MTG age ratings, target markets and censorship
The Blind Eternities forum
Posted on June 10, 2015, 3:05 p.m. by Darthagnon
How does WoTC get away with only a 13+ age rating on Magic: the Gathering, while still selling the likes of Murder, Self-Inflicted Wound, Archfiend of Depravity, Lord of the Pit, Tymaret, the Murder King, Oni Possession, Silence the Believers, Surgical Extraction, Rakshasa Deathdealer, Ultimate Price, Blood-Chin Rager, Kill Shot, Soldier of the Pantheon, Alesha, Who Smiles at Death, Hero of Bladehold, Thassa, God of the Sea, etc.?
Servo_Token says... #4
Here in America, we are allowed to expose our thirteen year olds to some bloodshed and violence because, ya know, that's what happens in the real world sometimes.
There's nothing inherently wrong in any of these cards mentioned, nor any other card that I can think of with the exception of that one card with two corpses dancing on it (Macabre is in the name somewhere, Macabre waltz or something like that?). If you shelter your kids until they're 18, they're pretty much going to die on impact as soon as you put them in the real world. Exposing them to some real world situations early isn't particularly the worst thing.
How do you feel that some of these cards warrant censorship?
June 10, 2015 3:10 p.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #5
The same way that 10 year-olds play CoD. Or, y'know, any FPS ever.
June 10, 2015 3:15 p.m. Edited.
I also do not think this is from a regulatory agency like movies have the MPAA. So they can say whatever they want. That said, look at the MPAA and PG-13 movies.
Also some of your choices of examples are odd. Some of your issues seem to be with the nonreligious respect that they throw around polytheistic concepts. To that I say, well polytheism exists in modern day and is not an insult to anything or anyone to represent it.
June 10, 2015 3:18 p.m.
Wait, what's wrong with Thassa, God of the Sea, Hero of Bladehold or Lord of the Pit? there is nothing wrong with the flavor text or the images.
June 10, 2015 3:25 p.m.
Ixidron - My guess
Thassa, God of the Sea - either implied or real nudity coupled with being a "god"
Hero of Bladehold - scantily clad, like in a bikini which one could never see on a beach or PG film
Lord of the Pit - religious connotation to the big bad guy downstairs. (correction, Judaeo-christian religious connotations)
June 10, 2015 3:29 p.m.
Does anyone else understand the question or the deathdealer thing
June 10, 2015 3:39 p.m.
Wizard_of_the_Broke says... #10
I remember when I was a kid we had cool cards like Unholy Strength, the mere sight of which routinely inspired us to join cults and commit violent crimes. That was pretty rad. I wish WoTC would encourage more art like that on Macabre Waltz so the kids today could gain similarly formative life experience.
June 10, 2015 3:42 p.m.
Servo_Token says... #11
Question: Why don't all cards have roses and puppies on them.
Deathdealer thing: I am 12.
June 10, 2015 3:43 p.m.
Thassa, God of the Sea animals are naked too and I've never seen anyone complaining, the fact that Thassa is not human should nullify the "it's naked" thing.As for the god part, freedom of religion.
Hero of Bladehold that's still acceptable under the 13+ age rating, as long as there is no nudity or implicit sexuality.
Lord of the Pit that's not how the bible says the demon looks, if a Judaeo-christian feels offended I'll invite him/her to read the bible.
June 10, 2015 3:45 p.m.
formayor I remember emulating Living Wall in my back yard! Man, I'm still forced to go to therapy twice a week and wear a tracking bracelet. But man were those the days of Magic.
June 10, 2015 3:47 p.m.
@Ixidron - that was my assumption anyway. I could have mis-identified Darthagnon's perceptions and standpoint.
I am going to have to refute the whole bible thing. There is little physical description of the devil in the bible. What verse/chapter would you say is contrary. Only playing devils advocate here. Do not care that much
June 10, 2015 3:52 p.m.
