Looking at 'Rule of rose'

The trailer:

Before I start, I'd like to point out. Right before the trailer even starts, the age rating 'Mature +17' pops up on the screen; specifying that it contains : Blood, Intense violence and suggestive themes. So it is blatantly clear it is not directed for children at all.
Watching this without any other form of information on the game, it does have disturbing tones to the film; there is no, in your face violence so to speak, one of the girls pricks anothers finger and the dog that is wandering around stops to sniff a red stain on the floor- which does appear to be blood. The trailer depicts no actual violence, so far I am failing to see what is causing such an uproar. Implications of two of the girls sexuality do seem to play an undertone in the pricking with the rose sequence, the seemingly elder girl brings the girls finger to her mouth- although the shot conceals this from the viewer. Even so, does their sexuality even matter? True they are minors, but the girls are not portrayed in a sexual manner, if anything I found them to be more sinister. Many games today show same sex relationships, and some involve the player choosing whether or not, or what kind of relationship they wish to have; I shouldn't think their sexuality would be an issue at all.

The start of the trailer shows the three main girls bowing, as if introducting themselves; the eldest girl bow involves her pulling her skirt up suggestively high. She shows off a bandage on her thigh; which possibly hints at some violence against the girl. It still doesnt appear to me as a sexual thing, as she smiles it's actually quite dark.

Right at the end, the three- what can be assumed are the main girls of the game are seen hammering on an 'unidentifyable' (I couldn't make out what it was) object in an empty room; this quickly switches to them all in a row hammering nails into a long box, the viewer has no idea what is in the box; but assumes that it is a body, judging by the coffin-like shape to it.

I found the trailer to be very well executed, it didn't give anything definitive away and it was as disturbing as a trailer for a horror game should be. From the trailer alone I cannot see what managed to cause this game to get such attention from the media.


The game itself:

The game is difficult to get a hold of so I watched walkthrough videos online of it.

The beginning sequence:
'Rule of rose' begins in a childrens story book fashion; explaining how the plot of the game begins; it is mentioned that Jennifer- the protagonist's parent died in an accident and that she is being sent away- the player can safely assume an orphanage.
Jennifer is riding a bus, seemingly alone until the camera shows there is a small boy on the bus too. Somehow, and this is kept very vague until later on, the boy knows the protagonist. He asks her to read the story and hands her a makeshift book; the bus stops however and the boy runs away. To begin with I had absolutely no idea why Jennifer chased after the boy so adamantly; except that it was dark and he was alone- so just to make sure he was safe?
The book essentially describes the plot of the game through the a childs story; the entire game uses childrens storybooks as a device; but I will stress that it still isn't a childrens game.

A soundless narrator of sorts ^

Walking upon the old mansion, two kids with paper bags on their heads are seen hitting something in a sack- this is portraying violent children, but there is no context behind it and nor do we know what is in the bag. As she proceeds to enter the mansion you can hear children giggling and whispering; their heads popping up over garden walls to look at Jennifer; which just shows how cheeky and sinister- in a playful manner children can be, or possibly bullying.

She gets locked inside the mansion by one of the kids, so is left to explore the house- the narration refers to Jennifer as the 'unlucky girl'. Entering one of the bedrooms, its shows the player a poorly made doll, about the size of a child, tied to the pillar. Nothing so far at the start is anything to create such a fuss over.
The kicking point of what could have caused some of the controversy is this: Jennifer finds the boy, who asks her to read the rest of the story; asfter doing so the boy disapears and is told that she should go to a funeral for her 'dear friend'. As she reaches the grave she starts to dig it up; there lay a coffin, she looks in side to see a bag very similar to what the kids were beating at. The children surround her, calling her 'filthy' and proceed to pour water of her, a speaker interrupts, as if it were a flight carrier of sorts- making no sense with the location whatsoever.  The character then falls into the coffin, getting shut in and carried away.

