they stated that even if you downloaded the content and not created it, you would be blocked. This happened to me, but the stuff I got wasn't offensive. It was custom game types, and game vids of MF (or whatever) mode.

If Bungie just contacted users, they could have allowed some of their paying customers to keep their games and not throw it away.

True, it's a big step to take to deal with all the users. But what does it say about a publisher/developer that doesn't even try to prevent wrongful punishment of good users.

First, I am a parent (step-dad to a 14 year old girl, been around for most of her life though).

Secondly, since we were talking about user created content, there is the chance for violence to exist in LBP. In the excellent God of War tribute level, to pass several of the puzzles, you had to "sacrifice" human like creatures into pits of fire to pass through parts of the level. Now that level was pulled, but I don't think it was for the violence, it was because of the IP violation. If similar content had been present in an non-IP violating level, I would have been greatly surprised had it been pulled. Our society simply doesn't have the same reaction to violence as we do anything that even remotely touches on sex. I really don't care if either is available in user created content.

But LPB is only one example. Spore is rated E for Everyone, but as part of the game, you could commit genocide through the destruction of entire species, correct? So it's fine to, in a cartoony game engine commit genocide, but not have a creature that looks like a penis?

As for parenting, I believe parents should parent, not companies. As parents, we regulate the television, music, movies, websites, games and books our kid reads based on what we think she is ready for. The stand is for us to take, not for companies, the government, activist groups or anyone else to take for us. We have also had a history have having responsible, mature conversations with her about why some content is not appropriate for her yet and when we think it will be. And we've managed to raise a pretty well-adjusted, awesome, thoughtful kid in the process.

You statement about violence being a depiction and nudity being real is exactly what I'm talking about, a disconnect between violence and nudity/sex. I also just don't see the difference between virtual violence and virtual nudity. Both are depictions, both are simulations. In games, both are just pixels arranged in a particular fashion. Neither is more real or fake than the other. Graphic types of either are not appropriate for children. We are much more forgiving of one than the other, which I simply don't agree with.

roland: consider me corrected, and apologies for not embellishing on this further...but in quick response...

I believe that getting to the source of offensive material IS good parenting.
1. Removing content from the home.
2. Seeking government censorship.
3. Contacting the publisher for removal of inappropriate content.
...are all measures a parent can take in this regard.

Granted, these are not all Constitutional or definitive options, but they are all examples of action on a parent's part.

--- Replying to roland -----Yeah I have to honestly say I'm with Roland here, though I'm probably not as stringent as I should be. I'd throw in profanity too. As a Christian, all three of those are viewed as sin equally. As a law-abiding citizen, should not all three be equal in judging appropriateness? I think so, but I've heard plenty of views to the contrary. What's worse, cleavage or blood? What's the line? I personally won't ever let my daughters play with "Bratz" dolls because I don't believe they convey a wholesome image. Ditto that cheerleading game that was recently released on the Wii (WiiCheer, maybe?).

Man, this is getting deep, and just a bit off topic. Attempting to get back on, I'd have to say the answer lies somewhere in the PC gaming side... look at all the mods and add-ons that go unchecked, un-sued if you will. Surely there's a compromise in the middle for consoles?

Honestly I think the ESRB rating of the game should dictate the content. If it's a mature rated game, then I'd say swearing, violence, whatever should go.

--- Replying to bapenguin -----

As long as there are options to filter it out, I'm fine. Some games I don't want to hear f-bombs every other sentence and games like halo i like to remove the blood (and be able to turn off the music too).

it's all possible but it's mostly up to the developer, whether they be gamers or studios, what they create.

--- Replying to bapenguin -----
Wait, if those go, what's left to make it mature? Is your protagonist an elderly man or woman with a social security check?

There's one point I found particularly interesting:
hing that stretches the boundaries of the platform and leads to new ideas and innovations. Also, by letting publishers determine appropriateness, they'll likely determine that copyrighted IP, etc. are inappropriate and should be removed as well. Just some quick thoughts.

Great discussion everyone!

--- Replying to txshurricane -----

I admit, this makes rational sense, but I agree with origamipanther's take that once you've handed out the tools, you've lost the ability to some extent to dictate how those tools will be used.

I suspect this is part of the continue growing pains of the consoles as they try to adapt more and more of the PC model of gaming. Voice chat, online gaming, attempts at MMOs, user created content, etc. The console makers have always been able to exert a great level of control over developers, as they had to approve any games released on their systems. Just look at Nintendo with anything approaching questionable content with the NES - Maniac Mansion and Mortal Kombat come to mind as games forced to make changes. Now developers and console makers are looking at ways to control players, either to increase profitability ("exploiting" content) or to protect their family safe images (like Nintendo back in the day). I suspect/hope that we will see this conversation die away in time, as developers, console makers and players all get more used to the idea of user created content and settle into a more open environment.