Not really quoting any vesicle, just saying the bible doesn't say the demon looks like a huge-ass dude with bat wing, horns and fire on his head.
June 10, 2015 3:57 p.m. Edited.
Um, what exactly is the problem with Alesha, Who Smiles at Death? Is it because there is the word death in the title?
June 10, 2015 4:01 p.m.
InfiniteParadoX says... #19
Alesha, Who Smiles at Death may be because she is trans. People get upset about stuff like that. But you would only know that going quite a ways into her lore, so most people wouldn't see it.
June 10, 2015 4:04 p.m.
Alesha is transgender. I assume this indicvidual disagrees with that
June 10, 2015 4:04 p.m.
Servo_Token says... #21
I feel like that's the point that wotc was making...
June 10, 2015 4:05 p.m.
Yeh but any depiction of a demon must be somewhat offensive if you are christian etc.
Anyway to ACTUALLY answer the question. It's allowed because no study has ever conclusively proved a link between violent media and violent people. Ie. watching shows with lots of murder and playing violent games of any sorts does not cause you to commit violent acts. So there is very, very little evidence that any harm comes from depictions of violence.
Depictions of sexism on the other hand there is A LOT of evidence suggesting it does cause real harm. But that kind of stuff has greatly decreased over time to the point where the examples of it are few and far between now. Look at the new spoiled card Jhessian Thief - it's like totally legit.
June 10, 2015 4:07 p.m.
Coming from a 13 year old, I have no problem with the Demons, violent art, etc. I don't feel particularly inclined to go murder a bunch of children because I recently cast a Murder on my opponent's Little Girl.
June 10, 2015 4:12 p.m.
Yeah but a lot of this stuff is subconscious identification, acceptance, and propagation.
June 10, 2015 4:14 p.m.
InfiniteParadoX says... #25
ThatJunkMage Oh I'm sure it is. But it doesn't stop people from being angry.I don't think many cards in Magic are really inappropriate. The closest stuff is something like Living Wall nightmare fuel. But how that effects is up to each person entirely.
June 10, 2015 4:18 p.m.
There are a few models such as the general aggression model that link violent media to violent behaviour but the problem is that the issue just isn't widespread enough to be robust. So any link, whilst perhaps, maybe, probably there, doesn't lead to actual behavioural differences in most people.
Ergo, there's not much that should be done.
June 10, 2015 4:21 p.m.
The only thing I can realistically see people getting offended over is Alesha, Who Smiles at Death being trans. Though it doesn't offend me personally, I can see where people are coming from.
Could anyone give an example of some other cards that aren't Alesha and aren't violent nightmare-inducing that bring up controversy?
June 10, 2015 4:21 p.m.
The problem is many people react differently to the same thing, I for example get really angry at maths to the point of having homicide thoughts, but violent stuff has the opposite effect, it calms me and inspires me to think about great things, for some reason.
June 10, 2015 4:25 p.m.
Why on earth is being transgendered offensive to anyone?
Unholy Strength because pentagram. Pentagram removed on some further images. Youll have to look at older images.
Triumph of Ferocity because kind of suspect positioning, and running on an artistic motif that is somewhat damaging.
June 10, 2015 4:28 p.m.
But in recent sets its seriously marginal. Like, its just not worth getting upset about.
June 10, 2015 4:29 p.m.
I've heard some people say "Ugh, they only made her trans to not make people angry and appeal to a wider audience. There's not reason for her to be, they just wanted to say that theyre open to Transgender people." They said the same about the remark they made about "3 out of 5 khans are female! Yay!"
As for those cards, they make strong points as well. Unholy Strength suggests that you get stronger through a pentagram, but the other just seems more like coincidence to me.
June 10, 2015 4:31 p.m.
It's funny how people always look for an ulterior motive, I think you could be closer to the truth by saying that 5 guys where trying to make a character, one said, "hey, why not transgender?" the other 4 said "meh, why not?" and kept eating their chicken sandwich.