-The end of the first chapter signifies a degree of bullying towards Jennifer, who is considered an adult- 18; showing children abusing an adult character, this could be a possible point that children who see if will register it to be okay to do so but they way it is shown is gruesome and very unappealing. However I'm not a child, so this wouldn't apply to me.
I cannot stress enough the age rating for this game, children should not be playing this; if they are then surely the person whoallowed them to play it is to blame. As a fan of games the revolve around the human psysche- I refrained from making any immediate judgements on what I had seen. General rule of thumb with a phychologial game is that everything makes sense at the end. (Or a few playthroughs)

The Violence:

Thoughout the game, Jennifer encounters some surreal, infant- like monsters; which on some occasions it is necessary to fight. Violence towards 'monsters' is clearly not real, these things are fictional and the player would be able to differentiate this; you fight the monsters out of self defence, they are scary- you want to avoid them if anything. Along the same lines, in an interview with the making of the game 'Silent Hill 2' they intentionally gave the monsters human like forms as it was recogniseable in an earie way- the monster appears to be human. This is just conjecture, but the enemies seem to be a manifestation of the children that bullied Jennifer and possibly a representation of her fear of finding out the truth.
There is some violence towards people in the game, most of the boss fights being 'human', as I was watching the videos of the boss fights, they are quite disturbing; you don't want to confront them. Most of them being that adults; they were bigger and stronger than you, it was really put into perspective how intimidating an adult can be to a child.
Overall the violence appears to have great reason behind it, and what is discovered at the end of the game is, is that it is merely Jenniver trying discover her repressed memories- which have been distorted due to the trauma he experienced. 'Rule of Rose' in no way promotes the violence in the game, it is made out exactly how it should be, horrible.

"The burial of the protagonist or of any other child does not appear in any scene of the game, not even indirectly," according to 505 Games.
"The scene that has triggered the discussion is in reality a dream sequence that serves as part of the introduction to the adventure: a non-interactive video sequence in which the protagonist, who is not a minor, is captured inside a crate.
"The interactive part of the game is based primarily on exploration and the solving of mysteries. The only sporadic fighting scenes are against monsters."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/news171106ruleofrose

The suggestive themes:

I did not look into this subject that was brought up in as much depth as it wasn't the main factor of the controversy that this game had stirred up. Between minors, there is nothing sexual going one between the characters; the character 'Meg' appears to have an infatuation with the older girl 'Diana', some of the plot revolves around Meg's love letter to Diana; nothing happens between the two however. I see no reason that it should cause a problem with the media. Another relationship that is questioned is between the main character Jennifer and her best friend Wendy, it only extends as far as an overbearing friendship; Wendy is very possesive of Jennifer- to the point of wanting her to herself;  no ones sexuality is directly specified in the game.

Although this is not specified either, it is implied frequently in the game and the player assumes it to be true; the 'Headmaster' Mr. Hoffman, appears to be sexually abusing one of the girls- Clara. Many hints of this are shown in the 'Mermaid princess' chapter and at then end, when the player sees Jennifers past. Mr.Hoffman displays an interest towards Clara, who is roughly around 15-16 years old; like with the other suggestive themes, nothing is directly mentioned. The way it is approached makes the player feel sorry for Clara, she calls herself filthy and doesn't think much of herself, it presesnts real life issues with this subject. Clara is too scared to tell anyone, when the maid presses her on the matter she continues to deny it, eventhough she wants to help.
The suggestive themes announced in the game are not shown from any other perspective other than Jennifers, so it can me misread, the publishers announced all the themes they were covering in the game and I felt it was one the most unique psychological games I have seen.

Rule of Rose- banned

'Rule of Rose' - 505 games, 2006

A psychological horror- esque game, set in 1930's England; it revolves around playing as a young girl called Jennifer who is on her way to an orphanage. This game somehow caused a massive uproar when the game was due for its European Release; even though it was still brought out in other regions without any controversy hitting it. The violence in the game, as per usual with many games was foremost mentioned in the media; but this biggest 'problem' the game had was apparently female sexualised minors. Adding on to this was some of the girls suggested sexuality among them.

