There is a worrying proposal at EU parliament:
Motion for a European Parliament resolution on a ban on the sale and distribution in Europe of the video game ‘Rule of Rose’ and the creation of a European Observatory on childhood and minors (B6‑0023/2007).
While I share the concern for children and minors, it seems that motion is attack against the game Rule of Rose in a disguise of protecting children and minors. However, is the assertion made in motion (“[Rule of Rose] features children and perverse, violent and sadistic images that are harmful to human dignity”) really grounded?
I haven’t played the game, but based on review at Game Spot the assertion seems not to be very insightful. Greg Kasavin writes:
The gameplay itself simply involves making Jennifer run around collecting things, avoiding enemies, and occasionally solving puzzles. When you’ve got Brown the dog with you, which is most of the time, you can use him to help lead you around. (Kasavin, 2006.)
Rule of Rose earns points for broaching some subject matter that’s fairly bold for gaming, and while a game with such an unsettling subject shouldn’t necessarily be fun in the purest sense, it also shouldn’t be boring. (Kasavin, 2006.)
According to the review, the game contains cinematics that might be the source of worry. If the context of the game is described fairly then, for example, Grimm’s version of Cinderella, Lolita by Nabrokov, and whole production of de Sade should also be banned by the same logics behind the motion.
It seems that I should play the game to make my own judgment. Unfortunately, the game is described to be boring.