Hit Dystopian Game 'Papers, Please' Lands on iPad Amid Publicity Over Censorship by Apple

[Duane Martin]

I wonder if Apple requested this change from the developer or if the developer chose to change it themselves in order to be able to give the game a more-accessible content rating.

According to Ars Technica:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/...to-cover-up-in-ipad-version-of-papers-please/


All seems like a non issue to me. There are plenty of other app store issues that deserve more attention.

Apple actually says on their App Store Guidelines page:

Well, would you look at that. Someone asks if Apple actually did censor this app; someone else shows that they did not censor the app but rather the game maker did; a third person shows how this app does not technically go beyond Apple guidelines.

So, other than asking if the game is fun, we're done here, right?

 

[bsolar]

Censorship is an official act, by definition. Individuals and organizations can't be forced to promote or sell anyone else's speech or expression, because they have rights of association.

As explained above this is not correct: self-censorship exists and is still censorship.

Using the word "censorship" to denigrate freedom of association is a either a deliberate or unknowing act of emotionally loading the question. Either way, it's misleading and wrong.

I'm sorry that some consider the term only negatively, but I'd rather explain them that the term is technically neutral and not always to be associated with oppression.

 

[aaronvan]

In this case, using the British vernacular they really did take out the "Naughty Bits"

But those are the best parts!

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm sorry that some consider the term only negatively, but I'd rather explain them that the term is technically neutral and not always to be associated with oppression.

The word is not technically neutral, whatever that means. It has an actual definition that specifically denotes an official act. Using it to describe a private choice of whether to associate or not associate with a particular type of speech or expression is an effort to spin that choice negatively. This works a charm, as the comments here show so clearly.

 

[inhalexhale1]

I'm an adult. I should be able to make the decision on how much violence and profanity etc I'll subject myself to in a game.

...and most of all, you deserve an adult glass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jzyKlznF_w

 

[Duane Martin]

The word is not technically neutral, whatever that means.

It means the word "censorship" or "to censor" does not, in itself, imply either positive or negative meaning (i.e. censorship = bad), thus it is neutral.

Hope that helps; you're on your own with the rest of your argument.

 

[mazz0]

Woo! Finally! I've had this on Steam for months but never played it - figured it looked like a perfect iPad game. Yay!

This War of Mine next, please!

 

[bsolar]

The word is not technically neutral, whatever that means.

Thanks to Duane Martin for the explanation. I still find somewhat puzzling that you state I'm wrong when at the same time you imply you didn't understand what I meant.

It has an actual definition that specifically denotes an official act.

This is not universally agreed upon. I guess the take of the Academic American Encyclopedia is the best in explaining our misunderstanding?

Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who "censor" themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows.

If you go with the broadest sense it's censorship, if you go with the narrower more legalistic sense it's not. In this case my personal opinion is that the term was correctly used in its broadest sense, or at least that's how I read it.

Using it to describe a private choice of whether to associate or not associate with a particular type of speech or expression is an effort to spin that choice negatively. This works a charm, as the comments here show so clearly.

Again, this is only true if you automatically assume that the term is inherently negative (censorship = bad). Some would undoubtely do that, but it's their mistake wrongly loading a term with a meaning it doesn't necessarily have.

 

[IJ Reilly]

It means the word "censorship" or "to censor" does not, in itself, imply either positive or negative meaning (i.e. censorship = bad), thus it is neutral.

Hope that helps; you're on your own with the rest of your argument.

Thanks to Duane Martin for the explanation. I still find somewhat puzzling that you state I'm wrong when at the same time you imply you didn't understand what I meant.


This is not universally agreed upon. I guess the take of the Academic American Encyclopedia is the best in explaining our misunderstanding?


If you go with the broadest sense it's censorship, if you go with the narrower more legalistic sense it's not. In this case my personal opinion is that the term was correctly used in its broadest sense, or at least that's how I read it.


Again, this is only true if you automatically assume that the term is inherently negative (censorship = bad). Some would undoubtely do that, but it's their mistake wrongly loading a term with a meaning it doesn't necessarily have.

censorship |ˈsensərˌSHip|
noun
the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts: details of the visit were subject to military censorship.