The mayor of Rome, Fratinni voiced his opinion greatly towards this game. The game was apparently "These types of games are dreadful examples for our children and may provoke or encourage violence or bully behaviour by children, or suggest this is a normal behaviour." Wheras this game was clearly marked as a 'Mature' or 16+; children shouldn't be playing the game full stop, it is specified that it isn't intended for children whatsoever. Other EU officials also worded their opinions, for instance three french deputies (Taken from Wikipedia, as the original source is in french.) said the aim for the game was to " rape, beat up and kill a little girl.", As far as I'm aware that is in no way what the aim is. I will watch gameplay videos and trailers and explain what I have seen first hand in a later post; to clarify if raping and killing a little girl is truely the aim for this game.

Looking up the age of the protagonist, Jennifer actually is not a minor; ruling her out of that equation. The remaining girls are indeed quite young but simply looking at their character designs, subjectively they look quite accurately dressed for that time period.

http://ruleofrose.wikia.com/wiki/Wendy

http://www.swvic.org/carapook/sch-chn1.htm

This is only an example, but from the imagery, I'd say that in appearance the girls certainly arent oversexualized.



These supposed problems were mentioned in Austrailia and America; however it was still released in America.
Acegamez reviewed it to be. "a wonderful psychological thriller that will draw you in with its bizarrely compelling narrative, atmospheric presentation and thoughtful story-based gameplay".

Although infamous in the survival horror genre; as a game it recieved an average reception, many fans consider it to be one of the most unique, psychological thrillers of all time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-416803/Call-ban-obscenely-cruel-games.html

Escape from Woomera

Based off of a real detention camp in Austrailia; this game is actually a mod of the game 'Half-life', however they do plan to create the game not using the 'Half-life' engine. I read up on the websites Q&A and found that they very thoroughly covered what message the developers were trying to get across.

"Believe it or not, the truth is we're sick and tired of games that create heroes out of professional killers and US marines. For us, refugees are some of the greatest and most legitimate heroes of our time. And we're not prepared to hold back and leave this facet of their story untold because the lives of these remarkable individuals collectively constitute an 'issue' so serious that it is supposedly 'untouchable'."

This small portion of explaination was more than enough to tell me that the developers are genuinely trying to get the message across that games can be such a strong tool in teaching the public about refugees time in the detainemnt centres. They know their not using it in poor taste and are adressing the issues with these people being trapped; what's more is that they are trying to create a game that isn't a dry piece of recycled information.
The team appreciates the horrors that the asylum seekers were trying to escape from their homeland, and to be stuck in yet another hell is nothing to be trifled with.

'Escape from Woomera' (2003) Had achieved, creating a docugame on real events in these detention camps; asking the asylums seekers about their time in their and so forth. They had recieved first hand information on the camps and presented it very well; backing up their game with clear and concise information.
http://www.selectparks.net/archive/escapefromwoomera/faq.htm

JFK Reloaded

This was a very controversial game and was seen as 'poor taste', it was a predominantly accurate portrayal of the JFK assassination from the posistion of the assumed murderer Lee Harvey Oswald from the window of the building.

This entire case was never truely solved which was reason enough for this game to kick up a fuss, but the fact you got scored for your first three shots on the president was a terrible excecution. What I needed to have explained to me was that this game was made to 'help' clear up the many theories behind the assassination; perhaps if this was stressed enough it wouldn't have stirred up such anger. Some gameplay videos of 'Reloaded' show the gun being fired far more than what Oswold could have even physically had done.

The visuals and setting is protrayed very accurately, but if this was a game to help clear up the theories behind JFK's death, then they had failed to add in the shooter on the grassy knoll idea. I find it difficult to see this under the genre of a docugame as documentaries show a unbiased, factual event, usually from multiple perpectives so the viewer can understand the situation better. This game is purely shooting the president as a suspected killer.