June 10, 2015 4:36 p.m.
Well yeah but not every card has to be for you does it? You know?
50% of the world is women and I'm sure theyd love to have badass cards too! What I mean is that in the past the vast majority of human characters in fantasy trope have been men. Men complain when they're less represented as if they're being discriminated against but going from like 75% representation on cards to 50% representation on cards isn't discrimination - it's parity, it's equal. Do you see what I'm saying?
If we want to get people into magic we need to give them role models and art that appeals to them. Men get a lot, women ought to get a lot, and individuals who are transgender ought to get some too. The more magic players we appeal to - the better!
It's not doing it 'just because they can', it's doing it because we all want to identify with our favourite characters. So make more of the characters not white men and you'll be able to branch out.
June 10, 2015 4:37 p.m.
Ixidron - Yeh precisely that. There doesnt NEED to be a reason to have a transgender character haha. You are allowed to just have them!
June 10, 2015 4:37 p.m.
Coinman1863 says... #35
Well, we let 10 year olds play Call of Duty, so...
MTG for 13+ isn't a far stretch to me while debatably not as bad as COD for graphicness, references to violence, and religious references.
June 10, 2015 4:48 p.m.
I don't really have a problem with the characters being females/identify as females tbh. It's just that people make a huge deal out of it, and its kinda silly.
June 10, 2015 4:51 p.m.
beakedbard says... #37
Kids will find far worse far younger the internet exists.
June 10, 2015 4:51 p.m.
Can I just stop everyone here with a general point. I agree with you all broadly and I'm not arguing against you BUT it's worth noting that a valid argument in favour of something is NOT 'this is not bad because more of this exists in other places'.
Ie. 'violence on MTG cards is not bad because there is more on the internet', is not an argument that proves any point at all because you're not addressing the core issue which is portrayals of violence in any form.
Just be careful with your reasoning and rhetoric because sometimes it's extremely flawed. Ive seen multiple people do this and its a meaningless argument.
June 10, 2015 4:56 p.m.
beakedbard says... #41
Well I was simply making the point that there's more of this elsewhere. Why should MTG be forced to change to comply with said rules when almost nowhere else does? I mean i get the fact that it is altering minds at too young an age sometimes but the simple fact is unless everywhere does it there's no point trying to force one thing to change. The simple fact i was making with that statement is whilst the internet exists that will never happen. Don't take that as i'm saying change the internet in any way that just seems to be the way it is.
There's also a side factor that art/animated violence gets away with a lot more due to it not being all that realistic.
June 10, 2015 5:07 p.m.
We cannot allow MTG to alter the minds of young people, that's what the church is for! that's labor intrusion man!
June 10, 2015 5:11 p.m.
Censorship for the sake of "protecting the youth" just stifles creativity. More often than not, the real ulterior motives lie in the people trying to censor things. They want to manipulate the youth to accept their belief, but can't because they've already opened their minds to the real world and aren't willing to condemn everything they once enjoyed. Judging from some of the cards used as "examples", some were picked purely because they mention a god or deity. People should really come to grips with the fact that different religions have different gods that they pray to or worship.
As for gore, America in general seems to have pretty lax restrictions when it comes to gore. The fact that these are pictures and not movies or shows also is important. Depictions of violence are fine, as violence is a part of life. Encouragement of violence is less so.
June 10, 2015 5:24 p.m. Edited.
Darthagnon says... #44
Sorry, guys, if I sounded belligerent on opening the topic. I hadn't considered the possibility of starting a flame war...
squire1 got most of the reasons right in his earlier post. I mentioned Lord of the Pit mainly because it was the biggest, baddest one I could think of. Most Western Christian tradition associates demons with ultimate evil (the word means "evil spirit"), making them (I think) unsuitable protagonist matter for a children's game. Oh, and you're right in saying the Bible doesn't go into details about demons' appearance. My complaint wasn't so much about the art (though, due to such images' traditional connotations, I find do find it disturbing), as about the character archetype the whole card represents.