It's the common dictionary definition, not a legal one. Note that all the definitions in the article you think makes your point say exactly the same thing about censorship being an official act of speech suppression. Most people do tend to believe that suppression of speech and expression are negatives values, so I don't know what point you are trying to make by implying otherwise. Quite a few posters in this thread reacted to what Apple did here as suppression, something they were invited to do when the article confused Apple with official authority. Saying that Apple enforced their content standards on a developer just doesn't have the same buzz as saying they were censored.

 

[kds1]

See, here's the problem. Americans are scared of the penis. Even animated digital ones. Breasts too, but the PENIS is the big scary monster everyone recoils at. At least in America. On the other side of the Atlantic, on the Continent, such fear does not exist. Yeah, good old USA all hung up on SEX and NUDITY. It's an All-American trait.

 

[pdaholic]

See, here's the problem. Americans are scared of the penis. Even animated digital ones. Breasts too, but the PENIS is the big scary monster everyone recoils at. At least in America. On the other side of the Atlantic, on the Continent, such fear does not exist. Yeah, good old USA all hung up on SEX and NUDITY. It's an All-American trait.

Ever seen Asian porn? All the naughty bits are pixelated mosaics. That's their PORN! So no, fear of seeing genitalia is not an "all-American trait" as you say.

Not that I've actually seen any Asian porn, uhem, that's just what I've been told...

 

[Renzatic]

I wonder if Apple requested this change from the developer or if the developer chose to change it themselves in order to be able to give the game a more-accessible content rating.

I read about this over at Rock Paper Shotgun. According to the developer, it was Apple that requested the change. He didn't make a big deal about it, claiming they were censoring him or anything similar.

They sent it back, he asked if it was due to the nudity, they said yeah, he removed it, resubmitted, and it went right through. The aftermath of it all ended up being more impressive than the initial incident.

----------

Not that I've actually seen any Asian porn, uhem, that's just what I've been told...

Uh huh.

 

[kds1]

Ever seen Asian porn? All the naughty bits are pixelated mosaics. That's their PORN! So no, fear of seeing genitalia is not an "all-American trait" as you say.

Not that I've actually seen any Asian porn, uhem, that's just what I've been told...

I have seen Asian porn and most of it is pixelated, but not all. I've seen it where the dreaded and scary penis is in full unobstructed clear view. However, just because the Asians have this fear, doesn't make it any less All-American. "All-American" doesn't mean "only in America". Also note that I said on "the Continent" in order to specifically exclude the UK. They have the fear too. I mean, for the longest time, full erections were banned from porn magazines, and even today, they're squirming their way through a pornography censorship row.

 

[bsolar]

It's the common dictionary definition, not a legal one. Note that all the definitions in the article you think makes your point say exactly the same thing about censorship being an official act of speech suppression.

No, they do not. The article even explicitly states that:

In contrast to that straightforward definition from Roman times, contemporary usage offers no agreed-upon definition of the term or when to use it. Indeed, even whether the word itself applies to a given controversy in the arts is often vigorously contested.

The definition I quoted explicitly states that a broader meaning exists which doesn't involve any government official. In the same article the definition by Encarta doesn't involve any official. Some dictionaries don't involve officials in their definition of the term either. The definition from Wikipedia explicitly includes "non-officials" (emphasis mine):

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship.

Most people do tend to believe that suppression of speech and expression are negatives values, so I don't know what point you are trying to make by implying otherwise.

That these people are either shortsighted or hypocrites? They might believe the suppression of expression is a negative value until they stumble upon some expression they cannot accept, then suppression of expression becomes something absolutely righteous and expected.

Quite a few posters in this thread reacted to what Apple did here as suppression, something they were invited to do when the article confused Apple with official authority. Saying that Apple enforced their content standards on a developer just doesn't have the same buzz as saying they were censored.

You can call it "enforcing their content standard", but to me it doesn't make it less censorship. Call it "curating the App Store experience" if you want, but to me is still censorship.

