Trigger warnings: Child abuse, mentions of child sexual assault, mentions of domestic violence, homophobia
This guest article is written by Exemplar_Wav! Thank you so much for working with us! ❤️
"A story too cruel- too beautiful- to go untold," is the tagline of my copy of Rule of Rose (RoR). Unfortunately, this story is untold for the majority of Europeans. RoR is a psychological horror game released in 2006 for the PS2 that got banned within the EU. Citing "obscene cruelty," and the safeguarding of children. As the game supposedly contained children being buried alive, sadomasochism, underage eroticism and rape, it got pulled from stores a week after its release. To explore the validity of these claims, we must first delve into the content of the game. RoR, at its core, is a game about trauma. You play as Jennifer, a nineteen year old who returns to the orphanage that she grew up in. The events of the game play out within her memories as a ten year old. Despite this, she outwardly appears as nineteen.
The orphanage lacks adult supervision, which allowed the orphans to set up The Red Crayon Aristocrats. This works as a caste system. Diana, Eleanor and Meg are at the top of this system, and use their power to bully those who are deemed as unworthy of an aristocratic title. Obviously, Jennier is at the bottom of this rank, as well as a girl called Amanda.Every month is given a storybook chapter and it is within these chapters that we learn more about these girls and the trauma that they have gone through. Each month Jennifer is given an object to find as a gift to the aristocrats. With the help of Brown, a dog she found, she hunts them down. Each month is specific to each girl, so the enemies you encounter reflect them.
With this groundwork set, one may ask where these bannable themes come from. The short of it is, that they are not within the game explicitly. While Bloody Disgusting’s review of it claims that these events of rape and sadomasochism are not there at all, this would be misguided take. However, it is at the same time not 100% incorrect. Rule of Rose’s biggest strength is within how subtly they explore their dark themes.
An example of this is within Diana’s chapter. Diana is a heavily implied to be a victim of sexual abuse. There is an incredibly hard to watch scene (that you can watch here, but I do not recommend it if you are in a bad headspace), in which she is caressed by the orphanage’s headmaster, Hoffman. There is a mess created in his room and she is blamed for it. She is crying because of this and we watch as he tries to coerce an answer out of her if she is to blame or not. While there is no outrightly inappropriate touching, the way his touch lingers upon her says it all. Notably, his language is that of an abuser. He comments on her appearance with "no new mummy or daddy will want you if you look like that," as well as "I won’t be mad," statements. She expresses feelings of disgust after. While it is an uncomfortable scene, it is needed to understand that Diana is unsafe and is a victim too. While rape itself is not actually present, it is certainly a theme that is quietly explored within the game.The previous claims of underage eroticsm are just as concerning. While the governing bodies behind the banning of this game did not state exactly what they are referring to, one can make assumptions. I believe this allegation comes from this scene in the trailer and worryingly, the inclusion of canonical queer characters. Tackling this scene from the trailer is easily disprovable. While it taking place in a toilet cubicle feels skeevy, it is to set up an obvious metaphor. They are impoverished children and the toilet is often referred to in the UK as a "throne." Diana has power, as much power as an orphan can have, over Meg. As she pricks Meg’s finger on the rose, she chuckles and puts the wounded finger in her mouth. This may appear inappropriate- if you could actually see what is going on. It intentionally cuts away to Meg’s face. While it obviously seeks to convey that Diana is a sadistic child, and Meg is in love with her, nothing erotic is being displayed here. Unless, of course, your view is that homosexuality is peverse. While it would be too severe of an allegation to make that the people behind RoR’s banning are all homophobes, these biases against queer people are still worthy of a mention. People today still think that the mention of homosexuality is too "adult," for children, to the point where there is legislation in Florida to ban it from schools. If the mere mention of it is too adult, RoR having gay kids would be seen as eroticsm.
So, why does the banning of a game in 2006 matter? Well, censorship within games continues to go strong. The main player who pushed for RoR’s banning is Franco Frattini. He was Europe's justice and security commissioner at the time. Shocked by Rule of Rose in particular, he wrote a letter to EU’s officials on “violent video games and their availability to minors.” Despite the game being rated as 18+, his main concern is the same old “think of the children,” argument. In his letter, he writes "these types of "recreational games" are dreadful examples for our children and may provoke or encourage violence or bully(ing) behaviour ... or suggest this is a normal behaviour.” Obviously, if parents are buying violent games for their kids, that is on them. And time and time again, studies have shown that video games simply do not incite their players to commit violence. So why do we still hear that narrative? For RoR especially, I believe it is because video games are not seen as a valid art form. The medium is seen as something for kids or for socially awkward adults, especially around 2006 when RoR was released. While presently, that stigma is less prevalent around people in their twenties or thirties, lawmakers and politicians still seem to think games are a children's medium. As long as games have this reputation, there will be an urge for those at the top to keep them as sanitised as possible, in order to not expose children to "inappropriate" topics. This is the main reason behind RoR’s banning.
We have seen this argument again as recently as 2017. Detroit: Become Human was called to be banned in the UK for its depictions of domestic violence against children. This quote from British MP, Damian Collins, exemplifies the issue. "It is completely wrong for domestic violence to be part of a video game regardless of what the motivation is. Domestic violence is not a game and this simply trivialises it.” While the linked article correctly points out that movies and books cover issues like these all of the time, the main issue cycles back to the fact that games are seen as pure entertainment, not as a way to tell a story. The other point this MP makes is that motivation doesn't matter. This seems to fit the classic "think of the children" mindset as well. We do not want to expose kids to our reality, that horrible people can hurt them and that they themselves can also be the bully.
This, in my opinion, is really unhelpful for survivors. Attempting to preserve a child’s innocence does not matter if the child is going through abuse, that’s their reality. Into The Light, a non-profit dedicated to helping survivors of abuse identifies that a source of shame comes from abuse being a taboo topic. Decrying video games on the basis that "this game contains depictions of abuse," makes these topics taboo. We all know everyone mentioned in this article has not played any of the games they are censoring. How can these people know that a piece of media is exploitative without even seeing it? To me, the message is clear. “What has happened to survivors is hard to talk about, so don’t mention it at all.” Kids internalise this shit. Adult survivors internalise this shit. If we cannot openly discuss these topics, we cannot process it. This is where feelings of shame come from.
RoR was important to fourteen year old me. I latched onto it because I related to these characters. This game helped me to process what happened to me instead of just shoving my experiences into a tiny little box and never thinking about them again. If people continue to censor media, another person loses a tale that’s going to help them deal with their trauma. And that’s worse than a puritanical adult getting uncomfortable.
Sources & References
Daily Mail's Article on "Obscene Cruelty"
Concrete Online's "Don't Rule out Rule of Rose" Article
Bloody Disgusting's Review of Rule of Rose
Rule of Rose PS2 Trailer & Scenes
Florida Legislation "Don't Say Gay" Bill
EU Commissioner Questions Rule of Rose Content
Wikipedia
On Video Games & "Causing Violence"
Childline and NSPCC Condem "Unacceptable" Detroit: Become Human
Into The Light
Comments