Documentary in games

Starting my research into 'docugames', the most common games to pop up when typing in the word 'docugame' was the very controverstial 'JFK Reloaded' and 'Escape from Woomera'. I will look into these particular games later on after understanding what 'docugames' are in the media.

What seperates documentaries in games with other medias is that games have the upperhand of interactivity. I find that it is easier to immerse yourself into something if the viewer can interact with said subject; it would make it more memorable for the person and would stick in their minds. It gives them the 'illusion' of control over the situation; they can make alternative choices with their experience but ultimately are confined to what the creators have restricted them from doing.

It's similar with teaching children in the aspect, learning by doing. Interacting with what teaches you is usually more enjoyable and the information sticks with them. This can also be applied to docugames as it is essentially learning through a media of entertainment.

Unfortunately the games industry is still a new and growing media; it is barely regarded in a positive light, they are seen as a source to many modern day problems in our cultures today. The media tend to make it out to be the 'bad guy', the one everyone points fingers at when problems with violence occurs.
What many people don't seem to realise is, is that games are playing such a strong role in todays culture that clearly something is being done right to amount such a large income. They are entertainment and education- many games draw from real events, mythology, old stories etc. Why can't it be used in the for of a documentary?

War realism in games

This post will also generally cover what most aspects of first person shooters tend to use. War set games, one of the most commonly set is WWII- they generally keep quite faithful, historically speaking. With 'Medal of honor- Rising Sun' One of the games mentioned in a previous lecture, the team who worked on the game asked WWII veterans what it was like back then; first hand information on war experiences would be invaluable, aiding them to make the game as realistic as possible along with being historically accurate. There is a difference in making historically accurate games and actually asking what soldiers who actually witnessed these events and applying this to a game. After watching the 1 minute video of 'Rising Sun', it shows the calm before the storm- a torpedo quickly closing in on one of the ships in Pearl Harbour; the crew under the decks sound asleep, enjoying their day, then harshly interrupted by a hit to the ship. By showing the sequence of the main character running out from the barracks to the deck in first person it puts the viewer into the soldiers shoes, letting them picture how they would feel in this situation.

I have watched my boyfriend play plenty of first person shooters, while I can't deny, realistically it is very impressive, accuracy with events, weaponry and so forth is a key factor to these genre; I couldn't help but feel that it wasn't as horrifying as it should be. In my opinion this genre of gaming is a perfect representation of social realism, it's somewhat glorified so the audience will happily play through and shoot down the opposition; and the fact that these games are in first person emphasises this- its putting the player into the situation.

What is social realism?

Realism started out in the film industry, it shows the audience a sort of romaticised version of what aspects of life we can relate. Social Realism however- 'The world how is is or life as it really lived'; it is pegged as a very 'British' form of cinema it is restricted to keeping it factual, it isn't fluffed up - told how it is.

There is no universal, all-encompassing definition of realism, nor is there agreement amongst academics and film-makers as to its purpose and use. But what we can say is that there are many ‘realisms’ and these realisms all share an interest in presenting some aspect of life as it is lived’. Carroll (1996) suggests that the term should only be used with a prefix attached. This is because another important feature of all realisms is how they are produced at specific historical points. The addition of a prefix, such as social-, neo-, documentary-, specifies the’ what’ and crucially, ‘when’ of that movement or moment. What is regarded as ‘real’, by whom, and how it is represented is unstable dynamic, and ever-changing, precisely because realism is irrevocably tied to the specifics of time and place. ‘Moment’” (Lay, Samantha, 2002: p 8)

A good example, for how realism is a difficult ares to cover as a whole- its difficult not to over glorify it, its makes it appealing to the audience. There is usually the intent of a political aspect in the film aswell.

Realistic aspects, of games are like " Props" According to Alexander Galloways articles on Social Realism in gaming. He compares realistic games like war- related games, may well be realistic but the players 'normal lives' are better compared to "The Sims". Most- wider known games aren't massively directed at realism; the most well known is war related games, widely drawing from historical, factual events that happened.