Italian Game Site Probes "Rule of Rose" Flap

Italian Game Site Probes "Rule of Rose" Flap

November 22, 2006
Is the European controversy currently surrounding horror-RPG Rule of Rose a media creation?

That's the suggestion of Matteo Bittanti, writing for the Videoluca website. Bittanti, who documents the Rule of the Rose controversy in admirable detail, believes the situation is a publicity stunt which spiraled out of control. He writes, in part:
Crusades against videogame(s), especially in technophobic Italy, are as common as rain in November. However, this particular case is fascinating because it is the result of a series of media industry abuses, crass incompetence, and moral panics... irrational behavior... erroneous media reports, over-zealous political responses...

Bittanti lays out the backdrop for the controversy:
...It is early November and Rule of Rose is about to be launched in several European countries... (publisher) Digital Bros, however, is disappointed by the fact that most game magazines have basically ignored the game... (the publisher) contacts... an advertising "task force', Media Hook... The philosophy of Media Hook, as described in the company's website, is to create "hooks", stories that media will find interesting.

Coincidentally, On November 10 2006, the cover story of Italian popular newsmagazine Panorama is about Rule of Rose. The headline screams: "He who buries the little girl wins" ..."A journey into the horrors of electronic entertainment" ...The story is immediately picked up by major television news programs.

...the same day... Life in Italy reports that, after reading the article on Panorama, Rome's major Walter Veltroni woved to seek an Italian ban on a Rule of Rose"

Bittanti claims that the Panorama article is factually inaccurate in its account of the game:
It is not uncommon for Italian mass media to attack videogames... However flawed and misdirected, Panorama's cover story prompted the Italian government to launch a parliamentary discussion on videogames... After reading the transcripts of the discussion, one thing is obvious: most of the politicians that took part in the debate are not familiar with videogames at all...

This episode is... a textbook example of moral panic... Moreover, this story illuminates the complex relationship between society and media. Two factions - mass media and politicians on one side and the collective intelligence of the net on the other - are fighting a battle. They have different goals and priorities. The first group demands strict regulations for games. The second wants the truth about Rule of Rose to emerge.

...This kaleidoscope of cumulative mistakes reminds us, sadly, that it really does not take much to create widespread moral panics. The real problem is that in Italy a 12 year old kid can easily buy Grand Theft Auto o Rule of Rose in any store. What the legislators can - and should - do is to enforce sale restrictions on videogames rated 18+...

The only winners... are... Digital Bros, the company that distributes Rule of Rose. They clearly benefit from the enormous and exaggerated publicity generated by this controversy...
Posted in

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Daniel - November 22, 2006 at 5:59 pm -0500
Why do European countries have to hate fun little innocent games like this? It's like they have an unproviked need to destroy any good game that comes their way. It's just a game,people, nothing's going to happen because of an innocent game like this. These stupid moronic politicians need to stop attcking the games and leave the whole thing alone. Games, like this, have never caused anyone any harm, in any way. The only bullies and victimizers here are the stupid submoronic anti-game activists and the politicians who are out there to destroy everyone else's fun. They need to grow up and stop acting like little idiots. Even though they are idiots, it would be nice if they stopped acting like it.
Submitted by Lokoth - November 22, 2006 at 3:10 pm -0500
My students didn't recognize the Beastie Boys tracks in my I-Pod. I went out and bought a walker that afternoon.
Submitted by Jabrwock - November 22, 2006 at 4:32 pm -0500
Start quoting Python at them. I find the puzzled looks intensely satisfying. :D
Submitted by hayabusa75 - November 22, 2006 at 2:49 pm -0500
I was on board until I got to the part where he suggested government-regulated sales restrictions.
Submitted by Jabrwock - November 22, 2006 at 10:15 am -0500
ROFL, it's like Bully, only they didn't have their very own Jack Thompson to do the FUD for them. They actually had to pay for it!

This only proves one thing. The public are suckers when it comes to moral panic... SHEEEEEP!
Submitted by Lokoth - November 22, 2006 at 10:40 am -0500
Sorry, I see this as a media creation, to try to boost sales. So far the game has had poor showings in review sites and is likely to tank. Sorry, it just looks BORING. this reminds when they made the controversy about Prodigy's "Smack My Bitch Up" FOUR YEARS (if i remember right) after the album release. Sales went up a little, story went away.