 

[pdaholic]

I have seen Asian porn and most of it is pixelated, but not all. I've seen it where the dreaded and scary penis is in full unobstructed clear view. However, just because the Asians have this fear, doesn't make it any less All-American. "All-American" doesn't mean "only in America". Also note that I said on "the Continent" in order to specifically exclude the UK. They have the fear too. I mean, for the longest time, full erections were banned from porn magazines, and even today, they're squirming their way through a pornography censorship row.

Yeah but your original post didn't sound that way...anyhow, a check out American porn, you'll see a lot of large penises.

 

[Dezryth]

...and most of all, you deserve an adult glass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jzyKlznF_w

... Not sure the intended message you were trying to convey to me there. I'm not whining, I just don't like censorship of art, and games are a form of art. This is why we have content rating systems.

Anyway yeah, according to this article it looks like the original rejection was a misunderstanding but Apple suggested the developer submit the game again with a no nudity option. That's great!

I just like having the options!

Here's the article if anyone's interested: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/...to-cover-up-in-ipad-version-of-papers-please/

 

[882188]

Why does every game have to be so pixelated these days. Most of us have retina displays now, and many of us lived through the days of pixely games.

 

[69650]

Hopefully one day somebody is going to try a class action lawsuit against Apple's AppStore monopoly over iOS devices and hopefully they'll win so we can have a variety of iOS app stores without having to jailbreak. Then this ridiculous censorship will disappear.

 

[Atomic Walrus]

Pixel Art in general has really been growing and becoming more popular. Combined with the nostalgia that a new generation of game developers have for the old games we used to play from the late 80's and early 90's.

One thing to remember is that sometimes these games look pixelated on the surface, but underneath they're far more advanced than the old games. Take minecraft for example. Low res graphics on the surface, when you actually play it you'll find that the controls and how things act are extremely modern. I can't adequately explain it I don't think...

Yeah, we're seeing a lot of games that combine old-school graphics with mechanics that are only possible with modern computers, which can be very interesting. I think Dwarf Fortress is probably the most extreme example.

Also keep in mind that many of these games are made by a few people (maybe just one) with limited to no resources. Detailed graphics work is expensive and time consuming. If you have a strict budget (possibly only the time of your team) it makes no sense to spend all of it on graphics and be left with no actual game to attach them to. At this point you could make a choice to go low-res as a style instead of trying to do modern graphics and ending up with poor quality.

The games industry has gradually been consolidated into giant corporations like EA which produce homogenized titles at budgets appropriate for Hollywood.

The production value standard these companies established destroyed the middle-tier studio entirely; You couldn't easily get onto the core platforms (360, ps3) without coming up to modern production values and you can't support a mid-size studio selling $5 games on Steam unless you have a Minecraft-style runaway hit. Generally these studios were absorbed by large publishers or simply disbanded.

This leaves two main types of dev studios: Huge budget AAA and "three guys in a garage" indie studios. Of course a lot of these smaller developers have had success recently and we could be seeing a resurgence of the mid-size dev studio. Sony and MS are starting to allow smaller companies to publish online in order to get competitive with Steam and the mobile game market, and that could really change things up.

Uh, whoops, that turned into the history of game studios pretty quickly. TL;DR etc.

 

[anthony11]

Everyone knows how Apple is with nudity in App Store. Not sure why this is news.

Thing is, TFA doesn't make sense.

"Papers, Please for iPad, however, removes the choice from the equation, automatically covering the characters in underwear when scanned by the player"

It doesn't even give a choice for displaying pixelated nudity. This would seem to be in compliance with the app store rules, not afoul of them. What am I missing?

 

[69650]

I have seen Asian porn and most of it is pixelated, but not all. I've seen it where the dreaded and scary penis is in full unobstructed clear view. However, just because the Asians have this fear, doesn't make it any less All-American. "All-American" doesn't mean "only in America". Also note that I said on "the Continent" in order to specifically exclude the UK. They have the fear too. I mean, for the longest time, full erections were banned from porn magazines, and even today, they're squirming their way through a pornography censorship row.