The major difference between nudity and violence as depictions is that you can stray from reality with violence. You really can't do that with nudity. Smash Goombas flat, or run around with your pecker hanging out of your red overalls? See the difference?

--- Replying to roland -----
Regulating everyone's accessibility includes regulating your child's. It's basically taking a nuclear bomb to a fistfight; it may not be the best solution, but it's a solution. And in a world where kids are shooting their parents in the head for not being allowed to play Halo 3 when everyone else gets to...well, let's just say that without the existence of Halo 3, that kid's mother would likely still be alive. Call it censorship if you like; we have more pressing issues than IF we get to play Halo 3 or not.

Don't get me wrong: while I would trade every game I have to prevent someone's untimely death...I don't want censorship in any way, shape, or form. I'm saying that just because someone is using a broadsword to cut a shirt thread doesn't mean that their intentions are misplaced; it means that they haven't factored practicality into their immediate situation.

Let's put it this way: if your child's teacher begins teaching something that you disagree with and are offended by, do you change schools...or beseech the school district first?
If your solution is to change the teacher's methods or curriculum, then wouldn't that be "attempting to force one person's viewpoint on society at large" (that person being YOU)?

--- Replying to bapenguin -----At least list on the site what makes the game get the rating it has. Showtime and HBO do something similar before most movies (been years since I've seen something on either of those channels, so things may have changed). I love sites like CommonSenseMedia.org which help explain content in movies. Here is how they describe a great yuletide classic, Die Hard 2:

Sexual Content
Brief (non-sexualized) male nudity.
Violence
Murder of the innocent, lots of gunplay, freak accidents involving machinery, explosions, human stampedes, graphic executions of members of the police force, knife fight and graphic stabbing, throat slitting, dismembering, plane explosion, premeditated airplane crash (and death of all of its passengers)
Language
Repeated use of the f-word, frequent swearing out of anger and frustration.
Social Behavior
The film includes extremely violent individuals, both on the sides of good and evil. It presents a very complex image of government, police, and civilians (traitors, incompetents, and vigilantes). All engage in excessive violence, but the film does not really interrogate the type of violence used by the film's hero. His role as savior for the innocent rationalizes his killings in the world of the film.
Consumerism
Twinkies.

Man, that sure is a good movie! Now, if I could track down something similar to that for games I'd call it a victory. It wouldn't have to come from anyone but the game producer. It wouldn't be too much on the government to do either. Just enough to help the end user (or parents) make an informed decision.

--- Replying to txshurricane -----

I would say their intentions are misplaced. To use your own words, bringing a nuke to a fistfight is pretty misplaced. If your intentions lead you to actions that restrict everyone else, then your intentions were wildly misplaced.

As for the school example, no, just because I was offended by something that was taught, my first inclination would not be to attempt and change the school's curriculum. I am not so arrogant as to believe that my worldview is the only one that should be acknowledged in an academic setting. On the rare occasion that I have had disagreements of the curriculum at her school, I've explained my side to her and have also had conversations with some of her teachers. In these few cases, I found them to be valuable teaching moments for my child to show her that there may be alternate views other than what she is taught in the class, that may or may not be equally valid in regards to what her teacher has taught her.

Wow, Billy's Soapbox got me to drag my own box out.

roland, this is what makes America so beautiful and yet so divided. The freedom to think and decide for yourself is almost too powerful for mere humans to handle, and still here we are debating morality. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

Anyway...I'm glad I don't play LBP nor GHWT. User content issue solved.

--- Replying to justabaldguy -----
John Davison, formerly of 1Up, helped start a site called What They Play that's geared towards that purpose. Here's a sample of how they describe Gears of War 2:
eself is a power that people long ago determined we had the ability, and right, to handle. And the beauty of that freedom is that one day people might decide that we don't and take it away (but hopefully they won't).

--- Replying to txshurricane -----

I'm always up for an interesting debate!

I suspect this may only be an argument on pause, as we will see more and more games with user created content and yet more ways that devs, console makers and players try to come to terms with the content.

@ Origami

I am in complete concurrence with you.

--- Replying to OrigamiPanther -----Right, I forgot to mention that one. Great site, I pass it out a lot to parents. My main point though was I'd like the game makers to give us those details up front, sort of like how movies are rated and then they tell you a bit about it ("Adult Situations," "Nudity," etc). Good site though.