Yes I must be old to be able to remember that album.
Submitted by Jabrwock - November 22, 2006 at 11:31 am -0500
@Lokoth

Sheesh, it's only a decade old... ;)
Submitted by Lokoth - November 22, 2006 at 12:32 pm -0500
Well, I work in the schools now and I was called the "coolest old person" a few weeks ago. :)
Submitted by Jabrwock - November 22, 2006 at 12:50 pm -0500
I had "Firestarter" on a disc in my car, and some kids I was transporting for army cadets thought it was a new song, and wondered how I could be so "cool" for having such a new song since I'm nearly 30... And then I popped out the CD, and showed them that it was Big Shiny Tunes 2, from '97. ;)
Submitted by CyberSkull - November 23, 2006 at 2:02 am -0500
Controversy sells.
Submitted by ZippyDSMlee - November 23, 2006 at 11:28 am -0500
So whitch is it fudies trying to ban it or Businessmen trying to sell it?
well..they are blood brothers....mmmm
Submitted by Thefremen - November 23, 2006 at 9:37 pm -0500
In reference to the OP title: it's spelled "fap".
Submitted by EnglishRose - November 24, 2006 at 10:33 am -0500
Please gamepolitics, it's Rule of Rose, not Rule of the Rose. Also, I'm pretty sure it's no RPG.

Also, the publisher 505 seem to have canned this game at the last minute, so it's not even being released here now.
Submitted by Dumah - December 20, 2006 at 2:46 pm -0500
Not to worry, it has a place in the Dark Kingdom.

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/08/10 at 02:22pm
Valdearg: J/K, btw, with that last comment. Just in case anyone was confused.
Posted 02/08/10 at 02:21pm
Valdearg: This comes on the heels of Sarah Palin telling the Teaparty Convention to pray for Divine intervention to stop the Progressive tide. It seems she succeeded in recruiting the big man to offer some help. >.<
Posted 02/08/10 at 02:20pm
Valdearg: @A_L: I'm hearing that, as well.. It seems the dems aren't just losing seats via elections... :(
Posted 02/08/10 at 02:04pm
DarkSaber: Did he design Big Murtha Truckers 1 & 2?
Posted 02/08/10 at 01:50pm
Austin_Lewis: John Murtha reportedly deceased.
Posted 02/08/10 at 01:04pm
Shadow D. Darkman: DarkSaber: (EDIT) IDC really, it's just good to see some new stuff here.
Posted 02/08/10 at 01:02pm
DarkSaber: @Shadow If the on-going spat in China over WoW counts as "new" at least. Does anyone here REALLY give a shit about the state of chinas game industry anyway?
Posted 02/08/10 at 12:59pm
gellymatos: Oh, we pro-life advocates have our nutjuobs to (ie, guys who shoot up abortion clincs). We can have worse ones than yours.
Posted 02/08/10 at 12:58pm
Shadow D. Darkman: Finally, new articles!
Posted 02/08/10 at 12:57pm
Valdearg: @Gelly: As much as I hate to admit it, it's because so many of us on the Left are utterly predictable with our outrage, LOL.
Posted 02/08/10 at 12:57pm
gellymatos: Oh, and the boycotting didn't get that much attention to be a real blow to pro-choice advocates either.
Posted 02/08/10 at 12:52pm
gellymatos: ...predict such a bad move by what is not considered a stupid group.
Posted 02/08/10 at 12:50pm
gellymatos: How can you script someone boycotting the super bowl over such a trivial ad. An ad they must have seen before hand. You can't...
Posted 02/08/10 at 12:47pm
Valdearg: There are plenty of bright people in Marketing, and this struck me as too perfect, and too scripted to have been just a byproduct of some lucky stroke of luck on FotF's part.
Posted 02/08/10 at 12:46pm
Valdearg: You are so quick to disqualify the possibility that it was planned. I'm not saying that it necessarily WAS as I describe it, but I certainly believe it a very real possibility.
Posted 02/08/10 at 12:42pm
gellymatos: ...that. However, that doesn't strike me as something predictable. Was it a bonus? Yes. Was it planned to be so? No.
Posted 02/08/10 at 12:41pm
DarkSaber: Ah right here we go again, someone disagrees with Val therefore they don't know what they are talking about.
Posted 02/08/10 at 12:40pm
gellymatos: Ok, you're right there. It did make the pro-choice advocates look bad, specifically boycotting the Super Bowl. Forgot about...
Posted 02/08/10 at 12:36pm
Valdearg: You have to stop taking everything at face value. If you don't think there was someone thinking along the exact same lines that I am now, when they were developing this Marketing Campaign, you are sorely mistaken.
Posted 02/08/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: No offense, Gelly, but you are too disconnected from this topic to understand. The Pro-Choice people threw a FIT, and were going to boycott the SB because of it. The fact that it was so mild makes the Pro-Choice people look like idiots to those aware of i
Login or register to post shouts