I presume you're referring to the recent debate regarding the "erotic" pictures on the front cover of certain tabloid newspapers which are then displayed for sale within the eye line of young children in supermarkets. Personally I don't see the problem with moving them to a more appropriate position.

You're confusing "fear" with choice. Personally I like the US TV approach of keeping adult material off mainstream broadcast TV so that it's family friendly. That's not censorship. You can always watch the adult content on cable channels or on the internet.

 

[kds1]

Yeah but your original post didn't sound that way...anyhow, a check out American porn, you'll see a lot of large penises.

No, it did sound that way, you just made an assumption.

----------

I presume you're referring to the recent debate regarding the "erotic" pictures on the front cover of certain tabloid newspapers which are then displayed for sale within the eye line of young children in supermarkets. Personally I don't see the problem with moving them to a more appropriate position.

You're confusing "fear" with choice. Personally I like the US TV approach of keeping adult material off mainstream broadcast TV so that it's family friendly. That's not censorship. You can always watch the adult content on cable channels or on the internet.

No, that's not what I am referring to. I'm referring to the "face-sit in" that occurred in front of Westminster:

UK stages a mass face-sitting protest against new porn restrictions

And not it's not about "choice" in what you're talking about, it IS about fear. "OH MY GOD, A PENIS (BREASTS)!!!! That's "adult" and it MUST be hidden!!!"

And the best one (sarcasm):

"THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!"

Which is used to justify so many unjustifiable things.

 

[batchtaster]

The way it's described just makes it sound like a paperwork simulator.

 

[a0me]

As John Gruber points out, it's bizarre that apps can be rejected for content that is easily found in films in the iTunes store.

I can get behind a ban on actual pornography in apps, but if it's something that's appropriate for R-rated movies then I see no reason why Apple should say they allow that in some parts of iTunes (movies) but not in others (apps).

Make your rules, Apple, but apply the same rules to all of the media you sell.

To be fair, Sony and Microsoft do exactly the same on their respective platforms; there's a lot of stuff allowed in R-rated movies that aren't in M-rated games.

 

[mainstreetmark]

Pixel Art in general has really been growing and becoming more popular. Combined with the nostalgia that a new generation of game developers have for the old games we used to play from the late 80's and early 90's.

One thing to remember is that sometimes these games look pixelated on the surface, but underneath they're far more advanced than the old games. Take minecraft for example. Low res graphics on the surface, when you actually play it you'll find that the controls and how things act are extremely modern. I can't adequately explain it I don't think...

I don't disagree with the "art" or "retro" of these games, but more of the "fad" of them. Only in very recent times has a "retina" gaming device been available, but many popular games take no advantage of it (or, more accurately, they do- but only to simulate pixels more fluidly). I recall a day when i saw a 4096 color image of the Taj Mahal on my Apple ][gs, and it was like looking into the future. Now it's like looking into the past?

I dunno - I like listening to modern rockabilly and dixieland bands above all, who use crude presentations like brass mechanical trumpets, vs modern synth, so maybe this is that same thing, applied to gamers of a younger generation than me. Kids these days? Get off my lawn?

I haven't played Minecraft, but understand it's open-ened appeal. I am also aware, though, that the same mechanics could have been powering a totally "modern" or at least "Castle Wolfenstein 3D" interface, but perhaps then, it would have been lost in the noise. Maybe pixelation is what made Minecraft take hold? The block format required no smoothing? The mechanics are sound, sure, and the UI was not just another first-person-shooter which we have all seen a million times, so perhaps that struck a nerve betwixt old and new school gamers..?

But either way, there is a definite pixelation fad, and a fad happening in an era where the GPU of a handheld device rivals a 5 year old computer, and whose pixels are quite literally unresolvable, so I expected everything to be Infinity-Blade class stuff. It takes effort to draw graphics in a pixelated style. Game shops actively TRY to be pixelated.

I'd like to know if pixelation appeals to new kids pretending to be old school, or old kids remembering the old school. It's a mix, but who's the majority?