--- Replying to txshurricane -----

First of all, I'm 24 and no kids/spouse.

But your talking about children being taught by not some college professor or even a high school teacher. But at a early age kids are susceptible to anything. If the teacher makes valid points against religion (which they can't by law here in the U.S, at least not in NC) or certain religions and one of the child's families is a very religious family. Then it is their right to speak out against that.

Even if the teacher didn't mention religion, but taught Intelligent Design there would be others that would be offended. It's a valid point that parents try to control what their kids believe in. But it is the parent's responsibility to raise these kids to believe in something that doesn't conflict with society's rules and laws. By that I mean basic fundamentals. Because I'm not saying you shouldn't question society, but each society is different.

Anyway, some people may want the teacher(s) to teach certain things and not others (like Evolution is a hot button).

The point is if the parents are getting involved, that's not wrong. They care enough to know what is being teach and what their kids see & hear.

Many people say most parents don't care that their kids play violent games (I've seen that), but there ARE parents who do (and there's more than you would think).

As games, kids, and parents are all parts of our society. The parents can and should voice their opinion to the decision-makers. The people elected to create and push for laws based on our beliefs.

Censorship is just one form of it. Heck, the ESRB, the movie ratings, the tv ratings are ALL forms of censorship. Creators remove content from media in order to get a lower rating for a wider audience. While others intend for their word to be enjoyed by mature people.

And society has changed greatly, the first Die hard movie (and correct me if I'm wrong) was rated R. However, with similar action sequences and the use of MotherFer. The fourth sequel Live Free or Die Hard is rated PG-13 in the US.

Why? Because the standards of evaluating such content has changed because society has changed with it. In time I think we will see games go farther in terms of content than before. It's still an evolving medium.

Videogames are not just for kids anymore and people of the last generation who are in their 40s to 50s, need to realize that. Because either they never played games or always though they were just for kids and developers are trying corrupt them through games.

Censorship is just one tool that can be taken in different forms. But we as a society can change that as long as we continue to discuss the issues. It's time for some co-operative work

Mrxknown_JG - sorry about your post. I tried to delete your double and I think we both did it at the same time...removing BOTH posts.

--- Replying to bapenguin -----

You've got to be kidding me

That was a LONG POST! why was the first post deleted? Ah man

Mrxknown_JG: check your Private Messages.

Thanks to txshurricane, I present my little post that has caused trouble. How he'd do it? I'm putting my money that he has ties to zombies and used them to raise my post from the dead.

Please Bap, don't delete it
-------------------------------------------------
--- Replying to txshurricane -----

First of all, I'm 24 and no kids/spouse.

But your talking about children being taught by not some college professor or even a high school teacher. But at a early age kids are susceptible to anything. If the teacher makes valid points against religion (which they can't by law here in the U.S, at least not in NC) or certain religions and one of the child's families is a very religious family. Then it is their right to speak out against that.

Even if the teacher didn't mention religion, but taught Intelligent Design there would be others that would be offended. It's a valid point that parents try to control what their kids believe in. But it is the parent's responsibility to raise these kids to believe in something that doesn't conflict with society's rules and laws. By that I mean basic fundamentals. Because I'm not saying you shouldn't question society, but each society is different.

Anyway, some people may want the teacher(s) to teach certain things and not others (like Evolution is a hot button).

The point is if the parents are getting involved, that's not wrong. They care enough to know what is being teach and what their kids see & hear.

Many people say most parents don't care that their kids play violent games (I've seen that), but there ARE parents who do (and there's more than you would think).

As games, kids, and parents are all parts of our society. The parents can and should voice their opinion to the decision-makers. The people elected to create and push for laws based on our beliefs.

Censorship is just one form of it. Heck, the ESRB, the movie ratings, the tv ratings are ALL forms of censorship. Creators remove content from media in order to get a lower rating for a wider audience. While others intend for their word to be enjoyed by mature people.

And society has changed greatly, the first Die hard movie (and correct me if I'm wrong) was rated R. However, with similar action sequences and the use of MotherFer. The fourth sequel Live Free or Die Hard is rated PG-13 in the US.

Why? Because the standards of evaluating such content has changed because society has changed with it. In time I think we will see games go farther in terms of content than before. It's still an evolving medium.

Videogames are not just for kids anymore and people of the last generation who are in their 40s to 50s, need to realize that. Because either they never played games or always though they were just for kids and developers are trying corrupt them through games.

Censorship is just one tool that can be taken in different forms. But we as a society can change that as long as we continue to discuss the issues. It's time for some co-operative work