Hero of Bladehold and Thassa, God of the Sea were indeed flagged for nudity, though perhaps wasn't the best example in MTG (just off the top of my head). Frankly, if I was a parent, I wouldn't want my kids playing with cards with pictures of half naked characters on them; I don't even want to play with them. And, for some reason, most scantily clad card arts feature humanoid women, for which reason they could be compared to soft pr0n.
I actually flagged Alesha, Who Smiles at Death due to a rather gruesome card name; the art and lore are open to interpretation.
As for the more violent card artworks (e.g. Silence the Believers, Kill Shot), such depictions of violence happen very quickly and are what earn many videogames their high age ratings. With violent MTG artwork, while violence is not animated, it tends to be a strong focal point, and more focused upon, as opposed to a red flash in a videogame. As it is also high fantasy, features many of the same themes as MTG, and is widely played enough that many will hopefully know what I'm talking about, I'll draw a comparison with TESV: Skyrim. An excerpt from the BBFC description of why TESV: Skyrim was rated BBFC 15+: "BBFC's Guidelines at '12A'/'12', ... state 'There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood' but is permissible at '15' where 'Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury'." The ESRB rated Skyrim "Mature - 17+", while PEGI was still harsher, rating it 18+ for "Extreme violence - Violence towards defenceless people". Silence the Believers, Ultimate Price and Self-Inflicted Wound contain such content, albeit not animated, but intently focused upon, and are rated 13+.
In conclusion, I thought the subject matter of a lot of MTG cards was unsuitable for an audience as young as 13 (I realise that a lot/most players are older than this), and would be unpleasant for older MTG players, also. I also wondered why no regulatory body/bodies had stepped in. Or why players hadn't complained.
June 10, 2015 5:32 p.m.
Darthagnon says... #45
PS. That first comment I made about Rakshasa Deathdealer was a bad attempt at a funny... Rakshasa Drugdealer...er, ha...ha? I just noticed it, and found the word replacement amusing (also in the flavour text).
June 10, 2015 5:37 p.m.
MTG does fit PEGI 12+ pretty good "May contain violence in either a fantasy context or a sporting action, profanity, mild sexual references or innuendo, or gambling."
Skyrim was given 18+ because it had drugs, violence towards defenseless people, multiple, motiveless killing and discrimination.
Ultimate Price and Self-Inflicted Wound do not contain violence, and Silence the Believers is violence against non-humans (that's a satyr getting killed).
June 10, 2015 5:45 p.m. Edited.
jandrobard says... #48
Ixidron "...and Self-Inflicted Wound do(es) not contain violence..."
It doesn't contain bloodshed, but someone about to stab himself, thereby committing suicide, seems controversial enough to make it on the list.
This thread has talked a lot about imagery, are card arts MTG's only threat to the juvenile mind? If so, then the solution is to only let people under X age (whatever defines "child with a developing mind that's easily subconsciously influenced") play magic via Magic Online. The card arts there are currently pixelated rectangular blobs, and WOTC doesn't seem proactive enough to change that anytime soon, so would that work out for y'all that are looking out for the children?
June 10, 2015 7:23 p.m.
Honestly, I see no problems whatsoever with Magic art and card names. Maybe Darthagnon was just raised in a conservative location, but MTG is relatively tame.
June 10, 2015 7:25 p.m.
quesobueno123 says... #50
I think that mtg is completely appropriate for 8+. Small images of fantasy violence is not a reason for censorship, art museums with images of much more violence and nudity are not censored, why should mtg be?
Darthagnon says... #2
Hmmmm... just for lulz, with Rakshasa Deathdealer, try replacing all references to "death" on the card with the word "drug" or "drugs"...
June 10, 2015 3:07 p.m.